What's the betting on the election - can Bush win?

Great Debates
61

Sorry, but that’s not how it works in my book. Bush didn’t do the footwork to find where Hussein was, and Bush certainly wasn’t on the ground risking his skin to go in and get him. The people who did those things are the ones who get the credit for Hussein’s capture, as far as I’m concerned.

Sam, aren’t you one of the ones who says that we shouldn’t criticize Bush about the economy, because Presidents don’t have that level of control? I agree, and I say it’s the same deal here. (And if you’re not one of the ones who made that argument, my apologies in advance.)

Credit where credit is due is what I say. Bush gave an order. Others did the work to carry it out. Which do you think deserves more credit? Which was more demanding?

62

Oh no, I definitely said that. Actually, I said that there’s a little a president can do to make an economy better (at most a couple of percentage points of growth in the short-term through borrowing), but lots they can do to screw things up.

But that argument has nothing to do with whether Bush deserves credit for this. Presidents can do little with the economy simply because they control such a small part of it, and most of the money the government takes in and spends is mandatory entitlement spending. The most a President has to play with is 1-2% of the economy. Long-range tax cuts give them a little more leverage, and so does deficit spending. But eventually, that has to be paid.

But in the case of Iraq, this is Bush’s war. He called it, he fought for it, he refused to quit when the U.N. stood against him. His political neck is out a mile on this, and he knows it.

He deserves credit in exactly the same way that Kennedy deserves credit for winning the Cuban Missile Crisis, even though it was the guys on the ships who actually faced down the Soviet navy.

63

Origianlly Posted by Bluesman:

I am a civillian, my father was in the millitary and was an armchair general for years. 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. Let’s say that I have read accounts of real feats of arms. The Prez you adore is a civillian, and all commanders ever in the U.S. millitary have been under the scrutiny of the same office, always occupied by a civillian.

Umm, I think that given the resource and morale advantage that the U.S. had versus Iraq, the situation that the U.S. command calls a victory is still underwhelming. No one ever anticipated Saddam’s regime holding out for long. Granted, massive casualties were feared, but they were avioded by no WMD being available to the Iraqis, not by any particular millitary brilliance on the part of the U.S. command. Not securing the U.S. supply lines would have been suicide if they truly had a dangerous enemy. They did well, they were expected to, but Termopylae it was not.

As to your security clearance, I doubt that yours is real, considering your behavior on this board. People who have such things rarely blab at all, much less to complete strangers. My father-in-law has one, and I probe him often, about subjects much more innocuous than this one, and I never get a shred. If you have one, please do your job and keep quiet.

64

Bush is not a lock for election in 2004. Of course, neither is anyone else; it’s still far too early to say. I never believed Bush would be invincible, and I maintain that he’s not.

The economy seems to be improving right now, but the fact remains that many people are still out of work, and the ones without jobs don’t feel the benefits of their former employer’s reported second-quarter profits. The economy could still be in trouble, despite the stock market’s having broken 10,000 on Thursday. Has anyone looked at the real estate market? Talk about your bubbles waiting to burst! There’s an awful lot to look at. If this economic uptick turns out to be a jobless recovery, it’s not going to do much for Bush.

Saddam Hussein was captured yesterday, as we all know, but I don’t think that’s going to matter too much. The United States might find itself in an awkward postition, too: Saddam was a bad man, but what are we going to charge him with? He committed no crimes against the United States. Against his own people, yes, but not against the United States. He belongs more in an international court of law, or the United Nations; otherwise, what are we going to charge him with? This could hamstring Bush, whom I’m sure would be far better off politically if Saddam had been found dead. Worse for Bush, with Saddam out of the way, the pressure’s going to be on for him to show that his Iraq plan is working. Previously it was far too easy to pin all the blame on Saddam’s running around. How does Bush explain this now? Seventeen dead in a suicide bombing… I’m not so sure Iraq’s going to calm down any time soon.

And, as others have pointed out on this thread and in countless other places, the capture of Saddam does not justify this war retroactively, and if we were to find weapons of mass destruction in ungodly quantites tomorrow, it still wouldn’t justify it. Bush told us that his intelligence sources “knew” where the weapons were, and just what they had. He even talked about what he called Saddam’s “Nucular Jihad” in Iraq, but we all know that that was a lie. A lie! There’s no window dressing there! He said this program was known to exist and even named it for the public, and it was a lie! Bush lied to get us into war, and he hasn’t managed to find a legitimate way to cover it up! It’s simple: Bush said he knew where the weapons were, but no such weapons existed, so he lied. Case closed. Bush lied. Even I’m surprised that we haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction yet.

We’ll see what happens in November. Right now, the smart money’s not betting at all. The fact remains, though, that Bush is one of the weakest incumbent presidents we’ve had in a long time. So many Democrats wouldn’t have staked their current offices on running against him if they didn’t think so, either.

The Republicans aren’t doing as well as they were expected to in the Senate. I suspect the Republicans will get a net gain of perhaps two seats, but again, that depends much on the mood of the country. While they’re certain to pick up Georgia and almost definitely going to take South Carolina, they’re in big trouble in Illinois and will probably lose Alaska. (I’m talking Senate seats here, not electoral votes!) The Republicans have failed to field good candidates in races where they could have done well: Nevada, Washington, Arkansas, Illinois, Oregon, and Wisconsin, for example. The Democrats haven’t done such a great recruiting job, either, but luck is with them. While they could have trouble due to John Breaux’s (D-LA) retirement, the retirement of Don Nickles (R-OK) puts them in a good spot to pick up Oklahoma. John Edwards’ retirement has left North Carolina open, but at the moment, that’s a toss-up. So’s Florida, with Bob Graham’s retirement leaving his seat open. Pennsylvania will remain Republican if Arlen Specter isn’t beaten in the Republican primary challenge from Representative Pat Toomey. If it’s Specter versus Democrat Hoeffel, my money’s on Specter. If it’s Toomey versus Hoeffel… there’s a Democratic pickup for you.

The House is overdue to flip Democratic, and if the Supreme Court tosses out the redistricting plans by Republicans in Colorado and Texas, 2004 could be the year the Democrats get the House back. Odds are against it, but not by much. Expect Democratic pickups in New Mexico and Iowa, possibly Colorado, South Dakota and Washington. And other places. Again, this all depends on the mood of the country. Plus, if the Democrats make a concerted effort to take the House, I’m sure they could do it. I’m not sure they’ll try, though. But I don’t think it could happen if the Democrats don’t try—unless there’s a sudden surge in Republican-hating among the general populace, and I don’t see that happening.

Saddam has been captured—but I don’t think that’ll translate into an electoral boost for Bush. And remember in 2000 how everyone said the booming economy would make Al Gore undefeatable? Okay, Al Gore did win, sure, but it was awfully close—close enough to prove that a humming economy doesn’t always mean you’re a sure-fire winner.

Hopefully the winner of the 2004 contest won’t have to run to the Supreme Court to short-circuit the Twelfth Amendment in order to snatch the office, like what happened in 2000 (and 1876.) At any rate, it’s likely to be a close election, and one that the Democrats could very well take—or Bush. No one should go counting chickens quite yet.

65

I too am happy that they caught Saddam Hussain. Hopefully this will mark the beginning of starting a government in Iraq, and bringing the troops back to the USA beginning next year.

Dean will not be the nominee. The party insiders don’t want him. They know that he cannot win. He’s from a tiny state (smaller than the population of Memphis, Tn.), has supported gay marriage, has flipped on many of his views, and does very poorly when confronted with difficult questions (Tim Russart interview a good example). On top of that, he is the anti-Clinton candidate.

Watch Wesley Clark come out kicking ass after NH. This is Clinton’s candidate. He’s from the south, military man, very intellegent and looks good on TV. Let Clark run with a moderate mid-western overnor like Tom Vilsack from Iowa, and you will have a competitive race, BUT, the General is going to owe the Clinton apparatus big, so-------------------->

The Clinton machine is going to stick Hillary in there as a Vice Presidential nominee. The Clinton machine wants HER to run in 2008, after Clark loses a competitive race. Gore, who loathes the Clinton’s is backing Dean, so he can inherit Dean’s support when Dean loses.

It will be the General vs. Dean, either candidate will lose, and Hillary and Al will pick up the pieces in 2008. By then, the USA will want a change of party again and the Donkey’s will have the upper hand.

ET

66

Cite? Story I heard was that from the day the Vermont courts ruled the government couldn’t discriminate against homosexual couples Dean said he would support civil unions only not marriage for gays. And that he signed the eventual bill with as little fanfare as possible. In a basement. This looks like Republican propaganda to me.

And why would Hillary Clinton want to be Vice President? The VP is a place holder. She has more power as a Senator and she hardly needs the publicity that comes with being the running mate.

67

Well, to my mind, there’s a big difference between putting one’s “political neck” on the line, and risking one’s actual neck in the field.

YMMV. shrugs

68

His is real. He gave no details that were not otherwise available through normal public channels. He implied something big and positive was going to be made public from the Iraqi arena that would be positive for Bush. Your father-in-law may not wish to tell you anything classified for other reasons, but you may look long and hard at all of Bluesman’s posts, and if you can show me classified information that he shared inappropriately, I will buy you a cookie.

69

Yeah, his classification is real. I’ll assert that.

Though given how much me and mine try to get stuff out of SOCOM (I currently work for a pub specializing in SPECOPS) I’m always surprised by how much he talks about what he does. They’re a closed-mouth group down there.

70

Congratulations on a hell of a piece of work. Well done.

My nephew just deployed to Iraq about two weeks back, in Special Forces. Suddenly, Saddam gets nabbed.

Coincidence? I think not!

Regards,
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.

71

Howzabout a video montage of Tighty Righties shreiking in Highest Dudgeon “He lied to the American people! He LIED to the American people! He must be impeached!..”

You see, you can bet all your money in five card draw, that you can draw three cards to an inside straight flush. That’s stupid. Drawing those three cards doesn’t make you smart. It means you’re lucky. They have a special name for people who rely on luck like that. They’re called “losers”.

72

I still think Bush is looking good for Loserdom. His policies and actions, governing from the far right after being elected as center right, will impose a lot of, shall we say, electoral discipline on Dem voters. His record on the environment is ABYSMAL, and a lot of people care about the environment. The conservative econ guys all talk about how the jobless recovery will become a jobFUL recovery prior to the election, but I’ve read several less partisan economists who say that increases in productivity and outsourcing are likely to keep the recovery jobless for an indeterminate time.

Look, it’s nice that our boys are getting lots of exercise and fresh air over there in Iraq, but back home, people are hurting. Their loseing their homes, their life savings, their ability to stay healthy along with their jobs, and it doesn’t just affect them, it affects their friends and relatives. We’ve all heard of the multiplier effect when a new company moves into town, well, there’s also a multiplier effect on the individual level when someone stays unemployed for a long time, or loses a good-paying job and has to work at a low-paying job instead.

Bush is very vulnerable, if the Dems play their cards right. I just don’t know if they have sense enough to do so. The Clintonistas have so thoroughly bought into the Pubbie line that they probably don’t even think of joblessness as a problem.

73

There is a sizable number of people who’re against the war and yet believed that Hussein did have banned weapons.

The idea that there weren’t any to begin with is a recent development.

There’re other reasons to oppose the invasion than just the idea that Hussein didn’t have banned weapons.

I will be very surprised if Bush doesn’t win.

74

And to think you got only even money!

:smiley:

75

I knew this was going to be a shot at me when I saw your name, Bricker!

I knew it!

FWIW…the line today is at 3-1.

But it’s still early…it’s not even halftime.

76

Referring more to the OP … the democrats are certainly looking very divided and confused. Easy picking for humorists. Its not so much that people really beleive Bush is unbeatable… but that the democrats are doing a poor job of getting their act together.

The closer we get to the election and the more chinks in Bush's armor will show that the Democrats will get their act together sensing a better chance of winning the election.
77

As far as “war chests” are concerned, a lot of Democratic money is being held back until the party produces a nominee. Then watch the flood gates open.

78

Bush really should be embarrassed to ride the coattails of our military, given his personal history (AWOL from his national guard unit during Vietnam). And our military should be resentful of Bush shamelessly basking in its glory.

79

Should? According to whom? From what I’ve seen, most of the military strongly supports Bush. Do you think they are just stupid?

80

My brother (active duty reservist, technical sarge) says that the guys he knows really don’t talk politics too much, but they support Bush generally. They know that he went AWOL and all but he’s still a fighter pilot, and like somebody here once said, they don’t let you fly one of those machines if you’re a hopeless moron no matter WHO your daddy is. There’s still lingering Clinton “draft-dodging” resentment, something which will dog Dean even more. I’ll ask him if there’s any talk about Clark next time I see him, but I doubt it. They’re typical Americans in that it’s too early for them to be thinking about the election just yet.

Hee hee–the Daily Show’s coverage of the adventures of the Dem contender is called, complete with patriotic music and banners and all, “Race from the White House”.