# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/141 "2003-12-22T20:49:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Here’s some news you can use, friend: > > There are over a hundred Iraqi weapons dumps that are larger than the island of Manhattan. Uncounted numbers of smaller ones. > > \ > > You want a cite for the stuff I claim to know? I AM the authority here; I am the reference work. You’re not, and unless somebody in the Intelligence Community that I most likely know and have worked with on this problem checks in here, nobody else on the SDMB had my credentials. THAT is a FACT. > > THE ONLY REASON I ever post here is because I KNOW WHAT I KNOW, and the opinions expressed on this narrow subject by others are just that - opinions. And unlike anybody else in here, I cannot get away with proffering up my musings on this subject when I do my job. You think GD is tough with all the “CITE?” posts? Wait until your boss hands you the phone with the words, “It’s CIA, and they want to know how you came to your conclusions.” Happens all the time. It’s the CIA, and they seriously disagree with you on the one solid fact you provided. These 100+ Iraqi conventional munitions dumps bigger than Manhattan? Only if you’re talking about the poster, not the island. [According to the CIA](http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr11282003.html), there are **two** munitions dumps that large in Iraq, not over 100: > [@](#): > > When the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), led by David Kay, issued its interim report in October, acknowledging that it had not found chemical or biological weapons, the inspectors had then visited only ten of the 130 major ammunition depots in Iraq; these ammunition dumps are huge, sometimes five miles by five miles on a side. Two depots alone are roughly the size of Manhattan. Not that searching those sites is trivial, but you see the discrepancy. It’s troubling, because you’re asking people here - including me - to believe you about more serious stuff that we _can’t_ check. And with respect to searching these places: there were those short lists of prospective WMD sites when the war began. There was one list of something like the top 17 prospective WMD sites; another included the top 60-some such sites. These, presumably, were the sites that Task Force 75 and Task Force 20 were supposed to check out. Were these gargantuan conventional munitions dumps on these short lists? It’s hard to envision such large munitions dumps being ‘looted to the ground’ between the time the front lines chased Saddam’s boys away, and the time Task Force 75 got there, 1-4 days later. It just doesn’t square. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/142 "2003-12-22T21:33:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chappachula \* > \*\* > GW has just beaten Saddam–but we are losing soldiers every single day. If the enemy manages some spectacular attack on our soldiers, public opinion could switch fast. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Walloon \* > \*\*The U.S. had combat troops in Vietnam for **nine years** , and the number of U.S. troops killed _every week_ was in the **hundreds**. The U.S. has been in Iraq eight months, and the number of U.S. troops killed every week is in the single digits. \*\* > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chappachula \* > \*\* > That’s why one picture of a soldier dragged through the streets of Somalia can make the US retreat.) > \*\* One factor that makes the casualty number comparisons somewhat odd is the **perceived value of what’s being purchased with the lives of our men and women in uniform**. ---
**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 22, 2003, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/143 "2003-12-22T22:04:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > \*\*One factor that makes the casualty number comparisons somewhat odd is the **perceived value of what’s being purchased with the lives of our men and women in uniform**. \*\* Can you elaborate? I can’t tell which conflict you think was worse. There certainly were grave doubts about “What the hell are we fightin’ for”, to quote Country Joe, back in the 60s. I was a young teenager then, but I remember the protests and general disatisfaction with the Vietman War to be much, much greater than what we are seeing now wrt Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/144 "2003-12-22T22:56:12Z")
Whenever Americans can both understand the goals of _and_ motivations of a foreign, military venture and simultaneously approve of the two, then a signifigant tolerance for casualties will exist. However, when the electorate in general does not understand the goals or motivations of a foreign, military venture, or when it does not approve of what it understands, the tolerance for casualties will small. I think, (possibly incorrectly), that the US electorate perceived the value of what we were purchasing in Viet Nam to be greater than what we purchased in Somalia. I’d even be willing to wager that more than half of Americans couldn’t correctly identify, (on a multiple choice test), the reasons, (expressly, explicitly stated reasons of the Admin or otherwise), why we had those soldiers in Somalia, let alone coherently explain the reasons in their own words. Compared to _my_ perceptions of the country during the “Viet Nam Era,” it seems that Joe Sixpack could _adequately_ express the reasons why we were in Viet Nam. I think that greater understanding of the whys and wherefores increases the electorate’s tolerance for the expenditure of lives. I saw an article somehwere recently that compared the number of people lost by France during WWII with the number of casualties lost by the US and the Coalition. It also compared the tolerance levels of the respective populaces. I also think that the perception of the US’s ability to usefully project power may be exagerated in the eyes of many Americans. I think that this has something to do with the issue @ hand. I don’t think that this perception is as important of an influencing factor. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/145 "2003-12-22T23:21:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SimonX \* > **Whenever Americans can both understand the goals of _and_ motivations of a foreign, military venture and simultaneously approve of the two, then a signifigant tolerance for casualties will exist.** CBS News/New York Times Poll, Dec. 10-13: DID THE U.S. DO THE RIGHT THING IN TAKING MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRAQ? Yes, did the right thing: 63% No, should have stayed out: 31% U.S. TROOPS IN IRAQ SHOULD: Stay until Iraq is stable: 56% Leave as soon as possible: 35% ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/146 "2003-12-23T00:11:47Z")
**Walloon** , Are you trying to say that there’s a low tolerance for casualties despite the “approval ratings” (w/o signifigantly addressing the portion of the sentence that deals with understanding the goals and motivations)? Or Are you saying that there’s high tolerance for casualties and your citing the “approval ratings” as one part in the sylogism that uses my sentence as a premise, (w/o signifigantly addressing the portion of the sentence that deals with understanding the goals and motivations)? Are you trying to say that my statement that you quoted is false or some otherwise inaccurate, or that it’s true and a conclusion can be drawn from it and the poll numbers you presented? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/147 "2003-12-23T13:53:32Z")
[Latest polls show Bush leading ‘unnamed Democrat’ by 50-41.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22493-2003Dec22.html) Again, for emphasis- if even a hypothetical Democrat- one unsullied by real opinions and human flaws- can’t beat Bush, how can one expect the nominee to? Dean would need to grab every possible Democratic-leaning voter, _and_ all of the undecided, and then a few more. I stand by my 56%. ---
**Author:** ![Spurious\_George](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Spurious\_George](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spurious_George)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/148 "2003-12-23T18:45:59Z")
Because “unnamed Democrat” has no face, no headlines with his name in them, no endorsements, no TV commercials. I think you’re reading it the wrong way, **John**. 41% is the starting point for any faceless Democrat, and the number will CLIMB from there as he claims the nomination, trounces Bush in debates, etc. I’m not ready to call the election either way, but I think the popular vote will be 52-48 or closer. ---
**Author:** ![ouisey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/9fc29f/32.png) [@ouisey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouisey)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/149 "2003-12-23T22:47:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > > **Bluesman** , my friend, are you sure you really want to go there? We’ve been back and forth across this ground last spring on this board, including in a thread with your name on it. I know you know a lot of stuff the rest of us don’t, but I’m not sure a security clearance is any better of a trump card now than it was then. \*\* Also, as a former holder of a TS-SCI level III clearance, even I know better than to go around advertising the fact that “I KNOW SOMETHING YOU DON’T KNOW” on message boards. Stupid man, you’ll get your clearance pulled for that shit. And if you don’t, you should. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/150 "2003-12-23T23:30:47Z")
Since I’m thinking about it, here’s a possible tiebreaker bet: What color will the [Threat-O-Meter](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29) be on election day? I call it like this. If Bush is reliably ahead by **John Corrado** ’s 56%, it will be yellow. If it’s a toss-up, orange. If he’s behind 44% to 56%, red. More than 56%, and Look! The Liberals just went and burned the Capitol! ---
**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 23, 2003, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/151 "2003-12-23T23:48:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sofa King \* > Since I’m thinking about it, here’s a possible tiebreaker bet: > > What color will the [Threat-O-Meter](http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29) be on election day? > > I call it like this. If Bush is reliably ahead by **John Corrado** ’s 56%, it will be yellow. If it’s a toss-up, orange. If he’s behind 44% to 56%, red. More than 56%, and Look! The Liberals just went and burned the Capitol! I was thinking about this today as well. I think you have the right general idea, but ain’t no way it’s **ever** going to be red. No way, no how. There would be mass panic thoughout the US with potential paralysis of the economy. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/152 "2003-12-24T01:07:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\*It doesn’t change the fact that the US and its intelligence community could not prove the existence of WMDs when they started the war. \*\* Incorrect. They couldn’t prove it to _you_, in public. Every president and every administration has to put up with this kind of thing because of security concerns with respect to methods, techniques and sources. Make no mistake, Iraq under Saddam was an accident waiting to happen. The UN was either unwilling or unable to effect any serious change in the status quo, and the US just did the dirty deed after 12 years. Let’s just hope it wasn’t too late. ---
**Author:** ![Tedster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/4491bb/32.png) [@Tedster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tedster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/153 "2003-12-24T01:13:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scabpicker \* > \*\*Origianlly Posted by Bluesman: > > I am a civillian … the knowledge that millitary leaders make mistakes, and people die for them was what kept me out of the millitary despite gettng a perfect score on the ASVAB. > \*\* No worries, mate. The military is getting along just fine without you, and your perfect ASVAB score, somehow. Amazing, isn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 8:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/154 "2003-12-24T08:46:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tedster \* > Incorrect. They couldn’t prove it to _you_, in public. They couldn’t prove it to France, Germany, Russia, and several dozen other nations in private, either. > [@](#): > > Make no mistake, Iraq under Saddam was an accident waiting to happen. The UN was either unwilling or unable to effect any serious change in the status quo, and the US just did the dirty deed after 12 years. Let’s just hope it wasn’t too late. Do you have anything useful to bring to this discussion, or are you here merely to regurgitate the Administration’s line? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/155 "2003-12-24T13:46:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spurious George \* > \*\*Because “unnamed Democrat” has no face, no headlines with his name in them, no endorsements, no TV commercials. > > I think you’re reading it the wrong way, **John**. 41% is the starting point for any faceless Democrat, and the number will CLIMB from there as he claims the nomination, trounces Bush in debates, etc.\*\* Ha. No, you see, “unnamed Democrat” means “your favorite Democrat”, which means that if you take all of the _current_ combined support of Dean, Kerry, Clark, Lieberman, etc., all together they still manage to get 41% of the vote to Bush’s 50%. 50% of the American populace would, right now, rather vote for Bush that not merely any Democrat currently running, but instead of any Democrat they currently imagine will run. Once a _specific_ Democrat gets chosen, that level of support will drop. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/156 "2003-12-24T13:53:33Z")
I don’t know, John. If you were to ask me if I were to vote for “any democrat” or “Dean”, my answer would be no for the first… hell, Sharpton? Lieberman? and yes to the second. Personalities win over generalities. ---
**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 24, 2003, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/157 "2003-12-24T16:04:57Z")
In the same poll, Dean loses to Bush 39-61. Given that he is the huge favorite to win the nomination, this is scaring many Democratic leaders, which is why there is so much mud-slinging at Dean right now. The Democrats just don’t get it. They could put up a competitive candidate. I can even tell you what that candidate’s positions would be: 1. Fiscally responsible. Campaigning for reductions in the deficit, without repealing the major parts of the tax cut. Claims that Bush has turned out to be a big-spending politician with no discipline. Promises to bring the Democrats back to the Kennedy model - tough on defense, strong on civil liberties, and willing to engage with the world. 2. Supports war in Iraq, but think it was carried out poorly. Has positive recommendations that make sense for improving situation there. 3. Moves to the right of the President on Homeland security, claiming that what Bush has created is a huge, ineffective bureaucracy. Calls for more empowering of the citizenry, not less. 4. Against the Patriot act, or at least makes noises about the dangers to civil liberty it poses. Perhaps comes up with a new ‘Patriot-lite’ that retains some of the security features, with less intrusiveness. 5. Supports research into stem cells, cloning, nanotech, etc. Says history shows you can’t prevent technology from happening, so the government should embrace it and regulate it to try and curb the most excessive abuses. Says that these technologies are welcome because such research has great promise for the aged, playing into the hands of the baby boom voter. 6. Free, bonus issue - Claims that the government’s pandering to big media is just another corporate handout. Opposes the RIAA’s lawsuits, and wants to form a commission to look at revamping copyright law so that it makes sense in the 21st century. There you go. That guy’s a winner. The closest politician to that guy, by the way, is Hillary Clinton. If she didn’t have such high negatives, she would be by far the Democrat’s best candidate this time around. At this time in America, the Democrats need a Sam Nunn, or someone like that. A moderate, hard-edged Democrat with solid foreign foreign policy and defense credentials. If they nominate a hothead left-wing governor from a small state, they’ll get their asses kicked. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/158 "2003-12-27T04:52:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > PS - I am thoroughly enjoying the wary, proactive weaseling of “even if they find WMD based on Saddam’s information, that doesn’t prove anything”. Keep it up! It gives us a good indication of how Dean is going to try to spin being wrong. > > S. This statement is so amazing that I feel compelled to respond to it even though it was made ~10 days ago (when I was on vacation) and **Simon X** already has. This is just the most amazing re-write of history I have ever seen. The whole premise of this war is that Saddam absolutely had WMDs and that they posed such a significant threat to the U.S. that it was not enough even to have an incredibly intrusive inspection regime in Iraq. Most of us opposing the war never claimed to know whether he had significant stocks of WMDs or not. In fact, if I had had to bet, I would have gone with, “He probably does have some WMDs but I doubt it is as much as has been implied and I don’t believe it poses a significant threat to the U.S.” Unless what we get out of Saddam incredibly alters what we now know, I am left not so much having to explain why I opposed the war but rather having to explain why I was so suckered into believing that Saddam might have had any significant WMDs in the first place. The amazing story of all this is that, on the basis of what we know today, not only do those who supported the war (on the basis of the WMDs reason) have to feel they were lied to and deceived but that even those of us who opposed it feel deceived…i.e., while I knew Bush had a strong history of deception, I still underestimated the amount involved here. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/159 "2003-12-27T05:09:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bluesman_ > Do I know where the WMD went? If I did, I’d be the next SecDef. But they were there, past a doubt. What killed all those Kurds, all those Iranians? He not only HAD 'em, he USED 'em! Surely you are not trying to sell us on the idea that Saddam had in 2003 significant WMDs that were a compelling threat to the U.S. because we know he had them in the late 80s when he used them with hardly an ill word from the U.S. and a hearty handshake from Rumsfeld? We’re not questioning what he had in 1990. We are questioning what he had in 2003. And, by the way, I think we do in fact know what happened to most of those that he had back then. Most were destroyed under the earlier inspection regimes and, for most of any remaining weapons that were not, they would have long since decayed to a state of uselessness. He’d have had to make more. > [@](#): > > You want a cite for the stuff I claim to know? I AM the authority here; I am the reference work. You’re not, and unless somebody in the Intelligence Community that I most likely know and have worked with on this problem checks in here, nobody else on the SDMB had my credentials. THAT is a FACT. It usually helps secure your role as an authority if you occasionally prove to be right on something. And, no, I don’t think having advance word on the Saddam capture counts. We don’t doubt you are who you say you are. We just doubt that your mix of knowledge and opinions about WMDs in Iraq is more believable than others in high positions in the intelligence community, international inspections authority, etc. whose take on all this is much different. And, in that regard, you have been all bluster with no evidence that you are correct now some 9+ months after the fall of the Iraqi regime. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769/160 "2003-12-27T05:41:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > **The whole premise of this war is that Saddam absolutely had WMDs and that they posed such a significant threat to the U.S. that it was not enough even to have an incredibly intrusive inspection regime in Iraq.** Was it that “absolutely” stated? I don’t think so. Go back and read the major speeches. Both President Bush and Secretary of State Powell gave a more nuanced justification. They reported (correctly) that Iraq was known by the United Nations inspectors to have **had** biological weapons, long range missiles, and nuclear weapons development programs. And that despite claims from Iraq that they had discontinued those programs and destroyed the materials, they had not presented convincing evidence of their destruction. See Bush’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September 2002: > [@](#): > > We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? and Colin Powell’s speech to the same in February 2003: > [@](#): > > We haven’t accounted for the anthrax. We haven’t accounted for the botulinum, the VX, bulk biological agents, growth media, 30,000 chemical and biological munitions. These are not trivial matters one can just ignore and walk away from and say, well, maybe the inspectors will find them, maybe they won’t. We have not had a complete, accurate declaration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-betting-on-the-election-can-bush-win/218769.md?page=9)