No, I found a dozen in less than half an hour’s searching. Do a search on “draft” and “Bush” in GD in 2004 and you get hundreds of hits. I’m sure as hell not going to track down all of them, as at this point I assume that even if I found a hundred you’d just say that’s still not “frequent” enough.
AqA’s point was that many on the left made dire predictions that came to nothing. You questioned that, so in a few minutes I was able to pull up a dozen citations of people saying it and a dozen more suggesting, considering or asking about it.
I have no problem with the “I guess I never noticed those at the time,” explanation. I’m not gonna sit here and get into a semantic hair-slicing contest, though. You can declare yourself the winner there.
First of all, if you look at the posts within their context, even the answers that don’t explicitly mention Bush are talking about him. At least one of the posts I quoted came from a “Bush was elected, now what will he do?” thread. Many of the others were in the context of why we shouldn’t vote for Bush, or why we should vote for Kerry. In other words, there was an implicit assumption that Kerry would be able to find a way out of this situation, and Bush would keep up with his current policies, thus making a draft more and more likely.
And it was certainly brought up more than 6 times in the 18 months prior to the election. I just didn’t think it was worth sorting through hundreds of posts to prove that it was mentioned “frequently,” which is a pretty minor point. If you’re actually curious, I feel pretty confident that there were at least dozens of such mentions. The problem is that I don’t know where the finish line is, and I would hate to spend an hour and find (for example) 30 mentions, only to have you say, “Out of 100,000 posts, 30 is not ‘frequently’.”