What kind of fallout would follow in the wake of a Bush victory.

I’m only 19, so the only prior election that I really paid attention to was the 2000 election, and seeing how completely divided so many people seem to be as we head towards this upcoming election, I wonder what the possible fallout might be if Bush actually won.

Most people seem to be taking extremely adamant stances on the issues. Just take a look at any political thread on this board. Bush barely won the 2000 election (let’s not get started on the fact that the Electoral College is outdated), and his inauguration was surrounded by protestors and he had to drive to the White House under a hail of eggs. And that was before all the shit he’s gotten us into.

So let’s assume that somehow Bush actually wins again. What are we looking at possibly? Massive nationwide rioting, centered mainly in the northeast/Washington DC? Or would the majority of people who claim to dislike Bush so much not even bother protesting his re-election and just continue to post about it on message boards?

Here’s a handy calculator.

This is not a question with a factual answer. It belongs in Great Debates.

Could one of the mods move this please? :smack:

There would be great gnashing of teeth.

I love my teeth, so I don’t even want to consider the possibility.

Bush would never have to face the voters again, and with a Republican Congress, it would be open season for Republican extremism, spending binges, and so on.

Believe it or not Soapbox Monkey there have been some hotly contested elections in the past as there have been hated politicians in the past.

If Bush won a great deal of people would be very pissed for four years and they would bitch about it on TV in in the papers and at the water cooler, but don’t expect riots or anything. Don’t fall victim to inflated election year rhetoric. Life will go on, and eventually a man or woman whom you support will become president. Then the folks on the other side of the political spectrum will get to bitch and whine for four to eight years. That’s the cycle of American politics - after you have lived through a few cycles you’ll catch on and things won’t seem so dreadful when they don’t go your way. Keep your chin up.

As for Apos’s response - it is close to impossible this year for the Republicans to gain a measured control of the Senate so congress will still be able to keep Bush in check.

With 40 percent of the electorate not even bothering to vote in the most recent presidential election, and even a lower number voting in Congressional elections between presidential elections, I think you underestimate the lethargy of the American public, and/or its dislike of politics.

The highest voting rates were in the Midwest (not the Northeast), and the lowest voting rates were among 18-24 year olds; only 36 percent of that group voted. A report.

“But we’re at war now!” you may say, “We were at peace in 2000.” OK, go back to the 1972 presidential election. The voting age had just been dropped by constitutional amendment to 18 years, we were involved in a war in which the number of our troops dying every week was in the hundreds*, we had a military draft . . . and yet, only 50 percent of 18-24 year olds bothered to vote. And no riots ensued when the anti-war candidate McGovern lost the election.

  • Fatalities among U.S. troops in Iraq since March 2003 have averaged 13 per week.

Yeah. Because there weren’t riots when he took over or anything.

Actually this is a very good question. I imagine that in certain cities, things would be pretty chaotic. And there would be scads of people calling for recounts.

It would depend on how close the election actually is, I would guess. ANything resembling 2000 might cause somre real trouble. But if Bush wins what could only be viewed as a fair election, then I doubt much would happen out of the ordinary editorializing and activism.

THe problem is, there are quite a few of us anti-Bushites who would be hard to convince that any election Bush won could be viewed as fair. As for me personally, it would depend on circumstances. If Bush wins when polls are strongly showing that he’s unlikely to, or if he unexpectedly carries several states where electronic voting is key, particularly if the ultimate results differ strongly from the exit polls, I’d be inclined to question the honesty of the eleciton myself. You’d think that if the current administration were going to tinker with the outcome of the election, they’d be subtle about it. But they’ve demonstrated themselves to often be surprisingly incompetent/naive about the outcomes their actions have led to (witness Iraq), so it wouldn’t surprise me if, should they decide to risk it at all, they were fairly inept.

I don’t know if the administration will attempt to tinker with the election or not. But I do believe that if they don’t, it wouldn’t be because principle prevented them.

A greatt deal would depend, of course, on the extent of such a catastro…election victory. History shows that GeeDubya and cohorts regard a popular vote loss as a victory. Winning the popular vote by the same margin as they lost the last would be taken as a undeniable mandate, a ringing endorsement of everything they stand for.

Anything more than that would be considered Divine Intervention, a definite expression of God’s Will, that His most faithful servants are the rightful rulers, now and forever, amen.

The terrorists will celebrate a Bush victory.

Well, if it weren’t for the potentially disastrous long-term effects, such as SCOTUS appointments and fanning the flames of an all-out-muslim-fanatic-vs-christian-fanatic WWIII…

I’d almost welcome a re-election of George W. and Cronies, just to give them the opportunity they need to once and for all discredit the fundamentalist christian government movement they exemplify, and the politicians playing that game.

Also wishing that the corrupting-to-the-core influence of corporate money in Washington is also exposed and discredited would be too much to hope for, though.

It is a victory (Electoral College). And if Gore had lost the popular vote and won the Electoral one, then it would be hunky dory with leftwingnuts, and rightwingnuts would be the ones ranting like a crazy men.

(Not that anyone will pay attention to this…)

I hate GW Bush. I can’t see how anyone could look at him as a good president unless their view is clouded by a hatred of homosexuals, the Constitution, or Arabs.

But the fact of the matter is that he won the election. If you want to argue the whole supreme court “selection, not election” thing, you’re welcome to it.

However, the fact of the matter is that the Monkey in Charge (Chimp in the Chair?) won the majority of the Electoral votes. Popular vote doesn’t fucking matter!

Not even a little!

-Joe

The rest of the world would conclude (and rightly so) that the American people condone and support the torture and other human rights violations committed by American forces under this administration. :frowning:

Fallout?

Well, Reeder might require help… :wink:

As a couple of posters above have hinted, Soapbox Monkey, we would probably feel more comfortable if you did not use the word “fallout” in connection with this topic.

It hints at too many disturbing possibilities.

Mass chaos! Cats and dogs living together!!

The American people are famous for splitting their vote and throwing a Pres of one party in with a Congress dominated by the other and watching the fireworks. Maybe that’ll happen again. Anyway, yes, he won’t have to worry about re-election but he’ll also be a lame duck.

I do feel sorry for the OP, though. When I was 19 I got to vote for Reagan or Mondale (happy happy joy joy!) and got my first taste of defeat. There was some hand-wringing over Reagan and how he was gonna blow up the world, etc., but certainly not the deep feeling and hysteria we’ve got nowadays, not for ‘ordinary’ people anyway. <pats the OP on his or her downy innocent little head> I would hate for the 2000 and '04 campaigns to be my first political initiation. So much shrillness.