Bush Will Not Get A Second Term :(

[-= JR =-]

i want to be the first to officially go on record to predict that Bush will not get a simple term simply because of the domination of Republicans in government today.

the law of averages will always apply in a two party system. thats the whole point of its design and function... that both sides exist to balance that of the other. voters will respond in the next election by electing a Democrat as the next President of the United States to put the system back in balance. Just as voters responded to Clintons election by overwhelmingly giving the House and Senate to Republicans.

this may not happen however IF:

1) he pulls off some phenominal success story in Iraq (i.e. WELL TIMED "liberation of the people", footage of him kissing Iraqi babies in the street etc) or some other major 9/11 type catastrophe happens that will put him in the spotlight again as a strong leader.

or

2) the democrats continue to fuck up at every turn as they have since Bush was elected. But now the odds will weigh heavily in their favor. Unless the send another 2 congressmen to Libya to praise Khadaffi as they did with Saddam... or something else remarkably stupid (which cannot be discounted at this point in time).

3) they cant find a better choice than Al Gore. (he may pull it off however under the circumstances. its never the truth that matters... its what people want to believe that matters) Anyone that is smart enough to invent the Internet, may have a couple tricks up their sleeve.

otherwise, the system itself will not allow Bush to win. a single party being held 100% responsible for all the ills of the planet by the opposing party, media and world at large ... cannot survive two terms and the system will adjust itself.

anyone want to take bets on whether or not Bush gets a second term??
i say that the odds are strongly against it.

[Mutt]

hahahaha........you sure put a lot of conditions on the end of that JR ;)

If Bush wages a winning war against terrorism there ain't a Democrat alive who will beat him in 2 years. Look at the Democrats, do you see ANYBODY with a bright future? Everybody knew Bill Clinton was a rising star, he only took a little step backwards when he made a long winded keynote speech at the Democratic National convention which was supposed to be Bill Clinton's national coming out party.

I dont' follow the poltical scene as closely as i once did but I don't know of any Democratic star waiting to happen like Clinton was.

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Mutt@Nov 6 2002, 12:42 PM
Look at the Democrats, do you see ANYBODY with a bright future? Everybody knew Bill Clinton was a rising star, he only took a little step backwards when he made a long winded keynote speech at the Democratic National convention which was supposed to be Bill Clinton's national coming out party.

I dont' follow the poltical scene as closely as i once did but I don't know of any Democratic star waiting to happen like Clinton was.
i think 2 years is PLENTY of time to "create" a bright and rising star. There are plenty of potentials. its just a question of marketing. Its not a question of if there is anyone. They have to create someone. Its about survival.

i think that the "war on terrorism" will only effect the election outcome to the extent of the timing of Iraq/results and how long they can milk it. If it happens now, its political value will not be very much come election time. However, backing off, showing constraint and a willingness to compromise.. then creating a situation where they know Saddam will fuck it up and they can walk in and clean house 2-3 months before elections is a more likely scenario.

other than that, there is no "war on terrorism" politically. its gone. its done. its old news and people are changing the channel. its theatrical value in the political arena has been stretched thin and played out.

Bin Laden is dead. everyone else is just a nameless face behind an AK-47. Arrest a few people here and there and it wont matter. its old news and boring. Blow some shit up however and people get interested. How many people noticed or cared about an unmanned drone taking out some top Al Queda members? how many will remember it tomorrow? none.

Bushs father went from 90% approval rating to non-existent in just a couple months after the Gulf War. So timing will be everything. Either it has to happen soon, or it has to happen right before the elections. Just like the vote on the resolution to go to war had to happen right before they took a break.

Other than that, the Democrats have been really making an ass out of themselves non-stop trying to bring down Bush, since Bush was elected. They have had some good ammo but they come of desperate and panicky and still lack focus, leadership and a game plan. The public is responding to that. Talk radio is having the time of its life picking them apart. Bush still has good approval ratings when they should in reality, be marginal.

Al Gore is the more prominent Democrat in terms of possible Presidential candidate but i think he cant go the distance a second time and i dont even think he will get the nomination. His political life has peaked. i think he is done.

other than that, it would take something really massive and out of the ordinary to help Bush like another super terror attack. i dont think anything else will help.

[Hooper]

You're sure giving a lot of credit to the american people JR

[GreyLurk]

Well, the advantage the democrats have as I see it is that now the Republicans don't have anyone to blame for what they do to fuck this country up. The last time we had all of the checks and balances on the republican side was in the 1950's, era of such wonderful things as McCarthy.

From here on out, all the screwups belong to the republicans, :grrr:

[SykkBoy]

Voters are usually more concerned with their wallets then anything else come election time...imagine if the tax deadline were the week before Election day....

If the economy is in good shape and people are happy with their income, they will credit the republicans, if not, they'll blame them...whether it's their fault or not, that's the way it works...sometimes what is wrong and what is right doesn't always equal what is reality....

I'd love to see a strong 3rd party candidate, but it won't happen...Ross Perot gave everyone a scare and John Anderson did likewise in the early 80's, but it's not going to happen on a national level...the only thing a 3rd party candidate does is mess with the big 2....if Ralph Nader hadn't ran, Gore would have beaten Bush.....do I think Gore is the best the Dems can do? not really, but there are some interesting guys hanging in the wings.

Don't get me wrong, I can find just as many faults with the Democrats as I can with the Republicans, and they are admittedly in a shambles, but the faith based initiatives that will have to be paid back to the Religious Right are very scary indeed........

I think the best thing the Democrats can do right now is back off attacking Bush every chance they get and concentrate on getting their own house in order...although, the candidates here locally in Nevada, that slung the most mud, ended up winning...maybe negative campaining is a good strategy?

[MarkTiarra]

I love how whatever party is in power, the other party then runs as the "outsider." That's what gets it going back and forth. People don't want career politicians and "insiders" anymore - but somehow they are dumbass enough to believe either part EVER provides them with an outsider.

Why won't more people wake up and cast some votes for other parties or indendents? I fucking HATE when people argue "he/she can't win." Is this gambling in Vegas or VOTING? Fuck! Here in the NYC area they ran a whole campaign against this guy Galisano who was Independent and the commercials wnet like this:

Dem commercial: "The Rep candiate is an idiot because... Galisano... well, he can't win, so vote for our guy!"

Rep commercial: "The Dem candiate is an idiot because... Galisano... well, he can't win, so vote for our guy!"

These guys couldn't even come up with a valid argument against the Independent candidtae and people still voted for one of the two "majors."

BAHHHHHHHHHH!

[Torone]

Why won't people wake up and stop voting for lawyers??? :yowsa:

[Edd]

Originally posted by Torone@Nov 6 2002, 09:16 PM
Why won't people wake up and stop voting for lawyers??? :yowsa:
Because, Torone - NO one else wants to run! Do YOU want the job? :rolleyes:

[PornoDoggy]

Note to self ... stop by Farm King for Ammo ...

[-= JR =-]

Originally posted by Hooper@Nov 6 2002, 02:02 PM
You're sure giving a lot of credit to the american people JR
as a whole, i give voters almost no credit. people dont care in general. you have your reasons for who you want to vote for. you mentioned "good for porn, bad for porn" etc. Thats been a common theme at election time for obvious reasons. But how rediculous is that? I mean, the conversation is not "preserving the intergrity of the Constitution" or "freedom of speech" etc... the conversation is about how the President may effect their bottom line. It cannot possibly get any more shortsighted than that.

Thats how people think and thats how peoples minds work. We are all too busy to worry about the details. Its overwhelming. But breaking it down to such a simple and irrelevant issue as "porn" when we are also talking about how it will directly effect the lives of Billions on this planet Its very shortsighted and narrow thinking.

The reality is that there are hundreds or even thousands of important issues that will effect how will all live, how well the US gets along with other countries, how much we will pay in taxes... or even if a President will one day stand before the world and say "i'm gonna fucking attack this country and i dont need your permission to do it"

voters dont care about those things. Too many factors, too many issues, too many things to consider and weigh, discuss and learn about. Too much for any of us to busy ourselves with in our already busy little lives.

thats what makes people as a whole cattle. Thats why people skim the news, pick out a few phrases and buzzwords that they feel either sums up the story or are consistent with what they beleive to be true or want to believe and are satisfied that they are informed on the issue.

How many people here blindly follow a party but cant argue or debate any particular issue. or better yet, have a clear position or stance on something but seem to be incredibly uninformed? it happens all the time. Its much easier to say "i am a Democrat" and go along, than to understand everything that means. Its easier. Someone else can provide all the easy answers and all you need to do is to go along.

there are bigger patterns and mathematical formulas that will prevail. Its not a question of "who is the best Democrat or who is the best Republican". it is that the system is not designed for one party to control the White House, the House and the Senate. It happens only as an anomoly, not as a question of "who has the best economic policy" etc. Democrats have this going for them. And unless to continue to fuck everything up as bad as they have in the last two years, they should find all the odds in their favor.

i said before that "for everyone outspoken moron, there is an equal and opposite outspoken moron" and that is what makes a two party system work. This rule will not be true for the next two years. The foundation of a two party system is rooted in each side criticising and blaming the other for all failures. This cannot happen now as one party controls all. There will only be one loud voice of criticism. There is only one party to blame now. This is the problem Republicans will face.

Though it seems nice on the surface for anyone who is a Republican, it will prove to make a second term for Bush almost impossible. Not because of taxes, economy or anything else, but because the system is designed to find a balance of power and voting behavior will always insure that happens.

maybe i am wrong. but history and mathematics is on my side.

[Mike AI]

Conservatives/Libertarians always look for and expect the best out of people....

Great peice by Coulter PEice o nthe elction very funny!!! (http://www.anncoulter.org/)

[KC]

JR, I wouldn't put any money on that... He's got at least 2 years of pretty impressive power. His advisors aren't going to let him fuck it up so quickly. They'll make sure he gets his second term before all the bibles get issued to all elementary school students.

I'm a little scared when the government has so much power. I prefer it when the various branches of the governemnt are balanced so that nothing can get done.

I like it when the politicians can't fuck things up much further. :)

[Buff]

The prediction is two years old.

The election is in 2 weeks.

Was he right?

Find out in 3 years when all the lawsuits end!

[JR]

I would guess right now that I would have been wrong. But in my defense, I don't think that anyone can argue that Democrats have done a very good job at campaigning against Bush or even in putting forth someone who could obviously win. Bush has handed them everything on a silver platter since day 1 from Enron (and similar scandals) to 100's of 1000's of jobs lost, Patriot Act, talking to God, lying to the US and UN about the reasons for invading Iraq, to isolating the US from most of the rest of the world and so on.... and so on.

Usually the incumbant is touting his sucesses and the other is presenting his vision for the future. Both are doing little of either. I am American and i am not sure what Kerrys vision is... although, I have not been watching with much interest or enthusiasm. But the simple fact that I don't really know, tells me something about Kerry. I remember clearly Clintons original platform and I am not sure what Kerrys is. It's almost like the general message from Kerry in all this mud slinging is "vote for me because i will probably fuck up less"

There is not much more Bush could have done to give ammo to the opposition and unless someone discovers he has been strangling underage prostitutes and burrying them in the Rose Garden... this race is going to be embarrasingly close and Bush will probably win.

[Mike AI]

Originally posted by JR@Oct 18 2004, 08:47 AM
I would guess right now that I would have been wrong. But in my defense, I don't think that anyone can argue that Democrats have done a very good job at campaigning against Bush or even in putting forth someone who could obviously win. Bush has handed them everything on a silver platter since day 1 from Enron (and similar scandals) to 100's of 1000's of jobs lost, Patriot Act, talking to God, lying to the US and UN about the reasons for invading Iraq, to isolating the US from most of the rest of the world and so on.... and so on.

Usually the incumbant is touting his sucesses and the other is presenting his vision for the future. Both are doing little of either. I am American and i am not sure what Kerrys vision is... although, I have not been watching with much interest or enthusiasm. But the simple fact that I don't really know, tells me something about Kerry. I remember clearly Clintons original platform and I am not sure what Kerrys is. It's almost like the general message from Kerry in all this mud slinging is "vote for me because i will probably fuck up less"

There is not much more Bush could have done to give ammo to the opposition and unless someone discovers he has been strangling underage prostitutes and burrying them in the Rose Garden... this race is going to be embarrasingly close and Bush will probably win.


If any competant Dem was running against Bush he would be losing.

What happened was Howard Dean was doing so well, the Dem party leaders were freaking out - they knew Dean would lead to a landslide Bush win. So in their haste, they turned to Kerry, and basicly took Dean out by the knees. ( The I have a "scream" speach was rebroadcased on CNN and other liberal networks more then Fox and others).

In their haste, the Dems ran to a Mass. liberal, with a poor record in the Senate. This is why they had to focus on Vietnam and such during convention.

In modern times, it is hard for a yankee liberal Senator to win the Presidency, evne when he pretends to be a moderate.

In recent times, only Southern Democrats ( who are not Senators) who are run as conservatives win. ( Carter, Clinton)

Kerry has 3 strikes against him.

1) Northerner
2) Senator
3) Liberal ( though he is running from this pretty fast, he does not like "labels")

Bush will win because the Democratic party is more inept then the Rep party.