If Bush could run for President again, would he win?

Great Debates
61

Ah the old “Republicans win because they are greedy corrupt amoral scumbags. We need to do the same thing!” argument. I don’t believe it to be the case that the most amoral scumbag always wins.

All I’m saying is beware an argument that is too flattering to yourself. Democrats are too nice, too logical, unwilling to fight dirty, too patriotic, too caring. Self-righteousness is a drug.

Of course, if I were to make recomendations to the Democrats about how to win in 2008, their party platform would miraculously conform pretty closely to my pet ideas, so I don’t exempt myself. But to continually misunderestimate Bush and people who voted for Bush is a big mistake. And the worst mistake is to pull the “Bush Cheated!” card out all the time.

Kerry lost because he was a lackluster candidate. A better candidate could have beaten Bush pretty soundly. Bush in 2008 would be in even weaker shape than he was in 2004. In 2004 at least it could be argued that we were making progress in Iraq. After another 4 years of still making progress, about to turn the corner, you aren’t telling the good news about Iraq, bombings are down 5% this month would sink Bush pretty soundly.

Sure, Iraq could turn around and Bush would look like a hero. But that’s looking more and more unlikely, and the longer the war goes on the less likely it becomes. Another 4 years of the status quo in Iraq and the voters would be pissed.

So, for the real 2008 election, look for the republican candidate to repudiate Bush’s Iraq legacy, all in code of course. That’s one of the advantages of democracy, you can send the guy who thought up a bad idea down the river on a raft and his successor can claim he always thought it was a bad idea.

Note: Cheney and Jeb Bush aren’t running for president in 2008. I don’t know who the republican candidates will be, but those two aren’t going to be candidates.

62

He would win.

Who he runs against is irrelevant. His opponent will be chosen by the same people who choose the president – the people who count the votes.

Electronic voting, comprising over 80% of our vote count, is 100% Republican owned. Expect them to be in power for a long, long time. They count the votes.

Am I an extremist? Yes. Am I wrong?
Am I?

63

An earlier poster said that a candidate should have a good war record. Are there any ‘presidentables’ who served in either the first Gulf War or the Falklands War or the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union?

64

Just to clarify the JFK I meant was John Kennedy, not John Kerry. If we could woo John McCain to the Democrats, he would be an excellent person. The extreme factions in his party are trying to slam him again, over his filibuster compromise deal. Someone needs to put a bug in his ear and get him riled up enough to jump ship.

65

#2 has been a pet theory of mine for some time now, so I agree with him as well. I’m not sure if that’s something that will play itself out by 2008, but there will probably be candidates from both factions, since it looks like we can count on McCain running on one side and Frist, for one, on the other.

McCain as a democrat: again, he’s pro-life. Unless he changed his mind on that, that would probably piss off too many normally democratic voters.

66

Before we salivate too much over McCain, remember he was born 8/29/36. He will be 72 in 2008. Contrast that with Reagan, who was a mere 69 when elected in 1980. Both men were and are in excellent physical condition for someone of their age, but McCain might be just a bit too old to even want the job by then.

Lemur866 has an excellent point about not trusting theories too flattering to yourself. I think the Dems would be well served to not worry about the tactics that their opponents are using, just do whatever it takes to run the best campaign they can.

67

I’ve said that in the past, but it sure looks to me like he’s positioning himself to take a stab at it.

68

Huh? How would a possible US Presidential candidate have served in the Falklands War? US military involvement was limited to intelligence-sharing (which happens all the time, war or not) and the provision of a few AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles to the UK. There were several diplomatic moves, of course, but nothing to give any American a war record.

[Unless you’re assuming that, since the 22nd Amendment has been repealed in the OP’s scenario, the “natural-born citizen” requirement for POTUS has also been removed, or the candidate held dual citizenship and served in the UK Armed Forces.]

AFAIK, US involvement in the Afghan resistance to the USSR was limited to the CIA, with no direct military presence.

69

I don’t think this will happen. What else could they say about the guy to smear him that they haven’t said. I will never understand why people like McCain and Kerry, who showed such bravery and courage throughout their lives (specifically in Vietnam) are such political pussies. There is no excuse for not standing up to Karl Rove and his thugs when you’ve killed people in a jungle half a world away. What are they afraid of? I’m not saying they have to lower themselves by playing dirty, but they should at least call out Bush and his cronies for their skulduggery.

70

A combat veteran has lost every presidential election since 1992, if you loosely define Gore’s experience as a military journalist in Viet Nam. The point being, military credentials aren’t exactly a surefire way to get to the White House.

Regarding the 2004 presidential election, I never thought it was “Republican vs Democrat” but rather it was “Bush vs Kerry”. I think the campaign was lost when Kerry waffled on his Iraq war vote; you can’t hammer a guy for a fuckup when you endorse that fuckup. To the undecided voter, it’s all about the candidate, and your candidate just has to be not as bad as the other guy.

Republicans do have disadvantages going into the 2006 midterms. Amazingly, though, they could actually grow their margin in the Senate. Senators Nelson of Florida and of Nebraska (I get them confused) both are Democrats who represent solidly red states. Other Dem seats that could be threatened are WV (Byrd is what, 86 years old?), Dayton of MN, and Conrad of ND. Meanwhile, the only races that the GOP likely has to worry about are Santorum in PA and Chafee in RI, who is a moderate and not likely to feel the brunt of angry Democrats.

Maybe if things break the Democrats’ way in 2006 they’ll defend all of their threatened seats, take Jeffords’ seat in VT, take the PA and RI seats . . . TN’s is open, Frist is preparing for the 2008 presidency . . . MT has shown some surprising blueness . . . Dewine of OH represents a barely red state . . . Hutchison is considering a run for TX Governor, and the GOP bench doesn’t have much to offer, so that could be a closer race than you’d think . . .
. . . but I digress from my second point. That is that the GOP’s biggest problem is that they’re unquestionably in charge. Their various constituencies have already begun to fight over the spoils of power, and other posters have touched upon the pretty clear divide that will face the party when it comes to choosing the '08 nominee for president.

Also, by 2008, whatever ‘glow’ they had from 9/11 will be gone; the Iraq War will be the overriding foreign policy issue. The domestic issue that motivates voters is probably going to be the economy. Whatever spin various posters in this thread care to put on the economy, the fact is that Bush’s approval ratings on the economy right now hover around 38-40% (one cite, another PDF), and issues like skyrocketing health care costs are sure to motivate many voters.

That all being said, the Democrats have got to do better than they have in getting their messages out to the voters, otherwise they (OK, we) can’t hope to take back either house of Congress any time soon. If the Dems can focus on voters’ concerns with the economy the right way–health care would be a great opening–and if they can keep the election away from social issues like gay marriage, AND if they can figure out a way to deal with Iraq without coming off as defeatist, then the party can get some momentum going in 2006.

71

If the Pubbies do have a successful and massive cheating system going … and there’s some evidence to that effect … then the Dems HAVE to worry about what they are up to, because it makes all the Dems’ legitimate efforts moot. The Dems need to put together a team to take a serious look at Republican electoral fraud and develop countermeasures. Otherwise their campaign efforts are futile. Obviously, this should be done in conjunction with an effective campaign, but the most effective campaign in the world won’t get a Democratic elected if the vote is rigged. Ignoring that leads straight to the scenario Danalan suggests.

I’m surprised I have to tell you these things, Bob.

72

Could Bush win? Gods forbid we find out. I’d say ‘no’, but that is probably my bias talking. In reality the answer probably is ‘it depends’. What will the economy look like in '07? What will the war in Iraq look like? What other issues will have happened? Depending on those answers would depend on if Bush could get elected again.

As for McCain…don’t underestimate him. He’s looking pretty good to me right now. As to his age at the time of election (72)…might be an issue, might not be. People carry their age differently. I’ve known folks who were in their 50’s and 60’s who could barely get around, or who weren’t all there mentally. And I’ve know guys in their 80’s who could out skii and out hike me AND then out drink me later that night. All I know is that right now, he looks like the man to beat. And a moderate Republican who has a lot of across the isle support (in theory), who toed the party line but also is portrayed as somewhat of a Republican rebel, a war hero…well, put someone like Condi as his second (Black Woman, considered more ‘conservative’) or several other potential VP’s and could be hard to beat.

Dems should be thinking about someone like Bill Richardson. Can’t tell you how popular he’d be with the hispanic vote. Put someone like Clinton as his second (if you could get her to play second fiddle) and…well, it could be a VERY interesting race.

-XT

73

Disagree on both of the above. McCain showed courage in Vietnam and continues to do so; i have to admit it even if I don’t always agree with him.

Kerry, OTOH joined the Navy because it was the safest option at the time. No way he was going to jail as a CO. When it turned out he had to face combat he turned and ran as fast as King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Wasn’t he the only officer in Navy history to get three purple crosses without missing a single work day due to injury?

And, BTW, I don’t really resent Kerry for doing it. Nothing to be ashamed of if combat isn’t your thing. I do resent people making him into some kind of hero on a par with McCain.

74

On the contrary, the evidence the bullk of Americans love hearing this stuff.

75

Not true. That was the Swiftboat story and it was discredited.

76

The guy does have shrapnel in his leg. You’re right that McCain dealt with a lot worse and showed his character, but Kerry showed some real courage in battle and I think saying he’s a coward is contemptible.

77

Which part was discredited? I assume you mean that he mean he did take time off from work. Do you know how many days? I’m not saying this as a provocation, I’d like to know. If I’m wrong I’ll stop saying it.

78

I don’t think that’s shrapnel, I think it’s rice from some dumb self inflicted wound. But, more important I didn’t say he’s a coward. True, my Monty Python comment taken out of context seems pretty harsh, but read the sentence right after that. There are a lot of areas in which I have disrespect, maybe even contempt for Kerry, but I’ve known too many good people who’ve chickened out in combat and other scary places, to ever make that an issue.

79

As far as I know he didn’t miss any time (‘take time off?’ Is this a vacation? :p) for his first two injuries. The third, I don’t know.

If you’re going to quote the Swift Boat people over and over, I’m going to turn off my monitor and bang my head against the wall until I pass out. I’ll learn more. Meanwhile, suffice to say you’re wrong and ought to consider the source of things you say.

This is not a secret.

80

I read very well. You compared him to the king who said “Run away!!!” You said you didn’t resent him, not that he wasn’t a coward, which is the obvious implication of the comment. If that’s not what you meant, you should have said something different. I’m no Navy expert, but I don’t think you take the Swift Boat job in the first place if you’re afraid of combat.