Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 111
    zouniczounic Posts: 53member
    If he doesn't makes it, he can still try to be elected here in France !

    We've had Mr Le Pen (as the 'fascist' candidat) last year against Chirac, Bush would be a good candidat for the next french elections ;-)



    (Ok fine; that was a private joke...)
  • Reply 22 of 111
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    pfflam:



    Quote:

    everybody seems to assume that because we won fast in the war with Iraq and because Saddam was a bad guy that it was a good idea . . . despite the fact that it was founded on patent lies



    Everybody?

    exaggerate much?



    And beside that, liberation isn't worthy? I don't think I want your type in power.



    Quote:

    And what about this reconstruction or the rehabilitation of Afghanistan

    these are real issues that are merely growing daily




    It's an issue, but it's not a strong one for the Democrats.



    Quote:

    and by the way grover . . . . hasn't there been a strange rise in global terrorism lately?!?!?!?!

    any connections o our brilliantly subtle and nuanced foriegn diplomacy?!?!?!?!




    Lots of puncuation marks make lame and ambiguous arguments strong and clear.



    A strange rise? No. How short memories are, it's like there was never terrorism before.



    Quote:

    The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country



    A card-carrying member of the Drama Queen Party.



    You're talking to groverat here, pfflam, emotional politik ranting will get you nowhere. Use some logic and take a reasonable tone. Or I will eat your face off.
  • Reply 23 of 111
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    groverat That was great stuff!







    Fellowship
  • Reply 24 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    . Use some logic and take a reasonable tone. Or I will eat your face off.



    You won't eat my face off . . .



    but you will regress to comments about punctuations marks and ad hominem attacks
  • Reply 25 of 111
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    SJO, Al Sharpton's problem isn't that he's black--it's that he is AL SHARPTON.
  • Reply 26 of 111
    fellowshipfellowship Posts: 5,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mrmister

    SJO, Al Sharpton's problem isn't that he's black--it's that he is AL SHARPTON.



    No KIDDING!



    I would love to see an African American as President but never Al Sharpton.



    Fellowship
  • Reply 27 of 111
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    As long as he keeps America's guns blazing at reasonably frequent intervals, Bush will win. I am feeling pessimistic tonight, but I think that base human instincts have changed little: providing that there is at least an aura of victory, WAR SELLS TO THE PUBLIC. I am willing to believe that war will even trump the economy as an issue, as indeed it has done, so far, in the opinion polls. And keep in mind that the "War Against Terrorism" has been sold as an endless war.
  • Reply 28 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member




    This is rich.





    " The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country"





  • Reply 29 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    This one's just too stupid for words.



    Earth to SDW, Earth to SDW..........
  • Reply 30 of 111
    screedscreed Posts: 1,077member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook

    No KIDDING!



    I would love to see an African American as President but never Al Sharpton.



    Fellowship




    Dennis Haybert for President!!



    Screed
  • Reply 31 of 111
    agent302agent302 Posts: 974member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tmp

    I can't really see him taking California.



    Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner.



    2000 Presidential Election Results in California:



    Bush/Cheney: 4,567,429

    Gore/Lieberman: 5,861,203



    That, I have to say, is a large vote differential that is not going to be easily overcome.



    Edit: And even if, by some miracle, Bush wom all 50 states, he still wouldn't get all the electoral votes because he won't win DC. Gore got 85% of the vote in DC.
  • Reply 32 of 111
    I don't think there is really any way he can Washington either. The left is annoyed and energized by most everything he has done and they are stronger than the right in this state anway recently. Beyond that he lost any chance at catching the center of our state with weak support in 2002 for unemployment benefits and the situation with Boeing's commercial aircraft business going in the shitter post-9/11 which has been dragging down the whole regional economy. Not visiting during his term probably hasn't helped him either, he'll get hammered for ignoring the state.



    He won't win Massachusetts. Pretty much all of the Eastern seaboard from Maryland North will still be tough. I doubt he can win Hawaii even in a best case for Bush scenario either. I kind of doubt that he can win Oregon either even though Oregon was pretty close. Libertarian plays better than religious conservative there and he's not really too much of the former. I suppose it could depend on Nader again but I think Nader is dead.



    New York I dunno about, normally I would think not but maybe 9/11 will carry votes to an extent in that state that it won't elsewhere. I don't have a good sense of how that will come into play there.



    I dunno about pfflam's statement about the politics of Wisconsin and Minnesota. While that was historically true, I'm not sure it is really true anymore. Wouldn't be a surprise at all if both of those states went to Bush even in a fairly close election. Both were real close in 2000 IIRC.



    Of course, just by virtue of being a Republican in a presidential election he can pretty much chalk up Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, Kansas, and Idaho. Even if the economy worsened he would still win at least those states in a worst case scenario.
  • Reply 33 of 111
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath

    New York I dunno about, normally I would think not but maybe 9/11 will carry votes to an extent in that state that it won't elsewhere. I don't have a good sense of how that will come into play there.



    That's a good point, but my feeling has been that 9/11 won't translate into support for Bush's re-election, so long as the Dem nominee is reasonably hawkish. I left a lot of family and friends back there (LI, NYC). They generally still dislike and are frightened by Bush, but they grimly support his proactiveness in foreign policy. It shouldn't be hard to assure them they can get the latter without the former. I think someone like Lieberman could win NY in a landslide.
  • Reply 34 of 111
    I think it's a shame if this is true:



    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have



    Or rather, it's the Democrats' fault if they don't make an issue of the environment, the role of the United States in international affairs and the question of export subsidies and aid.



    If these aren't issues, either the Democrats are incompetent or the right wing has a very hard grip indeed on the American body politic.
  • Reply 35 of 111
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    what we need is some sort of state mandering...



    With the republicans in control of both the senate and the house they can just start redrawing the states so that Georgy Porgy can win all 50 and their power is maintained. Once King George VI becomes crowned by the incumbant Palimentaries, the US can abandon its feigned republican democracy and give the sun king his dues. Long live the bush dynasty. To King George and Princess Barbara...
  • Reply 36 of 111
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    You can dew eet!



  • Reply 37 of 111
    Quote:

    Or rather, it's the Democrats' fault if they don't make an issue of the environment, the role of the United States in international affairs and the question of export subsidies and aid.



    This sounds very much like a platform that could successfully defeat Bush if he were running in Europe. I suppose "defeat Bush" and "if he were running in Europe" is perhaps redundant but nevertheless there it is. It is not surprising that a European like yourself might mention the American issues which Europeans care about but they aren't the ones that most Americans care about in a presidential election. This platform would have little traction in the US.



    The environment is all fine and dandy but you can find just as many Americans who loathe what the perceive as the big govt regulation of the environment as you can find people who would cast a vote mainly on the environment. And the Europress may not have pointed this out but in case you were wondering I should mention that even if someone else were president Kyoto would be dead to the Senate. It never was a US political issue on which people would vote anyway. There might be some isolated political issues that really grab people like the Klamath Basin water uproar but those are mostly regional/local issues that don't resonate nationally.



    As for the role in US affairs, which of Bush's actions do you think the American public didn't support? The heavy handed tactics of executing his policy causes some unease but only with people who would not vote for him anyway. The Afghanistan war is a no-brainer. Iraq was supported by 75% of the US. You can find a number of people including myself, many of them moderate by US standards who think that the UN is a worthless cabal of third world dictators and handwringing Europeans who join together to glorify beaurocracy. US military presense abroad is not controversial or even an issue. War on terror is scoring points for the Shrubbery. I'm sure there are some other things to talk about here but you must of course remember that Bush's foreign policy is fairly popular in the US.



    As for export subsidies and trade and such, what? Steel will play well in Pennsylvania which was the main of that anyway. I doubt that Bush will win British Columbia with the soft lumber situation but that's probably OK with him since BC has the same number of electoral votes as Jacques Chirac. Farm stuffs, we love our farm stuffs. Glory be to the voters in Iowa, Minnesota and the holy goats. Corporate Shelters? Pshaw. No one is gonna vote for someone else cause he didn't forgive Eritrea's debt or something.



    I don't see anything in what you listed that would get anyone anywhere. Economy, Social Security, Medicare, Prescription Drugs and Education will probably be the main issues as always.



    Quote:

    If these aren't issues, either the Democrats are incompetent or the right wing has a very hard grip indeed on the American body politic.



    This should not be an "or" statement but rather an "and" statement since both are true.
  • Reply 38 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    Colander:



    That was an excellent post. In all seriousness, I really enjoyed reading it. Sadly others cannot separate their personal feelings from fact.



    And on the facts, I agree with you 100%. Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole. The other issues aren't viable in a national election...that was dead on!!! Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Those are the facts.



    In this thread I am primarily interested in facts. This will not be 1992 all over again. There are simply too many variables. There is no Ross Perot, the economy is a different point in the cycle than 1992, there is no viable democratic candidate, Bush has CUT, not raised taxes (twice actually), he has strength to a majority of Americans as a war leader and leader during 9/11's aftermath. Most importantly, one can assume Bush knows his father's campaign was ridiculously bad and over confident. It is said that Bush constantly looks at the picture of John Quincy Adams...the one term President many years ago. He is also fond of history. I can't believe he would be overconfident. All signs point to him running a word-class campaign. His image makers, as I said, seem to be terrific.



    The only issue is the economy. It is the one weakness he has, unless it improves. That being said, it's also not as bad as in 1992. The numbers don't lie.
  • Reply 39 of 111
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Colander:



    That was an excellent post. In all seriousness, I really enjoyed reading it. Sadly others cannot separate their personal feelings from fact.



    And on the facts, I agree with you 100%. Bush foreign policy is very popular on the whole. The other issues aren't viable in a national election...that was dead on!!! Perhaps they should be, but they aren't. Those are the facts.



    In this thread I am primarily interested in facts. This will not be 1992 all over again. There are simply too many variables. There is no Ross Perot, the economy is a different point in the cycle than 1992, there is no viable democratic candidate, Bush has CUT, not raised taxes (twice actually), he has strength to a majority of Americans as a war leader and leader during 9/11's aftermath. Most importantly, one can assume Bush knows his father's campaign was ridiculously bad and over confident. It is said that Bush constantly looks at the picture of John Quincy Adams...the one term President many years ago. He is also fond of history. I can't believe he would be overconfident. All signs point to him running a word-class campaign. His image makers, as I said, seem to be terrific.



    The only issue is the economy. It is the one weakness he has, unless it improves. That being said, it's also not as bad as in 1992. The numbers don't lie.




    What's the title of your next thread? Oh wait! I know " REPUBLICANS TAKE CONTROL OF THE UNIVERSE IN 2008 ".
  • Reply 40 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,037member
    Good one, jimmac.



    Some others:







    All Democrats resign in 2004



    Clinton admits he knows what the definition of "is", is



    Jimmac votes republican after hell freezes over



    Democrats support national defense
Sign In or Register to comment.