Bush Wins Second Term in 2004!

OK, so this thread is 28 months premature.

But I’m going to ignore prudence, and declare today that Bush will win reelection in 2004.

Why? Well, while he faces a potential challenge from McCain for the Republican nomination, no reasonably successful sitting president is going to lose his own party’s nomination. So he will almost certainly be on the ballot.

Who will the Democrats field? Al Gore certainly wants it. His classy concession speech and electoral-process martyrdom may serve him well. But in the end, will Democrats remember that Gore failed to secure a commanding lead after being part of the administration that presided over an eight-year wave of prosperity? How, they may ask, can he beat a popular president, if he couldn’t trounce a comparatively unknown governor?

Who else might rise to the top of the Democratic pile? Some classic names mentioned include Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, former Senator Bill Bradley, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator Tom Daschle, Congressman Dick Gephardt, and Senator John Kerry.

It’s tough to predict what the political climate will be in 28 months. Who thought Georgia governor Jimmy Carter had a prayer in 1974? But it’s hard to imagine the right’s irrational hatred of all things Clinton will have diminished by then, and it’s hard to dismiss the barriers that still exist in being a female Presidential candidate. I think we’re close to breaking that barrier, but I also think it would have to be someone considerably more centrist than Senator Clinton.

And as things stand now, I don’t see any real “take-charge” Democrat emerging.

So there it is. Bush is in the White House until 2008. Sorry about that.

  • Rick

I actually hope he won’t run - and I’m a Bush supporter and an unofficial Republican. The reason is more practical than anything else, and partly resides on the state of the ecnmy in two years.

Annoyingly, Clinton gets all the credit for an econmy he did not create, and Bush I and II for what they did not break. Sad, but true. I was a bt amazed the election was so close it came down to a small part of one state in 2000.

2003 headlines

Stock Market continuing all time lows

Recession in the world economy and probably the US economy

Al Qaida unvanquished

People realizing how the Bush/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld axis is offering repression rather than liberty

Continued investigations into Bush/Cheney business proprietorship (probably as with Whitewater, without any real meat)

You know, Gore in 2004 sounds possible


I can’t help but draw parallels to his father’s term, where he had a very strong war-related apporval rating, and he seemed so unbeatable that SNL was doing bits where Democrats were desperately trying NOT to get the party’s nomination and be the sacrificial lamb (“I swear! I have mob ties!”).

Two years is a long time though, but it would be interesting if the parallels continue.

One possible way to break the pattern would be for Bush to delay the Iraq war so that the virtually guaranteed war-approval rating is still there during the election. Of course, if the public sees it as an election tactic, that could backfire.

What Revtim said. Bush the Younger is starting to look an awful lot like Bush the Elder, with strong war support and an economy that smolders while the Emperor plays the fiddle. Yeah, that’s right Mr. President. Let’s just stick all those naughty accountants and CEOs in prison instead of doing anything to actually prevent their accounting firms from sweeping IOUs under the boardroom carpet.

Fantasies of saving Bush’s incompetent butt by invading Iraq are nothing but a pipe dream, however. None of the essential countries in the region will permit our troops to be stationed there, nor will any of our allies assist or support us in such an enterprise.

Nope, I think this sucker’s going down the tubes right with the economy he’s incapable of handling. And I think the guy who’s gonna kick his ass all the way back to Waco is N.C. Senator John Edwards, although I think an energized and pissed off Al Gore would be a lot of fun too.

I think Bush needs to worry more about losing control of the House of Representatives in 2002, which (if it happens) will almost certainly lead to his impeachment long before he has to worry about reelection.

I’m “anyone but GW Bush” man. I usually agree with Minty right down the line, but if the Democrats nominate Al Gore they deserve to lose.

Way premature, Bricker.

Unless he can restore investor confidence after this rash of corrupt-ceo headlines, billion-dollar restatements resulting in layoffs by the thousands, it won’t take a “take-charge Democrat” to beat him.

All it’ll take is Al Gore and four little words: “I told you so.”

But that’s why so many of us who supported him were so disappointed in his campaign. He shoulda told us so and didn’t.

Now, if he runs an agressive campaign this time, without pandering… nah, who’m I kidding. It would work, but he’ll never do it.

“George W Bush’s second term…”

No, sorry. Doesn’t ring right. Not going to happen.

Haven’t a clue what will, though… Any chance of scrapping the hereditary monarchy system and having a newbie? Any chance of getting Colin Powell on board? Or someone else whose daddy hasn’t been there, done that?

Ho boy! I hope it does not get that bad. Do you know how long the market has been around?

As for Bush II, he seems to be following the pattern laid down by Bush I. Just as he loses the election the economy will perk back up, before his opponent is even inaugurated.

Business cycles can be a bitch. Anyone who did not see a moderate (at least) crash coming was self-deluding. Massive fraud, raping, and pillaging by CEOs didn’t help.

The Bush problem (as a family) seems to be a lack of connection to what is going on in folks’ minds. 43’s “bad apple” and “Sharon: man of peace” speeches did not fool anybody.

“Anyone who did not see a moderate (at least) crash coming was self-deluding.”

Spoken like someone who is far from retirement age, and hasn’t had a huge chunk of his nest egg go down the post-fraud toilet.

To wit, this isn’t a moderate downturn; it is a crash, and there’s no such thing as a moderate crash–esp. when you’re the one who feels the pain.

[This got cut off from the first post…]

That said, I dunno what the effects will be in 2004; but it’s sure fun speculating. :smiley:

And I agree, Beagle, that about the speeches and the connection.

You have no idea. My losses do not exceed six figures.

Anyway, I bought LMT which doubled. Some property went up. Everything else except cash tanked.

But, c’mon, when FishTanks.com (or whatever) was trading at 300 times earnings - some people had lost their minds. But, I agree, this is now a crash. And we may have just seen a temporary bottom. (Sneaking in the other room to watch CNBC - or we may have a ways to go yet…)

Remember that Bush I had a whopping 89 percent approval rating in Feb. 91 after the Gulf War, which had dropped to 29 percent 18 months later, right before the next election. I seem to remember a guy named Clinton winning that one. So, be wary of touting the popularity of Bush II today as some indication of how he will be faring two years from now.

Seems to be some healthy disagreement. Good.

OK, to those who are confident Bush won’t win, I offer a wager: one bottle of single-malt scotch, The Macallan 18-year, which usually retails for about $90. Or it’s equivalent in cash. :slight_smile:

The bet’s a push if Bush dies or leaves office for legitimate health reasons. But if this does not happen, and he fails to win reelection… you’ve got yourself some pretty fine scotch. And if he does… well, then I have myself some pretty fine scotch.

Takers? Hemlock? Minty? cmkeller?

Wasn’t it GW who, referring to the upcoming “war on terrorism,” said about the mid-east originated terrorist group al Qaeda words to the effect that “we are going on a Crusade?” How would that rub Arab sensitivities?

And in his speech of 15 July on the economy he mentioned that better economic news is “just around the corner.” I can well remember the jokes at the expense of Herbert Hoover for his insistence during the prolonged slide in the economy from 1929 to 1932 that “prosperity is just around the corner.”

Yeah, even Israelis start giggling when they hear that one.

Here’s my bet. Cheney is toast. He will be designated the Big Enchilada and over the side he goes!

Colin Powell will be nominated and will be confirmed in a veritable orgy of bi-partisan acclaim.

His price: shut up about Iraq.

You offering any particular stakes for that bet, elucidator?

While in general (no pun intended) I think Powell is a very viable candidate, what’s stopping him is his own reluctance to go the election/politician route.

I don’t see Powell as a serious Presidential candidate.