Who's Going To Win in 2004?

[Mr Manifesto]

Now's the chance for all of us on the forum to demonstrate our psychic powers/political nous. Who's going to take the top job in Yank-land in 2004?

For mine, I'm going to go with the Democrats. Why? Purely because there are too many similarities between Bush jnr and Bush snr for me to believe that he'll win a second term (it'd just wreck the whole energy flow or whatever).

And let's not have any 'it's too early to tell'. This is a thread you can look back upon and say, Nyaaah! I was right! or, I was wrong becuase of the unexpected event of...

 

[Dancing David]

I votes for Shemp because he is what this country needs!

I think that it will be a walkaway election for Bush, the democrats have lost thier focus and can't seem to decide on which issues to capaign on exactly. Bush has the most dinero, there will still be the war going on, the war on terrorism, the Iraq war, the new war as yet to be started and Americans rally around the flag. Unless some major scandal breaks in the next year , it is a cinch for Bush.

I will probably vote for Barney the Dinosaur or whoever the liberatarians run, I doubt that I will vot5e for the democrats this time, I would vote for Kerry but I think Lieberman is more likely to get the nomination. I would vote for McCain if he ran independantly.

 

[Suddenly]

You left out "That Harry Browne party that never wins."

Shanek may bring his mighty wrath upon you. Or he may ignore you. One or the other.

 

[reprise]

Damn, and I thought this thread was going to be about either the Australian federal election or the Indonesian 2004 election.

If we're talking about the US elections, even the Zetans would be a better option than Bush.

 

[Tony]

It's going to be a piece of cake for Bush.

 

[peptoabysmal]

Feng Shui aside, I think Bush will win. The Democrats have flogged the anti-war and "no WMD" horse to death, and have no clear message or viable candidate. Remember how McGovern was beaten (or beat himself) by campaigning on an anti-war platform? And that was when the Vietnam protests were at their maximum height.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I thought McGovern was a joke candidate. I get my political knowledge from Doonesbury (the American prisoner of war, released after being in a Vietnamese POW camp for five years, asks, "So who ran against Nixon?" "McGovern" "HA! HA! HA! HA! No, seriously, who was it?").

 

[reprise]

Wasn't the McGovern campaign one of the ones on which Jerry Springer worked?

 

[shemp]

I just want to say, in case there is any question, that I would be more than happy to serve.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I believe the Ralph Nadar party will win.



I also believe that the moon is made of cheese.

 

[corplinx]

The last democrat to win a first presidential term was Bill Clinton. He campaigned as a tax cutter, a fiscal conservative, and fully supported the former Pres. Bush's war in Iraq. He was more republican than Bush was. Perot was more of a democrat than Clinton in that race.

Clinton however was able to play both sides at once.... masterfully. He had a tax cut, but only for the "people who need it". The rich and greedy would have to "pay their fair share". Honestly, I am still in awe of Bill Clinton. He set the bar for master politician at a new level and I am not sure we will see another Bill Clinton in our lifetime. People called Ronald Reagan the great communicator. I think Bill Clinton had him beat in that instead of delivering a message and making converts, Clinton could give a message and get agreement because the differing viewpoints heard different messages.

 

[DavidJames]

"Clinton could give a message and get agreement because the differing viewpoints heard different messages."

You say that like it's a bad thing

Actually, I agree with much of your assessment of Clinton, but I think I'm viewing it in a more favorable light then you. I believe he was successful because he was able to find common ground among diverse political bases. He wasn't an ideologue, he wasn't out on the fringe like many others (Bush is on the right wing fringe, his actions betray his words)

Anyway, back on topic - I believe Bush will be re-elected because no one like Repubs can portray honest disagreement on foreign policy as treasonous and anti-American and enough of us (including many on this board) will fall for it. The Dems may win back on of the houses though.

 

[peptoabysmal]

I thought McGovern was a joke candidate. I get my political knowledge from Doonesbury (the American prisoner of war, released after being in a Vietnamese POW camp for five years, asks, "So who ran against Nixon?" "McGovern" "HA! HA! HA! HA! No, seriously, who was it?").

I guess anyone can have buttons printed up

 

[peptoabysmal]

Wasn't the McGovern campaign one of the ones on which Jerry Springer worked?

I donno about that. Got me curious now. I think Springer either considered running or ran for senator of uh... Ohio

 

[Samus]

I'm probably going to vote for Dave Barry.

On one hand, I think Bush has '04 in the bag, because he's the incumbent, he's got the bucks, and he can deliver a speech that gets all the über-patriotic people intoxicated on Nationalism.

On the other hand, I think the Democrats have a good chance, because Bush's popularity is slipping, and if the economy isn't showing marked signs of improvement, he'll end up taking the blame in the form of being voted out. Just like his dad.

It really is too early to tell, because lots of things can happen between now and then. Look at how much September 11th re-shaped the entire political climate in this country, who can say that won't happen again triggered off of some other significant event?

Regardless of who the next president is, they're going to have a difficult job fighting all these wars, dealing with stunning deficits, and trying to solve all the problems of the world, which is apparently our job now.