Predictions for Election 2004?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-12 08:47am

So, what are your predictions?

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-12 08:49am

My personal opinion is that after Iraq, how no one's predictions after huge casualties and a drawn out battle in Baghdad never played out, I am going that Bush wins by a fairly large margin. He has something like 65% of the country backing him right now, iirc.

But, you never know.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-12 11:48am

Unless Bush manages to completely fuck up the Iraq reconstruction (still possible, but he could just as easily start bombing Syria to get our minds off it if he botches), he's got the election in the bag. The Democrats have turned into a bunch of pussies with no strong candidates who can speak out against the president without sounding like unpatriotic assholes.

I think a more interesting question would be, "What is Bush's 2004 term going to be like?" He'll have run out of wars by then, and he can't keep milking September 11th forever. By 2006, he'll be back in the same position he was before September 11th, and I imagine that the country will be fed up with the Republican party by then.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-12 11:53am

If the economy doesn't pick up soon--more importantly, if the PERCEPTION of the state of the economy doesn't improve soon--winning two wars in one term might not matter much for Bush in 2004 (his father won two wars two, though with not nearly so high an emotional stake). Nobody in their right mind would have predicted Bill Clinton winning back in 1991--I'd be surprised if anyone outside of Arkansas had even heard of him in 1991. It's just too early to predict. You might paste the poll options up on a dartboard and use that to make your prediction.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-04-12 12:05pm

Where's the "third party candidate" option?

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-04-12 12:07pm

Simon H.Johansen wrote:Where's the "third party candidate" option?

In fantasy land.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-12 12:27pm

I think Bush will be re-elected, simply because there is no strong democratic candidate out there. Gore would have a better chance running for Shah of Iran, I'm not to impressed with Kerry, and if H. Clinton wouldn't do very well (Bill got all of the charisma of that pair). What the Dems need to do is do the best they can here and groom a strong candidate for 2008.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-04-12 12:28pm

Huge casualties? Think of the casualties in every other war. This was minute comparatively.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-12 12:34pm

Durandal wrote:Unless Bush manages to completely fuck up the Iraq reconstruction (still possible, but he could just as easily start bombing Syria to get our minds off it if he botches), he's got the election in the bag. The Democrats have turned into a bunch of pussies with no strong candidates who can speak out against the president without sounding like unpatriotic assholes.

That's a real trick. With the way the war has been sold to the public and how Bush is molding his image around it, anyone would be hard pressed to go against the president without sounding unpatriotic. The White House has done a damn good job with attaching President Bush's face all over this conflict, as if any other president would do much differently.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-12 12:40pm

RedImperator wrote:If the economy doesn't pick up soon--more importantly, if the PERCEPTION of the state of the economy doesn't improve soon--winning two wars in one term might not matter much for Bush in 2004 (his father won two wars two, though with not nearly so high an emotional stake). Nobody in their right mind would have predicted Bill Clinton winning back in 1991--I'd be surprised if anyone outside of Arkansas had even heard of him in 1991. It's just too early to predict. You might paste the poll options up on a dartboard and use that to make your prediction.

The big difference is that Bush, Jr. is still milking September 11th. Bush, Sr. didn't have a terrorist attack to work with. The two situations are vastly different. Like I said, Dubya might be able to get one more war out of this (Syria), and that might let him ride into office in 2004, but it won't carry him through a second term.

Also, he has outlined a new proposal for the Israel/Palestine issue with the requirement that the Palestinians elect a prime minister who actually has power. I'm not sure what is included in the proposal, but it does support a Palestinian state. I might be being optimistic, but if Bush can at least convince the rest of the world that it's a reasonable proposal, it won't really matter if it works; he can just blame its failure on the Palestinians, and that gives him more leverage to work with.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-12 12:40pm

It depends on the war and the economy. If the economy doesn't improve, then the voters won't vote for Bush, and if popular support for war has fallen, but he still insists on it anyway, the voters will vote him out. If those two factors are satisfied, Bush (or at least the Republicans, if the problem is with him, and there are more popular options) will be re-elected. The lack of good Democratic candidates will probably help him too.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 12:48pm

Unless the Democrats can produce the greatest dark horse candidate of all time, Bush has got it in the bag. Voters trust Republicans on national defense and this is a time where national defense is the priority.

The only thing that may hold Bush back is the economy, which is ironic, because short of massive tax cuts and spending cuts, the only thing which at this point he could do to boost the economy (the Fed's out of weapons, folks), he can't do a damn thing about the economy. It depends on how well it recovers.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-04-12 12:48pm

As much as it pains me to say it, I'm calling Bush 2:1 over John Kerry.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-12 12:53pm

Durran Korr wrote:Unless the Democrats can produce the greatest dark horse candidate of all time, Bush has got it in the bag. Voters trust Republicans on national defense and this is a time where national defense is the priority.

Bill Clinton was basically slapping the Democratic party upside the head for this issue. He told them that "people would rather follow a strong leader who's wrong than a weak one who is right." In short, they have to start making some noise.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 12:56pm

Durandal wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Unless the Democrats can produce the greatest dark horse candidate of all time, Bush has got it in the bag. Voters trust Republicans on national defense and this is a time where national defense is the priority.
Bill Clinton was basically slapping the Democratic party upside the head for this issue. He told them that "people would rather follow a strong leader who's wrong than a weak one who is right." In short, they have to start making some noise.

Well, they can't, because Bush can just play the anti-American card, and it'll work. Tough shit.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-12 01:01pm

Bush holds all the cards. At least he can only be reelected once, although I'm sure he's trying to find a way to change that.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 01:05pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Bush holds all the cards. At least he can only be reelected once, although I'm sure he's trying to find a way to change that.

He is not going to overturn the 22nd Amendment, you paranoid freak.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-12 01:10pm

Unless, the economy tanks, I think NK and syria will be enough pain in asses to keep the focus on national security to Give Bush the LOCK of the Day. The most interesting will be 2008

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-12 02:10pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Bush holds all the cards. At least he can only be reelected once, although I'm sure he's trying to find a way to change that.

He'd sign his death warrant if he overturned the 22nd amendment. Bill Clinton would just run again and beat the piss out of him.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 02:20pm

Durandal wrote:
HemlockGrey wrote:Bush holds all the cards. At least he can only be reelected once, although I'm sure he's trying to find a way to change that.
He'd sign his death warrant if he overturned the 22nd amendment. Bill Clinton would just run again and beat the piss out of him.

Doubtful. Bill Clinton might have been able to have gotten reelected in 2000, but after Pardongate and one of the most tactless departures from the White House since John Adams, no way.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-04-12 02:28pm

Durran , you forgot the looting of the Whitehouse on the way out.. It looked like Baghdad in there..

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 02:42pm

On the other hand, a Bill Clinton campaign in 2008 would just get in the way of Shrillary's campaign.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-12 03:01pm

Durran Korr wrote:Doubtful. Bill Clinton might have been able to have gotten reelected in 2000, but after Pardongate and one of the most tactless departures from the White House since John Adams, no way.

Don't you mean 2002? Maybe Clinton would lose against someone like McCain, but he would thrash Bush in the debates and campaigning. The moderate portion of the populace would probably go more for Clinton.

Lord Pounder · Post by **Lord Pounder** » 2003-04-12 03:29pm

theski wrote:Durran , you forgot the looting of the Whitehouse on the way out.. It looked like Baghdad in there..

Yeah a read the Drub Report on that. All the voice mails where fucked with and the 'W' on every keyboard was removed. To me, as an outsider, Bill had a lot of class. I am biased by the fact that he was the 1st American President to actually give a damn about the Irish Peace Process.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-12 03:36pm

Durandal wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:Doubtful. Bill Clinton might have been able to have gotten reelected in 2000, but after Pardongate and one of the most tactless departures from the White House since John Adams, no way.
Don't you mean 2002? Maybe Clinton would lose against someone like McCain, but he would thrash Bush in the debates and campaigning. The moderate portion of the populace would probably go more for Clinton.

No, I mean in 2000. If he had been able to run in 2000, he would have possibly been elected. Besides, after 8 years of irrelevance, I doubt most of the population would be interested.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Predictions for Election 2004?

Who wins the 2004 Presidential Election?

Predictions for Election 2004?