# What's the betting on the election - can Bush win? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 13, 2003, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769 "2003-12-13T12:01:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/221 "2003-12-29T20:44:17Z")
Do you guys really find it necessary to revist the WMD issue in every thread about Bush? No one is going to change his mind. The issue at hand is whether or not we think Bush will be re-elected. **Tejota** : If you want to be taken seriously, then I’d suggest refraining from statements such as: > [@](#): > > **Any** Democrat would beat Bush in '04. I’ve watched a few news analysis programs in the last few days, and not one person came out predicting that Bush would lose. In particular, Chris Matthews hosted a roundtable discussion yesterday with 4 pundits (can’t remember their names), and all 4 predicted a Bush win. The data shows Bush with something like a 56% approval rating, which is a few points higher than either Reagan or Clinton had at the end of the year before their reelections. Wishing Bush will lose is not the same as having any actual evidence that he will. Short of a significant change in either Iraq, the economy, or some large terror attack, Bush is a shoe-in. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/222 "2003-12-29T21:16:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\* > The way the nuclear evidence was dealt with was to basically ignore it for the reasons you cite - anything short of a fully armed ICBM targetted on New York City will be dismissed as insufficient evidence. > \*\* IIRC, David Kay testified before members of Congress words to this effect, **The ISG found _indications_ of _interest_ in _reconstituting_ a centrifuge enrichment _program_. Most of these indications were _suspicions of a consideration_ of _restarting_ the program. We haven’t figured out what they intended, yet. The evidence does not tie _any_ activity directly to research or development.** \* Kay doesn’t even say that Dr. Sa’id was merely _considering_ restarting the centrifuge program. What Kay does say is that _some_ of Dr. Sa’id’s former colleagues _suspected_ him of _considering_ restarting the program. And, even though the ISG found “documents and equipment, hidden in scientists’ homes, that _would have been_ useful in _resuming_ uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation,” they found **no activity tied directly to centrifuge research or development**. Kay uses the words restart and reconstituting in reference to Iraq’s centrifuge enrichment “program”. The definitions of these words refer to begining again and explicitly imply 😉 a previous cessation. Since Kay does not instead use the words ongoing or continuing and since the restart and reconstituting’ve not yet been found to’ve occured, currently, it seems that there was a previous cessation of a program and no subsequent restart. This is IMHO, at least a little bit “short of a fully armed ICBM targetted on New York City.” How many years must a program be put into this sort of “abeyance” before it turns into a “discontinued” program? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\* > Same for the mobile weapons labs - if it is possible that it might have been used for any other purpose, no matter what, then Bush was lying and it was all a scam, etc., etc. > \*\* While many things are “possible”, “suitable for” , or “may have been” these’re often just euphemisms for “can’t conclusively prove that it was _not_ so.” If the Admin could provide conclusive evidence of the positive then the issue could be settled. W/o that, we’re left with these euphemisms. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\* > So if they come across a warehouse full of anthrax tomorrow morning, I am sure the Usual Suspects will say that it doesn’t count \*\*[because]…\*\*there is no evidence he was going to use them on the US, or something. > \*\* It’d be a might handy if there was some evidence that Iraq was going to use it on us. If there was such evidence then we could claim that attacking Iraq was an act of preemption. As we all know, for centuries, jurists and scholars of international law have recognized the legitimacy of preepmtion when an imminent threat exists. The idea of a threat to the US from Iraq was essential to the Admin’s case for the invasion of Iraq. I remain unconvinced that the consent to make war would’ve been obtained w/o reference to direct threats to the US from Iraq. If there turns out to be no more evidence of Iraq’s intentions to attack us than CIA used to make it’s assessment in [2002](http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html)**, then the case will be made that the books were cooked through the [OSP](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199309) etc, (in a [Team B](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/11/02/the_hard_liner/) redux**\*, that the evidence was “imprecisely” presented by the Admin. **The Admin really has to be at least partially correct on these issues of Weapons and intentions. If there’s no evidence of either the weapons or the threat, then not only will the case be made that the Admin negligently misrepresented the war to the electorate, it may well stick. And by stick, I mean cause Bush lose the election.** \*[INTERIM PROGRESS REPORT ON THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ISG](http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html) _“The ISG nuclear team has found indications that there was interest, beginning in 2002, in reconstituting a centrifuge enrichment program . Most of this activity centered on activities of Dr. Sa’id that caused some of his former colleagues in the pre-1991 nuclear program to suspect that Dr. Sa’id, at least, was considering a restart of the centrifuge program. We do not yet fully understand Iraqi intentions , and the evidence does not tie any activity directly to centrifuge research or development.”_ \*\***[Letter from DCI Tenet to The Honorable Bob Graham Chairman Select Committee on Intelligence](http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/dci100702.html)** ``` Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with **conventional or CBW** against the United States. **Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.** Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW. ``` Saddam might decide that the **extreme step** of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. \*\* Senator Levin\*\*: . . . If (Saddam) didn’t feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction? **Senior Intelligence Witness** : . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack–let me put a time frame on it–in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low. **Senator Levin** : Now if he did initiate an attack you’ve . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what’s the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons? **Senior Intelligence Witness** : Pretty high, in my view. \*\*\***[Team B](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2003/11/02/the_hard_liner/)** "…a group of 16 outside experts charged with challenging what some considered the CIA’s sanguine estimates of Soviet military strength. "…some Team B reports…drew on…“soft evidence” such as Soviet “theoretical writings that showed they didn’t share the MAD doctrine.” " “Just because superweapons like a “non-acoustic anti-submarine system” couldn’t be found, Pipes’s report argued, that didn’t mean the Soviets couldn’t build one, even if they appeared to lack the technical know-how.” [**Exaggerating The Threats**](http://www.fareedzakaria.com/articles/newsweek/061603.html) [Team B described] the Soviet Union, in 1976, as having “a large and expanding Gross National Product,” it predicted that it would modernize and expand its military at an awesome pace. For example, it predicted that the Backfire bomber “probably will be produced in substantial numbers, with perhaps 500 aircraft off the line by early 1984.” In fact, the Soviets had 235 in 1984. The reality was that even the CIA’s own estimates–savaged as too low by Team B–were, in retrospect, gross exaggerations. In 1989, the CIA published an internal review of its threat assessments from 1974 to 1986 and came to the conclusion that every year it had “substantially overestimated” the Soviet threat along all dimensions. For example, in 1975 the CIA forecast that within 10 years the Soviet Union would replace 90 percent of its long-range bombers and missiles. In fact, by 1985, the Soviet Union had been able to replace less than 60 percent of them. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/223 "2003-12-29T21:24:39Z")
> [@](#): > > …Do you guys really find it necessary to revist the WMD issue in every thread about Bush? No one is going to change his mind. The issue at hand is whether or not we think Bush will be re-elected… Why do we find it necessary? On the other hand, why are you willing to overlook it? Can there by any more relevent issue? We were led, and led badly, into an enormous committment in blood and treasure. The repercussions from all this have only begun, and the more we learn about the truth of the matter, the more appalling the facts become. The best case that can be made, the most forgiving analysis, is incompetence compounded by wishful, and willful, thinking. And this is the man you would have us elect? No, sir, I am not so forgiving, and each days news, every wasted life, every innocent drop of blood shed, hardens my resolve. How is it I won’t vote for him? For the love of God, man, how is it he dares to present himself? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/224 "2003-12-29T21:27:33Z")
> [@](#): > > Tejota wrote: > Bush’s current re-elect number is about 44% [Nope.](http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) For example, the Newsweek poll shows Bush at: 53/40\* vs Dean 53/41 vs Clark 52/40 vs Lieberman 54/38 vs Gephardt Where are you getting your numbers from? Did you search that last few months worth of data and only report the very lowest result? \*remaining % is undecided ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/225 "2003-12-29T21:40:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > Why do we find it necessary? On the other hand, why are you willing to overlook it? Can there by any more relevent issue? We were led, and led badly, into an enormous committment in blood and treasure. The repercussions from all this have only begun, and the more we learn about the truth of the matter, the more appalling the facts become. The best case that can be made, the most forgiving analysis, is incompetence compounded by wishful, and willful, thinking. > > And this is the man you would have us elect? No, sir, I am not so forgiving, and each days news, every wasted life, every innocent drop of blood shed, hardens my resolve. > > How is it I won’t vote for him? For the love of God, man, how is it he dares to present himself? Depends on what you’re debating. We’re not debating whether or not **elucidator** should vote for Bush. We’re debating whether or not the American people **will** re-elect Bush. To the extent that WMDs come into play, yes, it’s a valid topic. I think a strong case could be made that finding WMDs would cement Bush’s chances to win beyond doubt, but not finding them seems to have very little effect in ensuring he that won’t. Arguing about whether or not WMDs have been found is just silly. If they had been found, we’d see Bush bragging about it everday on TV. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/226 "2003-12-29T22:13:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*Do you guys really find it necessary to revist the WMD issue in every thread about Bush? No one is going to change his mind. The issue at hand is whether or not we think Bush will be re-elected. > > **Tejota** : If you want to be taken seriously, then I’d suggest refraining from statements such as: > > I’ve watched a few news analysis programs in the last few days, and not one person came out predicting that Bush would lose. In particular, Chris Matthews hosted a roundtable discussion yesterday with 4 pundits (can’t remember their names), and all 4 predicted a Bush win. The data shows Bush with something like a 56% approval rating, which is a few points higher than either Reagan or Clinton had at the end of the year before their reelections. > > Wishing Bush will lose is not the same as having any actual evidence that he will. Short of a significant change in either Iraq, the economy, or some large terror attack, Bush is a shoe-in. \*\* Though it sickens me (not John Mace or his oppinions, just the situation he has accurately commented on), JM is probably right on the money. Bush really is a shoe-in. It speaks very poorly of us as a nation, but I don’t see a signle Dem. candidate who can even touch him. The Dem’s are utterly lost without Bill Clinton, that’s how sorry the state of affairs is on the left. After the whole Dean endorsement thing, all I could find myself thinking was, is Al Gore _really_ the new leader of the Dem. party? For real? Heaven help them all, they’re totally, completely fucked. For the record, I gave up on the Dems a long time ago. It’s a carcass of a party, a pallid collection of ineffectual wafflers and milquetoasts, if they’re not just as corrupt and opportunistic as their opponents. Hillary? Hah! At least Bush can lie somewhat convincingly. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/227 "2003-12-29T22:22:46Z")
**John Mace** : what got me started, anyway, was **Shodan** all but claiming that they had been found. No matter what happens, it seems the committed seem to want to claim that something, anything, validates the idea that WMD were found. Absent that, they want to debate whether or not Bush was claiming categorically that they would be before the war, when he clearly was, or whether or not we believed him, which we had no reason not to, etc, etc. Anything but the fact that he either lied, deliberately decieved himself, or was just plain incompetent. It’s wacky, that’s for sure. I mean, on the subject of Bush’s chances, I do think he’s a reasonable bet for re-election unless Iraq falls apart or we have the big dollar crisis that the world’s investors are holding their breath about. Absent anything like that, he is the incumbent, and he can play just about any war-related card he feels like if the election gets close, as **Sofa King** more or less pointed out above. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/228 "2003-12-29T22:45:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > 2) **Any** Democrat would beat Bush in '04. The Republicans only (slim) chance of winning the '04 election is to nominate someone else. Bush is a complete fuckwit and the number of people who figure that out will only grow with time. While I’d like to believe that, I must point out that there are still plenty of people who are still willing to vote for Bush in 2004. Some because they’re too ignorant to realize they’ve been lied to, and some because they’re simply willing to cook up their own justifications to excuse Bush’s lies. Several examples of folks in these categories continue to pop up in this thread alone, even after being shown repeatedly that they were in the wrong. As the old saying goes, “you can fool some of the people all of the time.” Bush doesn’t even need that much; he only needs to fool 51% of the voters up until Election Day 2004. And as long as the conservative media and the usual pack of right-wing liars keep spreading the Bushit (aided by George’s $250 million war chest), Bush’s defeat in 2004 is far from a sure thing. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/229 "2003-12-29T23:55:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*[Nope.](http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm) > > For example, the Newsweek poll shows Bush at: > > 53/40\* vs Dean > 53/41 vs Clark > 52/40 vs Lieberman > 54/38 vs Gephardt > > Where are you getting your numbers from? Did you search that last few months worth of data and only report the very lowest result? > > \*remaining % is undecided \*\* Utterly meaningless. As late as June 1992 Clinton was at 25%, 3rd behind Bush and Perot. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/230 "2003-12-30T00:15:11Z")
Well put, **rjung**. Alas, in regards to the OP, my opinions would tend to fall much closer to those of **rjung** than the optimistic musings of **Tejota**. While what is perhaps the greatest propaganda machine assembled in a modern democracy has shown signs of not being of unlimited power, I still think it is very much a force to be reckoned with. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > Right. I was asked about Saddam’s chemical munitions. No, you were asked about things he was successfully able to hide from the inspectors, i.e., you were responding to > [@](#): > > It is also historical fact that he proved unable to hide these, even under an inspection regime less rigorous than the one imposed in 2003. Admittedly, my statement was somewhat imprecise in that we had no way of knowing if he was unable to hide everything. But, I think the inspectors were quite confident that while they were there Saddam was not able to get away with much. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > My understanding was that three weapons labs have been discovered to date. Two are the ones the Guardian article is talking about, the other is somewhat under dispute, where the Pentagon and CIA say it is one of those that Powell was talking about, and some officials at the State Department deny. If it is the case that this May 7th story about the supposed weapons truck has held up, why don’t we hear about it and why do later stories like the one I linked to not mention it? And, if it has not held up, why do you continue to talk about “weapons labs” when as if they exist when this is at odds with what the experts have concluded they are? (As near as I can tell, there were never 3, only two, one reported to be found in the May 7th story you mentioned and a second reported to be found in [this](http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/iraqwar/story/0,4395,188744,00.html) May 13th story.) > [@](#): > > I don’t see that betting that Iraq could be conquered quickly enough to prevent wide dissemination of WMDs to terrorists necessarily constitutes treason. YM obviously MV. This has nothing to do with betting how quickly Iraq could be conquerred. It has to do with securing the weapons sites during this process. Do you not see the danger of having any Tom, Dick, and Harry in Iraq who wants to get hold of WMDs having free access to these sites?!? I mean, at least with Saddam we know that he is a megalomaniac who would not easily give up control of his weapons by letting terrorists have them and would at least demand a high price. The same cannot be said for some regular Joe Iraqi (or some Iraqi military folks down in the chain of command) who would probably be willing to sell them at prices that you and I could easily afford. I am truly amazed that more questions are not being asked about our plans and methods for securing these sites. Essentially, it appears (at least in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary) that we were lucky as hell that he did not have WMD because it doesn’t appear that we had the proper plans in place to secure them if he did. This is just bizarre. And, it makes you wonder were we really just that dumb-lucky or was there more than dumb-luck here. I will admit that I don’t have any coherent theory here that makes sense of the situation. But, I think it is imperative that the questions be asked to formulate one. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/231 "2003-12-30T00:16:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Stoid \* > \*\*Utterly meaningless. As late as June 1992 Clinton was at 25%, 3rd behind Bush and Perot. \*\* You must have meant to direct this at the poster who claimed Bush was polling at 44% and using that as proof that he would not be re-elected. Your faith in Bush is admirable. My post was to correct that information with that actual data. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/232 "2003-12-30T00:22:58Z")
Oh, by the way, I noticed that although you have to order the DVD to see “Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War”, the full transcript is available [here](http://www.truthuncovered.com/transcript/index.cfm). Note that you can also download a PDF of the transcript. Having watched it (for free admittedly), I would say that it is worth the $15 to get the DVD. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/233 "2003-12-30T00:47:48Z")
It’s not 44% on the Bush v. Someone question. It’s 44% on the “would you vote to re-elect Bush” question. the '04 election is going to be a referendum on Bush, that’s why it doesn’t matter who the Dem nominee is. and why the only number that matters is his re-elect number. A ‘popular’ president wouldn’t have a reelect number in the mid-forties. That is a serious danger sign for an incumbent. When Dean or Kerry gets a sub-50% number, that’s at least partially due to lack of name recognition. But there is no lack of name recognition for Bush, the number he gets for re-election is firm unless facts on the ground change in his favor in a way that causes people to re-evaluate him. But it’s nearly impossible for that to happen in a positive way at this point. A significant WMD find might in Iraq might do it, but at this late date, people are as likely to believe it’s been planted than found. Capture of Bin Laden might do it, but only if his capture reduces the terror threat. Certainly there is nothing under Bush’s control that would do the job. (Well, he could assinate the Dem candidate, I guess. but not much else would do it). All of the factual trends work against him. Joblessness isn’t going to get any better no matter how good the economy does because of structural changes in job outsourcing. Iraq is not at all under his control, though to a certain extent the media message about it is. The only thing Bush has going for him is a world class PR machine. But if that was enough, then he would be over 50% re-elect RIGHT NOW because the PR machine has been in operation the whole time he was in office. In the end, Bush’s incompetence will be the telling factor. ---
**Author:** ![GoHeels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b3f665/32.png) [@GoHeels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GoHeels)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/234 "2003-12-30T01:29:33Z")
**rjung:** > [@](#): > > While I’d like to believe that, I must point out that there are still plenty of people who are still willing to vote for Bush in 2004. Some because they’re too ignorant to realize they’ve been lied to, and some because they’re simply willing to cook up their own justifications to excuse Bush’s lies. Several examples of folks in these categories continue to pop up in this thread alone, even after being shown repeatedly that they were in the wrong. IMHO, the most damaging trend among the lefties these days is how they are perceived by the middle as smug, shrill, and condescending. The epitome of this perception is found here in this quote by **rjung**. Whether or not this perception is more true than not is debatable, I guess, but I think this perception is held by a sizable portion of the American middle (you know, the people who actually decide these elections). I know it turns me off, and my vote in '04 is still in play. I doubt I’m alone. FWIW. Oh, and **Tejota** , I think you’re underestimating the number of people who will hold their nose and vote for the devil they know over the devil they don’t. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/235 "2003-12-30T01:30:09Z")
Yeah, to get back to the OP. This is something I’ve been meaning to post for a long time, and I was about to do it in this thread, when the outrageousness of this wacky WMD claim sidetracked me. Presidents always, not surprisingly, inherit some economic problem from their predecessor. Carter inherited stagflation, didn’t solve it, and got booted. Reagan inherited the same problem, solved it, and got re-elected. Bush I inherited a large fiscal deficit from Reagan, didn’t solve it, and got booted. Clinton inherited the same problem, solved it, and got re-elected. Bush II inherited a massive current account deficit (see this: [http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/bopbca+1970+2003+0+0+0+290+545++0](http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/bopbca+1970+2003+0+0+0+290+545++0) which rather clearly shows the calamitous change in this account during Clinton’s administration) and so far not only hasn’t solved it but is making it worse. So for Bush II the next year will be a race between [bluesman mode on] economic growth and the payback from it, which is a phrase I picked up from a very savvy and very wealthy financial player during a restricted audience with same [/bluesman mode off]. My realistic bet is that Bush II will win this race. I’m pretty much hoping that he will, actually, because the consequences if he doesn’t will be, well, not pretty for the US. Between this and the potentially dire consequences of failure in Iraq, though, there ain’t much daylight. My kingdom for a President with a brain. Well, my dog, maybe. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/236 "2003-12-30T01:38:05Z")
> [@](#): > > While I’d like to believe that, I must point out that there are still plenty of people who are still willing to vote for Bush in 2004. Some because they’re too ignorant to realize they’ve been lied to, and some because they’re simply willing to cook up their own justifications to excuse Bush’s lies. You forgot a 3rd category, which is, “I would love to vote for someone other than Bush, but I can not bring myself to vote for one of the motley collection of idiots the Democrats are running.” Call it the ‘Gray Davis’ scenario. Hated though Davis was, he got elected again for no reason other than that the Republicans imploded and put up a lightweight against him. There are good, serious people in the Democratic party. But they’re not going to get the nomination. It’ll be Howard Dean, whom Bush is going to beat like a rented mule. I honestly thought Clark was going to step into the ring as the ‘serious’ candidate - support the war, oppose the tactics. Crucify Bush for mendacity in justifying the war, while saying that while HE supports the effort, the decision should have ultimately been with the American people, with straight information. I thought Clark would draw on his military expertise and come up with a solid plan for the war on terror, with detailed descriptions of how Bush is doing it wrong. I thought he’d stand up and pull the party behind him with the Clinton’s backing. THAT candidate could have beaten Bush. Instead, Clark immediately ran off the rails, trying to move to the left of Dean as the anti-war candidate, despite their being lots of documentary evidence that he didn’t believe it. With that footage of him praising Bush from a couple of years ago, he was in a perfect position to say, “I WAS a Bush man, because I supported all of the things he wanted to do. But the way in which he did it forced me away. Now I’m the candidate for picking up the torch and doing it right.” What is it with this gaggle of idiots the Democrats are running? I think it’s a common disease: They all want to do the ultra-hip internet populist thing that has worked so well for Dean, so they’ve surrounded themselves with a bunch of young, energetic Democratic fanatics who are pushing them willy-nilly all over the place. Kerry rides a motorbike onto the _Tonight Show_ set, and then gives an interview where he says that Bush “Fucked it up”? I’m sure that stuff plays great on the Democratic Underground and in college coffee houses, but everyone else just stares and shakes their heads. If Bush wins in 2004 (and he probably will), it’ll be a pretty big indictment of the Democratic party. Here in Canada, we’ve been living under the same thing for a long time - we have a useless, incompetant, arrogant government that keeps getting elected over and over again for no reason other than that the main opposition party is full of idiots. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/237 "2003-12-30T01:42:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > It’s not 44% on the Bush v. Someone question. It’s 44% on the “would you vote to re-elect Bush” question. I still think you’ve got it wrong. If you look at the poll numbers, the 44% (or something close to it) represents those people who will definitely vote for Bush. The others are either planning to vote for a Dem, or are undecided. A lot of people are still undecided. What this means is that Bush has a lock on 44% (or higher, depending on the poll you look at) of the vote as a minimum. There is only upside from there. > [@](#): > > the '04 election is going to be a referendum on Bush, that’s why it doesn’t matter who the Dem nominee is. and why the only number that matters is his re-elect number. > > A ‘popular’ president wouldn’t have a reelect number in the mid-forties. Got some data on past “popular” presidents to support that claim? > [@](#): > > That is a serious danger sign for an incumbent. When Dean or Kerry gets a sub-50% number, that’s at least partially due to lack of name recognition. But there is no lack of name recognition for Bush, the number he gets for re-election is firm unless facts on the ground change in his favor in a way that causes people to re-evaluate him. Correct on name recognition, but again you are misinterpretting the data, assuming that the “undecideds” are certain not to vote for Bush. That is incorrect. > [@](#): > > But it’s nearly impossible for that to happen in a positive way at this point. A significant WMD find might in Iraq might do it, but at this late date, people are as likely to believe it’s been planted than found. Only true of left-wing zealots who won’t vote for Bush anyway. > [@](#): > > Capture of Bin Laden might do it, but only if his capture reduces the terror threat. Wrong again. What matters is whether or not people **feel** safer, and they will if ObL is caught. There is no way to determine if we are or are not actually safer. What will make Americans feel less safe is if there is another major terror attack. Even if things stay the same (ie, no ObL but also no new terror attacks), Americans will **feel** safer and Bush will get the credit for that. > [@](#): > > All of the factual trends work against him. Then why have his poll numbers been trending upwards? > [@](#): > > Joblessness isn’t going to get any better no matter how good the economy does because of structural changes in job outsourcing. BS. [The unemployment rate is already down from its high in early summer.](http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf) Outsourcing has been going on for decades-- there is nothing “structurally” new about this. If you can predict unemployment trends, there is a Nobel Prize in Economics with your name on it just waiting for you to publish your paper. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/238 "2003-12-30T01:44:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*You must have meant to direct this at the poster who claimed Bush was polling at 44% and using that as proof that he would not be re-elected. \*\* It was directed at everyone. Todays’ numbers are meaningless when discussing an election that is nearly a year away. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/239 "2003-12-30T01:46:22Z")
Well, my take on Dean, on the assumption that he gets the nomination and loses, is that he’ll play the Goldwater role. Goldwater didn’t win in '64, of course, but he paved the way for Reagan. In retrospect, Goldwater looked mighty good. (Little known fact: his wife started Planned Parenthood in Arizona. Goldwater himself absolutely detested Jerry Falwell.) Dean, according to what I’ve read and a few posters on this site, is comfortable with the pro-gun set. Allegedly, he’s taken positions since starting his presidential run that’s alienated these people. But the point is, Dean is a lot more moderate than he’s made out to be. But this will only be obvious in retrospect, as it was for Goldwater. If the timeline holds up, watch out in 2020. Hopefully, I’ll live to see it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/240 "2003-12-30T01:48:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GoHeels \* > \*\* > IMHO, the most damaging trend among the lefties these days is how they are perceived by the middle as smug, shrill, and condescending. The epitome of this perception is found here in this quote by **rjung**. > > Whether or not this perception is more true than not is debatable, I guess, but I think this perception is held by a sizable portion of the American middle (you know, the people who actually decide these elections). > > I know it turns me off, and my vote in '04 is still in play. I doubt I’m alone. > > \*\* Please tell me you don’t mean to suggest that you’d base your vote for or against a candidate on your opinion of the people who intend to vote for that candidate? Please? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=13)