Is Bush Fucked?

[Howedar]

Kerry has not yet announced his VP running mate.

[Chris OFarrell]

Question. Say for whatever reason, everyone tommorow has a constitutional amendment that says Presidents can serve upto 5 terms in office, not 2.

And the Democratic party instantly drops Kerry and Clinton happily walks up saying he'd be proud to have another term in office and serve his country.

Do you think people would vote him back in?

[18-Till-I-Die]

Yeah, i would. At this point i'd vote for a sick stray cat instead of Bush, but Clinton is also a prety ok guy and was a good president, so yeah i'd vote for him.

[admiral_danielsben]

I think Kerry will probably lose - even if W. isn't the greatest president. Why? He doesn't have a backbone. No matter how you see W., you can almost feel that he believes what he says. Kerry is more slippery - he supported Iraq and opposed it, is similarly bendable on taxes and gay marriage, and it seems like he'll waffle to public or at least Democratic opinion - sorta like Bill Clinton minus the charm, and with a Bush who has not broken a 'no new taxes' promise. Bush did more or less what he set out to do (except where he was blocked, like oil drilling in alaska): he cut taxes and, when the terrorists attacked, he sent the military to attack back. Also, odious as they are, Bush's big-spending habits actually protect him to some degree from Democrats accusing him of starving seniors or somesuch.

If the Democrats really wanted to win, they should have either picked a more charismatic candidate - like Edwards, or a more honest-seeming candidate - like Lieberman. I kinda like Lieberman, a moderate who seems absolutely honest and at least has an agreeable foreign policy. Unfortunately, the Democrats chose Kerry. He wasn't the worst choice - screaming Howard Dean, hapless Dennis Kucinich, crazy Al Sharpton, all worse. Still, Lieberman, Edwards, even Gephardt and Clark, would've been better candidates. Personally, the only Democrat I'd really consider electing is Zell Miller, unless the Republican were REALLY bad (i mean, Richard Nixon bad, Spiro Agnew bad, Warren Harding bad - although I can't really blame him, he was more incompetant than anything else, plus had some really bad friends). Then, I'd consider Lieberman or another moderate Democrat. Otherwise, I'd vote for the Libertarian or the Reform party ticket or something.

The only chance of a Kerry victory is for him to get a good, honest VP, or a good, charismatic VP. Then, he should campaign to the center - and stay consistant from now until November. Highlight Bush's problems - target him as an irresponsible spender, play up foreign-policy problems. DO NOT promise to repeal Bush tax cuts.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I wish I could say Bush was fucked, because regardless of how well the economy does between now and November it's going to mean very little when every front page above-the-fold reads:

Situation in Iraq Completely Screwed
Totally Bush's Fault, Sources Say

Unfortunately, the Kerry campaign is horribly bad, and he isn't in a good position to leverage the Iraq question. I'd like to think that, had Dean gotten the nod, he'd be stomping Bush's guts out pretty badly on Iraq right now.

[Captain Cyran]

The only chance of a Kerry victory is for him to get a good, honest VP, or a good, charismatic VP. Then, he should campaign to the center - and stay consistant from now until November. Highlight Bush's problems - target him as an irresponsible spender, play up foreign-policy problems. DO NOT promise to repeal Bush tax cuts.

Weren't there people suggesting a Kerry/Edwards running? I think that would be able to pull through quite well. It would be better if it was switched around but hey...

[Illuminatus Primus]

All I hear is the same "It's a two party system droning." You know why it's right now a two party game, because people like you won't actually go ahead and vote third party.

No moron, its an inevitable consequence of the structure of our Republic. And the fact that this country has operated under a two-party system for 215 years should show you its a historic inevitability too. Shit, even if it wasn't for the whole "product of the design" reason, the simple fact that there's apparently "enough people like me" to make it that way means that it doesn't matter why it is, just that it is, and bitching about it doesn't change what it.

I don't know why people have the notion that some one should always vote for one of the two parties. And the simple fact that Guy A might win because Guy B couldn't garner the necessary support doesn't mean Guy C stole the votes from B. He's not entitled to them. Only the fact that most people don't bother to vote for anything but one or the other, makes it a two party system.

Blah blah blah conservative delusional bitching. Whatever. You're living in a fantasy world if you think in our style of Republic it will or can be any different. I'm sure in right-wing-Bizarro-land there's magic pixies which run around dustying people to make them 100% objective or whatever the fuck you dream in order to "just maybe potentially--if only people could be different--a multi-party system", but I rely in this world on the actually existing reality which is not going to change by Election Day.

I have never seen a good explanation for why one of the two parties is entitled to my vote. And I don't see why the hell it is that I'm really voting for Bush by not voting for Kerry. Because frankly, my ballot's not going have either punched.

Quite frankly, one of the two major parties is going to win, whether you like this or not, that is what is going to happen. The incumbent has obvious advantages. Now third party candidates will therefore almost always subtract from that demographic which can bring the challenger the election. Simple. Whether you refuse to awknowledge that Bush is more likely to win from the outset, and by not voting for Kerry you make it easier for Bush to win is your own business. I doesn't change the reality though.

Personally I think a lot of conservatives bitching about this don't want to admit that they refuse to actually assess whether Bush or Kerry are the lesser of two evils, or even think Bush is the lesser evil. By not stating the former position, they don't look intellectually lazy, and by not stating the latter, they don't have to substanciate their position.

Really guys, I just think you know Bush is a hatfucker, but you're dogmatic to the point where almost no set of realistic circumstances would cause you to vote Democrat.

[Symmetry]

Much as I dislike Kerry less than Bush, the Iowa Electronic Market is still giveing Bush better odds, and they're often right.

[Master of Ossus]

When is the election, again? Why isn't Kerry doing anything?

[Glocksman]

Really guys, I just think you know Bush is a hatfucker, but you're dogmatic to the point where almost no set of realistic circumstances would cause you to vote Democrat.

Incorrect in my case.

During the primaries I was big on Howard Dean and planned on voting for him once he won the nomination and I stated as much here several times during the primary season. Kerry, OTOH is just as much a slime as GWB.

Call it 'wasting my vote' or whatever, but I plan on voting third party in the Presidential race this time around.

[Stormbringer]

No moron, its an inevitable consequence of the structure of our Republic. And the fact that this country has operated under a two-party system for 215 years should show you its a historic inevitability too. Shit, even if it wasn't for the whole "product of the design" reason, the simple fact that there's apparently "enough people like me" to make it that way means that it doesn't matter why it is, just that it is, and bitching about it doesn't change what it.

Actually, the fact that a great many of the Founding Fathers tried to avoid having a polarized set of politcal factions suggest to me that their intent wasn't this. There's certainly nothing in the Constitution which demands a two party system.

The fact is that yes, we've got what amounts to effectively a two party system. However that's only because of tradition, and you'll note that it hasn't always been the same two parties. That should tell you something.

The only thing that has made the two party system 'inevitable' has been the unwillingness of voters to vote for a 'third party.'

Blah blah blah conservative delusional bitching. Whatever.

Bitching? How? All I'm hearing are the desperate appeals of whiny liberals. Just because I don't want Bush in office doesn't automatically mean that I have any obligation to vote for Kerry. Too bad for you, get over it.

You're living in a fantasy world if you think in our style of Republic it will or can be any different. I'm sure in right-wing-Bizarro-land there's magic pixies which run around dustying people to make them 100% objective or whatever the fuck you dream in order to "just maybe potentially--if only people could be different--a multi-party system", but I rely in this world on the actually existing reality which is not going to change by Election Day.

It probably won't change nor do I really expect it to.

But the fact is, there is no obligation to vote for either Democrats or Republicans except in your mind. And I am exercising my right to vote for the candidate that I wish to. Live with it.

Quite frankly, one of the two major parties is going to win, whether you like this or not, that is what is going to happen. The incumbent has obvious advantages. Now third party candidates will therefore almost always subtract from that demographic which can bring the challenger the election. Simple. Whether you refuse to awknowledge that Bush is more likely to win from the outset, and by not voting for Kerry you make it easier for Bush to win is your own business. I doesn't change the reality though.

Again, I don't expect things to change any time soon. That doesn't put me under any sort of obligation to simply conform to the system as it is. Because I don't want Bush to win doesn't mean that I must automatically vote for Kerry, I don't want him to win any more than Bush.

As for your assumption that a third party automatically steals votes from the challenger, two words: Ross Perot.

Personally I think a lot of conservatives bitching about this don't want to admit that they refuse to actually assess whether Bush or Kerry are the lesser of two evils, or even think Bush is the lesser evil. By not stating the former position, they don't look intellectually lazy, and by not stating the latter, they don't have to substanciate their position.

It's rather hard to say exactly what a Kerry Administration would do, considering his primary message has been either "I'm a War Hero damnit *waves hand* Ignore the protests, ignore the protests" or "I'm not Bush *waves hands* Ignore the voting record, ignore the voting record. However what I have seen him propose and the stances that he's taken, as well as his behaviour, has not lead me to believe that he would be the lesser evil.

Really guys, I just think you know Bush is a hatfucker, but you're dogmatic to the point where almost no set of realistic circumstances would cause you to vote Democrat.

Wow, you're right. I don't like the Republican there for I must automatically vote for the Democrat no matter how many of his policies I don't agree with, find asnine, or just aren't there. I have been converted! Praise by the One Called Primus.

Oh wait, I don't agree with probably 90% of Kerry's platform (such as it is) and yes, that is because I lean more to the libertarian-conservative side. I'm not at all ashamed to say that. And no I won't vote for The Other Guy simply because he's The Other Guy. S

[HemlockGrey]

According to Gallup's "snapshot," Kerry leads Bush 50-44

[Master of Ossus]

You know, there were times in US history with significant (we're talking 20-25%) third parties DID exist.

[SirNitram]

You know, there were times in US history with significant (we're talking 20-25%) third parties DID exist.

Yes. Something changed. Find what changed, push it back, you will have a viable third party. Maybe.

[Master of Ossus]

You know, there were times in US history with significant (we're talking 20-25%) third parties DID exist.

Yes. Something changed. Find what changed, push it back, you will have a viable third party. Maybe.

I'm not saying that a third party will ever be viable again. Obviously American society, government, and culture has changed so as to make such a group impossible. However, the point is that the idea that the idea that the American government system was rigged from the start to prevent a third party from emerging is wrong--they've done it in the past.

[Stormbringer]

According to Gallup's "snapshot," Kerry leads Bush 50-44

Mostly because Bush is having a bad week and Kerry is no where to be seen. Not the best tactics to try and win.

[HemlockGrey]

The "Snapshot" is a week or two old, and I hear in the current polls on National Defense, Bush and Kerry are neck-and-neck.

If Kerry starts trying I can only imagine how much ass he'll kick.

[Master of Ossus]

If Kerry starts trying I can only imagine how much ass he'll kick.

How much money has Kerry spent, so far?

[Darth Wong]

The "Snapshot" is a week or two old, and I hear in the current polls on National Defense, Bush and Kerry are neck-and-neck.

If Kerry starts trying I can only imagine how much ass he'll kick.

Assuming he has ass-kicking skills.

[Elfdart]

According to Gallup's "snapshot," Kerry leads Bush 50-44

Mostly because Bush is having a bad week and Kerry is no where to be seen. Not the best tactics to try and win.

Actually, it's the way Kerry has done it in every race he's won. He realizes that his stiff, monotone presentation will get on people's nerves if he's in their faces all the time. Unlike Gore, he knows better than to wear out his welcome with the public. So he bides his time, keeps it close, then surges late and wins. He's the Bill Bellichick of politics.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, it's the way Kerry has done it in every race he's won. He realizes that his stiff, monotone presentation will get on people's nerves if he's in their faces all the time. Unlike Gore, he knows better than to wear out his welcome with the public. So he bides his time, keeps it close, then surges late and wins. He's the Bill Bellichick of politics.

Are you saying that Kerry is deliberately running an utterly forgettable campaign?

[Glocksman]

Actually, it's the way Kerry has done it in every race he's won. He realizes that his stiff, monotone presentation will get on people's nerves if he's in their faces all the time. Unlike Gore, he knows better than to wear out his welcome with the public. So he bides his time, keeps it close, then surges late and wins. He's the Bill Bellichick of politics.

Are you saying that Kerry is deliberately running an utterly forgettable campaign?

There's also that old saying about not interrupting your enemy if he's self-destructing.
.

[Stormbringer]

According to Gallup's "snapshot," Kerry leads Bush 50-44

Mostly because Bush is having a bad week and Kerry is no where to be seen. Not the best tactics to try and win.

Actually, it's the way Kerry has done it in every race he's won. He realizes that his stiff, monotone presentation will get on people's nerves if he's in their faces all the time. Unlike Gore, he knows better than to wear out his welcome with the public. So he bides his time, keeps it close, then surges late and wins. He's the Bill Bellichick of politics.

I didn't say it couldn't work. It obviously has, though I find it rather hard to credit that he's done nothing in all his other campaigns. It's just that it won't work if your opponent can effectively campaign and win. Bush isn't doing so well. But he's also taken a lot of hits that should have given Kerry a decisive lead and yet the best that Kerry is doing is to be neck in neck.

[Joe]

Basically what crackpot said earlier about the economy; voters vote first and foremost on how the economy is doing, which is a shame since issues the President actually has control over should be at the forefront of this election, not the fucking economy.

[Darth Wong]

Basically what crackpot said earlier about the economy; voters vote first and foremost on how the economy is doing, which is a shame since issues the President actually has control over should be at the forefront of this election, not the fucking economy.

"Are you better off than you were four years ago? Is America more respected in the world?" I assume you will recall who used that as an election slogan.