Bush Wins Second Term in 2004!

[Semp]

*Originally posted by Big Kahuna Burger *
**

I’ll admit his 1992 race was probably one of the best in the decade (his stunning win in the primary, “No Skeletons” and Elvis were superb), but in 1998, which was a wash nationwide, his victory margin went down and he seemed a little less energetic. If he had raised money like his opponent had he would’ve won by much more. I’m sure you’re familiar with the flap they had in 1998 with the DSCC funding an ad there. I hear Neumann might want another crack at it in 2004. Still, Wisconsin’s becoming increasingly Republican (It was a close win by Gore, I think Dukakis won it by more), which means a win in 2004 would be quite impressive. He’s been the 1 in so many 99-1 votes that he’d be easy to portray as too liberal for the country. **

His 1998 campaign wasn’t as good as the 1992 campaign, but to be honest it didn’t seem like he was trying all that hard. His seat was relatively safe, so he didn’t go at it like he did in 1992. If Neumann wants to try him again he’ll have to get his face in the news somehow, because he has all but disappeared since he lost (which is a good thing, whenever he said “hi folks” it made my skin crawl). And Wisconsin was becoming increasingly Republican, I think that shift is starting to go the other way but the Democrats have a problem in that the Milwaukee liberals and Madison liberals don’t like each others’ style too much and can wind up damaging each other in favor of the Republicans, who tend to be more unified in what (and who) they want. But, I digress…

[Bricker]

Jonathan Chance -

Then we have a bet! Drop me an e-mail to finalize any details. Bush wins in 2004, Rick wins in 2004. And vice-versa.

• Rick

[Guinastasia]

Now that Bush is no longer a new face, and the press is no longer enamored of him, he isn’t going to get slanted coverage in '04 and that is going to kill him, His actual polices are deeply unpopular, he can’t speak in public effectively without a script, and his ‘character’ is just a pose for the camera. The better the people know him, the less they like him. He’s is your basic grifter. Charming, and loyal to personal friends, but he thinks that the rest of the world has ‘mark’ tattooed on their forehead.

Didn’t a lot of people say the Exact Same Thing about Reagan?

And look at what happened.

[xyzzy]

I nominate Rep. Tammy Baldwin…or is she too right wing for you? I’d vote for her, though. She’s a good, gutsy leftist.

Either her or Nader.

[Jonathan_Chance]

Bricker! That email is bouncing, buddy! Didn’t Roadrunner go under?

[Jonathan_Chance]

Heck, let’s spell it out here.

Bush wins a second term, JC buys the booze.

Bush files for unemployment, Bricker buys the booze.

It’s a tie again, we both get drunk.

[Jibby7]

Sweet mother of God. Hillary will get the nomination before Baldwin :). I don’t know if America is quite ready for Tammy Baldwin on the national scene.

[Bricker]

I just thought I’d resurrect this thread, primarily for the purpose of pointing out that I’m still very confident that Jonathan Chance will be buying me some single-malt scotch in two years.

I also wanted to take a look at some of the more bold predictions made by Elvis1Lives and Tejota.

*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves *
But it’s foolish to stand behind a prediction made more than a few months in advance - it’s only now becoming clear that the House and Senate will both be solidly in control of the Democrats next term. I’ll bet on that. I’ll also bet on the media not discussing the candidates or their policies any more deeply or responsibly in 2004 than they did, well, just about ever.

Originally posted by Tejota No chance. As of this week Bush is toast. He will never again get the softball treatment from the press, and without that, he has no chance at all of winning an election against a higher primate.

Not directly on point, I admit, but with even the Democrats agreeing that Bush’s campaigning for Republican candidates was a hugely significant factor… I think the prediction above earns a low grade.

Tejota’s response to a Sam Stone comment:

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
The Democrats have one chance to beat Bush - on the right. A winning strategy for the Democrats would be to become the ‘war hawk’ party. After all, that’s what they used to be. Bush is vulnerable on Homeland Defense, where the administration is going seriously astray IMO, to is waffling on the war. If the Democrats could convince the country that they will fight the war better than Bush is, they’ve got a big chance.

Originally posted by Tejota
Not so, War fever peaked months ago and will be nothing but a fond memory by '04. The legacy of Bush’s bogus War on terra will be a bunch of embarrassments in court and a reputation for trashing the constitution in persuit of an overblown threat.

• Rick

[Tejota]

A bit premature to gloat Bricker but I have to admit that the press is still giving Bush quite a bit more of the softball treatment than I had expected.

The 2002 midterms were won primarily due to the press collusion with Republican propaganda. This is partly why so many people are saying that the Dem’s had no message. It’s not that they had no message, it’s that it didn’t get any press.

But the idea that the Dem’s had no message is getting a LOT of press. About 1/2 of the press is pure Right wing propaganda (Fox, talk radio, etc.), and the rest tries so hard to be ‘objective’ that they help the republicans muddy the waters.

On the other hand, in the past few weeks, the first few tentative stories pointing out Bush’s policy lies have shown up. It’s been slower and less visible than I expected, but it will grow.

Harvey Pitt has resigned in disgrace. And Bush needs to replace him with someone who will reliably not investigate Harkin or Cheney. But he also needs to appoint someone who at least seems to be serious about SEC enforcement. It will be interesting to see if he can manage both at once.

As for war fever, it had indeed peaked. The number of people in favor of pre-emptive war is quite a bit lower than it was when I wrote that.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Back to the original OP: Bricker, if the economy turns around and Bush can settle Iraq’s hash without dragging into us an unpopular war or making us too unpopular with Moslems worldwide, then I think the Republicans will smear the Democrats about everyplace but the big cities and I think the GOP will make inroads there. This is a tall order, but if Bush can pull this off I’ll vote a Republican for president for the first time in my life.

OTOH, if conflict with Iraq proves costly and unpopular, Al Queda continues its attacks, and the economy remains tanked, Georgie boy is going back to Texas.

[aldiboronti]

Lot of talk about the parallels between GW and his father and prognostications of his downfall in 2004, but I see far more parallels between GW and another President detested by the liberals - Reagan. Dubya has far more of the populist touch than his old man, who was never a natural before the cameras. Both Reagan and the present incumbent were dismissed as dummies and underestimated by their opponents. Whatever your feelings about Bush Junior, it cannot be denied that he is proving to be a canny politician.

[Bricker]

*Originally posted by Tejota *
The 2002 midterms were won primarily due to the press collusion with Republican propaganda. This is partly why so many people are saying that the Dem’s had no message. It’s not that they had no message, it’s that it didn’t get any press.

If that is correct, don’t you think it’s prudent for your future predictions to take the press collusion into account? In other words, the press will continue to offer collusion in 2004, sweeping the GOP into the White House for a second term, along with picking up more seats in Congress… just as I predicted in July, at least on the White House front.

For the purposes of this thread, reasons are fine, but what wins is the accuracy of your crystal ball.

• Rick

[Bricker]

Well, it seems to me that these Georgia politicians can credibly claim their switch was ideologically motivated – it’s been said before that they are generally conservative, and one could reasonably ask not why they switched, but what took them so long.

At the same time, it would be naive to assume their switch was not influenced at least a bit by the inducements mentioned above.

I am leery of trying to divide such party defections into the “pure and noble” ideologically based, and the “greedy and selfish” camp. I think we either agree that party switches are OK, or they’re not – that is, you can’t switch parties without running again.

Under all circumstances.

• Rick

[Bricker]

Oops. Wrong thread.

How did that happen?

[elucidator]

Well, there are conditions under which 4 more years of the Man Who Fell Up would be agreeable.

It would mean that the Iraq war to not deteriorate into carnage in the streets of Badhdad, leading to universal loathing of America in the Muslim world. It would mean a citizenry not enraged by body bags returning instead of thier children. It would mean that it didn’t spark a relentless and fanatical program of suicidal terrorism around the world, such that no one can travel on an American passport without armed security.

It would mean that what appears to be a looming economic catastrophe turns out the be not that bad, such that people in America are at least moderately content with thier lot, rather than marching on the White House with pitchforks and torches.

Either that, or it would mean martial law.

[Chance_the_Gardener]

I am, of course, reluctant to predict the outcome of any election this far in advance. At this time, it’s possible that Bush will get a second term—and it’s possible that he won’t. The Democrats will have to get a good candidate out there, and he or she will have to provide a good reason to vote Democratic.

If the New Gulf War blows up in our faces and proves to be bloody and hard to win (as opposed to the last one,) that will improve Bush’s chances. Of course, he’ll have to keep running with that ball, which is something his father couldn’t do. Even if he pulls this off, a second term is not a foregone conclusion.

The conservative bent in the media has proven to be a problem for Democrats. They tore Al Gore to bits in 2000, and they might do it again. Considering that Fox News has its own channel now, and the fact that Peter Jennings solicited commentary from none other than Rush Fucking Limbaugh during his election night coverage, it doesn’t look good.

Let’s see how things unfold. We’ve got two more years until November 2, 2004, and in politics, two years is a very long time.

Harvey Pitt has resigned in disgrace. And Bush needs to replace him with someone who will reliably not investigate Harkin [sic] or Cheney. But he also needs to appoint someone who at least seems to be serious about SEC enforcement. It will be interesting to see if he can manage both at once.
—Tejota

Tejota, I’m not usually one to carp on someone’s spelling, but it’s important to remember that the scandal-ridden energy corporation is Harken, and the Democratic senator is Tom Harkin. I think the spelling here is important.

I do agree with you that Bush will probably do nothing about the SEC scandal, and that he’ll try to do as little as possible to offend his corporate friends here.