Discuss: Bush Wins all 50 states in 2004

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
[flame suit on]



As insane I am about to be called, I still think this could happen. No, it's not just wishful thinking. With the electoral college and it's winner-take-all system, it could happen. Reagan won 49 in 1984. It's not impossible.



Here is the question: IF the economy is strong by election day, could Bush win all 50 states (but lose the District of Columbia)?







[another flame suit put on]



[coats self in asbestos]



[stands in tank of water]
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 111
    tmptmp Posts: 601member
    I can't really see him taking California.
  • Reply 2 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    luckily people ae not all dupes, Pink Boys or mediocretins . . . .no he won't win every state . . . .some pople see through the wall of lies attitude and bullsht
  • Reply 3 of 111
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Its quite possible that this may just happen. The new electronic voting machines are manufactured by the Diebold Corporation. Whoever writes the software has a potential say in the way elections are handled (read rigged). With electronic voting machines there is no paper trail...just the perfect way to rig elections.



    Quote:

    from journalist Lynn Landes:



    ES&S, the largest voting machine company in America, claims to have counted 56% of the vote in the last four presidential elections. Again, it's owned by the

    ultra-conservative Omaha World-Herald Company, the McCarthy Group, and former owners of Business Records Corporation. ES&S was created from a merger

    between American Information Systems (AIS) and Business Records Corporation. Bob and Todd Urosevich founded AIS in the 1980's. Bob is now president of

    Diebold-Global, while brother Todd is a vice president at ES&S. Business Records Corp. was partially owned by Cronus, a company that seems to have a lot of

    connections to the notorious Hunt brothers from Texas, as well as other individuals and entities, including_ Rothschild, Inc.. Right wing Republicans Howard Ahmanson

    (who financed AIS) and Nelson Bunker Hunt have both heavily contributed to The Chalcedon Institute, an organization that mandates Christian "dominion" over the

    world.



    Sequoia Voting Systems appears to be the second largest voting machine company, accounting for about 1/3 of the voting machine market. As of May 2002, Sequoia was

    purchased by Great Britain's De La Rue from Ireland's Jefferson Smurfit Group, who retain a 15% share. Smurfit was just bought by Madison Dearborn Partners, a

    private equity investment firm. De La Rue owns 20% of the Great Britain's national lottery. In 1995 the Security and Exchange Commission filed charges against four

    employees of Sequoia, alleging that they inflated revenue and pre-tax profits. In 1999 the Justice Department filed federal charges against employees of Sequoia alleging

    that during a 10-year period $8 million in bribes were paid out. Louisiana's Commissioner of Elections Jerry Fowler had run up some big gambling debts in Atlantic City,

    according to reporter Daniel Hopsicker. In all, 22 people were indicted, 9 plead guilty. Fowler went to jail, but big fish Pasquale "Rocco" Ricci of New Jersey got one

    year of home detention.



    Advanced Voting Solutions is the new name of another scandal-ridden voting company, Shoup Voting Solutions. Their current top management, Howard Van Pelt and

    Larry Ensminger, were executives for Diebold-Global until late last year. Officers of Shoup Voting Machine Co. were indicted for allegedly bribing politicians in Tampa,

    Florida in 1971, according to the San Francisco Business Times. Ransom Shoup was convicted in 1979 of conspiracy and obstruction of justice related to an FBI inquiry

    into a lever machine-counted election in Philadelphia._ Shoup got a three-year suspended sentence. Meanwhile, Philadelphia has bought new voting machines from

    Danaher-Guardian, which appears to only sell voting machines formerly known as the_ "Shouptronic."_



    Danaher-Guardian is owned by billionaire brothers Steven M. and Mitchell P. Rales, who were described by columnist Jack Anderson in 1988 as "a pair of corporate

    raiders out of Washington DC." Again, Danaher-Guardian appears to only sell formerly Shouptronic voting machines .......



    More at:

    http://prorev.com/votecount.htm

    http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachineCompanies.htm

    http://www.securepoll.com/Archives/Archive37.htm

    http://www.washtimes.com/business/20021107-73408676.htm
  • Reply 4 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record.
  • Reply 5 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record.



    what did you expect seeing how the topic was fairly absurd as it is?
  • Reply 6 of 111
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    Wow. The thread has degenerated into absurdity in only 3 follow-up posts! That has to be a record.



    The thread wasn't absurd with the first post?



    I feel like we've all just walked into SDW's private fantasy.
  • Reply 7 of 111
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    The thread wasn't absurd with the first post?



    I feel like we've all just walked into SDW's private fantasy.




    i thought that was his deck.
  • Reply 8 of 111
    thuh freakthuh freak Posts: 2,664member
    i dont think he will win every state. i wsan't conscious around reagan, so i missed out on his winning 49 states, or what led to that. bush hsan't done that good, i dont think. the main thing he's done, is the war in iraq. and i, and far too many americans, have problems with that war. the only way i see him getting such an overwhelming amount of electoral college is if the democrats dont put up a strong enough candidate, or if the independants get more votes than usual.
  • Reply 9 of 111
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,038member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by thuh Freak

    i dont think he will win every state. i wsan't conscious around reagan, so i missed out on his winning 49 states, or what led to that. bush hsan't done that good, i dont think. the main thing he's done, is the war in iraq. and i, and far too many americans, have problems with that war. the only way i see him getting such an overwhelming amount of electoral college is if the democrats dont put up a strong enough candidate, or if the independants get more votes than usual.





    BTW, the deck pictures were put up there for the people that sold me the wood....who happen to be friends/associates of my Dad (they wanted pictures) I just never got around to taking them down....



    Fantasy? Not really. I just think it could happen. Notice I said "IF the economy improves...". thuh freak mentions the democrats not putting a strong enough candidate up....



    Does anyone mean to tell me that the Democrats HAVE a strong candidate? One of the reasons I think it's possible is this one! Here's my reasoning:



    1) If the economy improves, it will take a major issue away from the Democrats...if not the only one.



    2) Their candidates are extremely weak this time.



    3) Bush is seen as a strong leader by many because of 9/11, Iraq.



    4) If #1 occurs, Bush's tax cut will be seen as the reason (whether you think it is or not....it will be seen that way).



    5) Bush's popularity has not fallen below 50% since his election. This includes times before 9/11.



    6) Bush's image makers are better than even Reagan's were. The people coordinating and choreographing his appearances are masterful.



    7) Bush will raise, perhaps, DOUBLE the money of his opponent.



    8 ) He will not have to spend a lot during the primary phase, whereas the Dems will be ripping each other's guts out and depleting their war chests.



    9) He has learned from his father's lousy reelection campaign. He'll run a world-class campaign with the full advantage of incumbency.



    10) Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is a genius.
  • Reply 10 of 111
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have, and luckily for them there is no stronger or more dominant issue than the economy.
  • Reply 11 of 111
    mrmistermrmister Posts: 1,095member
    It's kind of a silly question--the answer is obfviously "MAYBE", with a lot of time needed to see how it turns out.
  • Reply 12 of 111
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    do you really want to see bush with that sort of "mandate"? he is already power hungry as is...
  • Reply 13 of 111
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    [Here's my reasoning:



    1) If the economy improves, it will take a major issue away from the Democrats...if not the only one.



    A major issue...but not the only one.



    Quote:

    2) Their candidates are extremely weak this time.



    Agreed, they *are* weak. Why are they weak? The better known ones (Liebermann etc) are pretty much "republican lite" and have all but abandoned the traditional democratic voter base. Th traditional democrats (Kucinich etc) are pretty much unknown, they are being ignored by the media and will never get the kind of funding it requires to buy the exposure. Al Sharpton is black. A black president? Thats fine, but a total no-no most of "Middle America"..



    Quote:

    3) Bush is seen as a strong leader by many because of 9/11, Iraq.



    Despite Fox and Clear Channel and the corporate media, you can fool some of the public all of the time, but not all of the public, all of the time. Bush is seen as a "strong leader" because thats the way the US media has been portraying him, and some 65% have been blinded to reality. 35% of the the rest of the US people, (despite the media's "tongue up Bush's ass" alignment), and 80% of the rest of the world see Bush and this administration as an unmitigated disaster and a huge setback to any value that is remotely civilized. The Iraq war has been regarded in many countries as nothing better than a hugely expensive act of international terrorism, supported and "justified" by lies and foreign policy gone beserk. The US majority may just wake up before November 2004.



    Quote:

    4) If #1 occurs, Bush's tax cut will be seen as the reason (whether you think it is or not....it will be seen that way).



    For most people that tax cut isn't worth squat....specially for the 2.5 million people who have lost their jobs since Bush arrived in the White House.



    Quote:

    5) Bush's popularity has not fallen below 50% since his election. This includes times before 9/11.



    Daddy Bush's popularity was around 90% in the wake of the Gulf war. He lost the 1992 election.



    Quote:

    6) Bush's image makers are better than even Reagan's were. The people coordinating and choreographing his appearances are masterful.



    Agreed. They have to be! Bush's entire presidency is devoid of ethics, substance (and legality). Image and marketing, for this White House crew is everything, just like a prepackaged baby formula pop-group for young pre-teens.



    Quote:

    7) Bush will raise, perhaps, DOUBLE the money of his opponent.



    Now we're talking. It's all about who can afford to purchase the "presidency". Who said it's "The best democracy that money can buy"?



    Quote:

    8 ) He will not have to spend a lot during the primary phase, whereas the Dems will be ripping each other's guts out and depleting their war chests.



    See above.



    Quote:

    9) He has learned from his father's lousy reelection campaign. He'll run a world-class campaign with the full advantage of incumbency.



    Don't forget the support of the media...thats essential to a successful election campaign.



    Quote:

    10) Love him or hate him, Karl Rove is a genius. [/B]



    I agree...genius he is. What a shame that he's an ethical dwarf.
  • Reply 14 of 111
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    I just don't see Bush taking states like CA, WA, NY, MA, no matter how good the economy is or how terrible the Democratic candiate is. Too many people dislike Bush on general principles for him to win a Reaganesque landslide. Ironically, not so different from his immediate predecessor.
  • Reply 15 of 111
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Dean in 2004.
  • Reply 16 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    The economy is the only issue the Democrats really have,



    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



    And what about this reconstruction or the rehabilitation of Afghanistan

    these are real issues that are merely growing daily



    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?!?!?!?!



    The economy is the tip of the iceberg . . . Bush is and has always been a calamity for this country
  • Reply 17 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by groverat

    Dean in 2004.



    Yeah . . . Im all for that
  • Reply 18 of 111
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Bush: The End of the Republic...and the Rise of Empire. Hail!
  • Reply 19 of 111
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Towel

    I just don't see Bush taking states like CA, WA, NY, MA, no matter how good the economy is or how terrible the Democratic candiate is. Too many people dislike Bush on general principles for him to win a Reaganesque landslide. Ironically, not so different from his immediate predecessor.



    Don't forget MN and WI - very liberal midwest states full of farmers . . . proving that not all farmers buy the image lie of corporate-conservatism as some down-home goodness value politics
  • Reply 20 of 111
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Anyone see the creepy smile contest on the Daily Show with the Democratic candidates?
Sign In or Register to comment.