Okay fellas, I want to keep this as free of political ranting or side-taking as possible. That being said, some negative assumptions will be necessary. So, let me begin with raising some points. I mentioned some of these in the '08 election thread, so I’ll try to get my own thread going because I think I can bring up some interesting points.
I want to consider this election in terms of the 2000 election a little bit while still realizing that in the post 911 world things are certainly changed. We don’t know how the population will react.
Firstly, I consider the point moot if things go well for Bush. If the economy and the Iraq situation go well (get better), plus no more terrorist attacks, I assume that Bush will coast through the 2004 election. If you want to dispute that, fine, but I don’t see much room for debate. Also it is important to think of things in terms of the electoral college. For a map of historical electoral college outcomes, look here. It is a map of electoral college makeups of previous elections. And how will the new census data change these previous assumptions?
Here are some of my observations:
In 2000 Bush was free to criticize Gore on his record, because Gore was part of a 8 year presidency. Bush had a record, but not such an important one. Certainly it had little effect on his record as president. If a senator, the democrat will have a slight advantage (certainly Kerry or any senator will have record checks) but what about Dean? Will his lack of a national record help?
If things go badly, (eg bad economy, bad situation in Iraq). How will the Bush admin deal with it. As we all know IIRC, Bush wasn’t crazy to debate Gore in teh 2000 elections. He seemed to like taking the high road while he let is minions do his work (ex. S. Carolina). Will he try to fight any accusations or will he take his old approach of remaining above politics? Example, if Kerry were to attack him (after becoming nominee or frontrunner) about spending less per capita on terror spending in NY and CA, would Bush a) Send out Ari to make a vague rebuttal b) Do it himself on TV [I doubt this, not his style] or c) ignore it completely or d) Make attacks on his character or e) something else?
What about other issues such as Veterans benefits? Will these questions get asked, and will they be answered and how?
What about tax cuts. How will americans feel about cutting taxes when they feel it isn’t necessary (as polls show)? Will Dems attack? What would the response be? I can remember Daschle with his puny little “A new lexus for every millionare” campaign that resonated with almost no one.
What about health care? Will bush get taken to task there? How will this turn out?
What about foreign policy? If Iraq gets ugly, how will dems respond and what will bush say? Again, the openness and tactics are the important thing here.
What if there are no WMD? Will Dems harp on this and if so how will Bush respond?
How will the meda respond? Will it (they for grammar nazis) be biased, and if so, which organization for whom?
It is hard for me to hide the fact that I am against Bush in the next election, but for me make these points, things can’t go good.
Bush has big plans for a GOP convention in NYC around 911. How will this play in the city? New Yorkers are especially welcome to make any comment here? Will it be seen a genuine or will it be seen as political? Is there a possibility for disaster or not?
How wil the 911 investigation turn out? Will Dems bring anything up about it?
Basically I am interested in how the Bush administration will respond to criticism. Obviously Bush has support, and if things go well for him, reelection shouldn’t be so hard. But I am interested in what happens if it is basically split like last time, how will the differences in political tactics affect what the outcome will be? Bush has to be vunerable for this to be a good point.
I think we can all agree that the last election was a political nightmare for the democrats. How gore managed to lose, I would think boiled down to his seemingly shady character in opposition to Bush’s firm resolution. Gore’s destitute lack of vision to Bush’s vague, but existant vision of “compassionate conservatism”
As far as I can tell, Bush has the advantage of credibility. People think that he is outside of politics and goes by moral conviction. I would say this has always been his strong point. For this reason people trust him. Somehow we have gotten to the point where he is so respected that it even seems unpatriotic to question him. I think this helps people to defend him politically. He has fewer skeletons in the closet, politically, so anyone can give him their support with out fear of being tied to him when bad stuff comes out. As long as he is in control of the White House, he can keep the information about his problems secret, because of his tight grip on information.
Well, I suppose that does sound a little biased, and I won’t defend it. But I do raise some points for debate. The object of the discussion I’m trying to create is to answer how will these questions be PLAYED? It doesn’t matter if its true or not, it only matters if the people believe it. For instance, If Kerry insists that bush is really a secret operative of Israel, it doesn’t matter if it is true or not. It only matters if the people believe it. So discussing the reality of an issue isn’t so important as discussing how people will perceive it, and what will the players do to make it appear a certain way to the public.
