**If:
[ul][li] the economy improves[/li][li] Iraq improves and is about to have elections[/ul][/li]Then Bush wins
Well I voted for him and I think he has never looked better
-------------------------OR-------------------------
How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Believe Only What I Want.
Bin Laden? Maybe. Hussein, I doubt…he’d probably want the Iraqis to immediately see that Saddam’s dead, in the hopes that the Iraqis on the street will be happier with America’s work and less likely to stir up trouble.
[sub] underlining my addition to the quote[/sub] Please tell me that I’m misinterpreting this is, and you aren’t actually implying that women voters are voting for the most handsome candidate. And here I thought that JFK being voted for by women who thought he was “cute” was just a myth created to steal credibility away from his competency as president…
Peace and prosperity is what re-elects presidents, and we have neither.
Bush will NOT become the first president in American history who lost the popular vote and got re-elected.
Bush has to get out of Iraq and get back all the millions of lost jobs by next summer, else he is toast.
Bush cant really wait until summer either to do both of those things. Lyndon Johnson was forced out by “March” of 1968, and people have to see everyone having jobs and all of our troops back by the time the presidential primaries start. Doesnt look like he wants to do either though.
squeal Hey, that Dan Quayle was SOOOO DREAMY! squeal
Actually, the only one who mentioned that you’d have to think for a second which was which if John Kerry was standing next to a horse was Rashak Mani in this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=208982
and AFAIK Rashak’s a guy.
For once, Susanann , you and I are in complete agreement.
Lets see, Peace and Prosperity. First of all, the fact there is no “Peace” right now is hardly something Bush has control over. There is no way any president would have complete peace for the country two years after 9/11 unless they turned the country completely isolationist and caved in to the demands of the Muslims at every turn. That was not going to happen. Sure, there could be MORE peace than there is now. He certainly could have handled Iraq better. No disagreement there. But to expect peace at this point in time is unrealistic. Unless you go back in time and kill Osama bin Laden sometime in the late 90’s.
As for prosperity, there was no prosperity when Bush became president. The deficit is bigger, so in that sense its somewhat worse. However, its appears the economy is starting to recover, which only means bad news for the Democrats.
As for the young voters, I am not sure who you mean by young, but I don't see the Democrats offering anything to young voters except the environment issue. The truth is many people under 30 don't care much about health insurance. They are mostly healthy and don't need it. You get married and have kids, thats when you start worrying, but I get the impression the "young" vote is not about the young and married vote. The only people either party is trying to guarrantee health insurance to now is the elderly, which really does nothing to make me want to vote for either major party. I already thing Social Security is a scam. In fact, I would be willing to bet there are very few people under the age of 30 who have more than a smidgeon of confidence that Social Security will be available when they retire. You throw in another entitlement for the increasingly growing elderly population and I fail to see how this is enticing young voters.
The environment...sure. More environmentalists among the young. One out of 3 issues.
Bush won't lose unless the Iraq situation putters along without resolution for another year AND the economy fails the continue on the upswing. Otherwise the Democrats have very little chance. I am looking for a good 3rd party cnadidate myself.At last! An end to all the peace and prosperity we had to endure under the Clinton administration!
Seriously, are you pubbies gonna blame EVERYTHING on Clinton. Seems like Bush has had plenty of time to deal with peace and prosperity issues, and the only people he’s made prosperous are the extremely wealthy and we can SEE how well his peace program is going. My bet is, he’s lining up his next target for a Sept. 2004 invasion …
Who blamed anything on Clinton in this thread?
I think it had something to do with…
I still don’t see how that blames Clinton for anything.
I thought the Clinton blaming was this:
Gex got it.
Well something happened to the economy in 2000. It was already in a nosedive when the elections took place.
I really hope Bush gets more vulnerable as Election Day approaches. But my faith in the Democratic party is tenuous. Dean and Kucinich are the only candidates that really get my passsions up. Kerry and Liberman? Yawn. Angry yawns.
I don’t know how much faith I should put in polls. I don’t trust the media. I do believe a good percentage of Americans are isolationist and ignorant. So millions of Americans believing Saddam Hussein orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, doesn’t surprise me but saddens me.
Two events will solidify Bush’s approval numbers.
- Another terrorist attack. Hell, even I wasn’t able to bash Bush after 9/11.
- Magically finding Osama/Saddam.
Now I’m really hoping France or Germany will locate Saddam/Osama. Take that possible wind out of Bush’s sales and shutting up the Old Europe bashers.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say there are “easily” far more Bush Haters at this point in time than there were Clinton haters in 1999. If each one of these in 2004 does only 1/5th of what all the Clinton haters did in 2000, Bush doesn’t stand a chance.
We all know that it was the smear of Clinton that led to the defeat of Gore on many levels. The Republicans made sure to gather up every piece of dirt they had on Clinton and draw it out into the open. Convincing just enough people that we ‘needed a change’ in Washington.
With the gigantic amount of ammunition that Bush & Co. have left to the Democrats for this election? Only if the Democrats are truely dumb/deaf/blind will Bush win again. It’s just too easy at this point to find things to use against him. I would have to say if you can convince people to vote against a guy for lying about a blowjob you can certainly convince them to vote against a guy for lying about war & the death of US soldiers.
I’d like to think that anewthought, but it really depends on the campaign the Dems decide to run and who they run. If it’s (god forbid!) Libermann, then I’ll toss my vote away on a third party, cause Libermann is to the right of Bush, IMHO. But I can easily see myself voting for Dean. If they go with another mealy-mouthed “We love the President” campaign like they did in the last Congressional elections, I anticipate swift defeat.
I think it was the increasing chances of a Bush win that slowed down the economy – I remember seeing lots of happy money-spending clients in early 2000, folks slowing down a bit with hesitation in mid-2000, putting off spending decisions even further around November 2000, and then flat-out “no we’re tightening our belts” around January 2001.
That’s just my perspective, though.
Another month closer to Bush moving out of the White House.
Any democrat on the ticket who is breathing, and who just talks of getting jobs back, or who shows some concern about all the joblessnes, will coast in to victory in 2004.
Firms still slashing jobs
MSNBC.com ^ | 9/5/03 | ASSOCIATED PRESS
"WASHINGTON, Sept. 5 — …the government reported Friday that companies slashed payrolls by 93,000, raising new concerns that the fragile economic recovery could falter.
AUGUST WAS THE seventh consecutive month of cuts in payrolls, a survey released by the Labor Department showed, indicating continuing weakness in the job market. Analysts had expected companies to add 12,000 new jobs.
The survey of businesses showed that job cuts were heavy again in manufacturing, a sector that has suffered the brunt of the economic downturn that began in March 2001.
Deeper concerns now are focused on long-term structural problems in the economy, such as a flood of U.S. jobs going overseas. "