2004 Presidential Election
 

OK, who is going to win and why.

NOTE: The topic is who is going to win, not who you want to win. So vote and discuss please. :)

I believe Bush will be re-elected

In all honesty I believe the way Kerry carries himself especially his droning manner of speech will be off putting to a lot of folks

Add to that his seeming ability to be on all sides of an issue and I believe most folks will opt for keeping Bush

Particularly if economic indicators keep looking up

George W Bush

The only message the Democrats have is that of anger. They dont hve any better ideas of how to run the nation, they just dont like Bush's. I think come november people will have heard enough of Kerry's hate Bush speeches.

Bush.

Kerry has not been attacked for being the type politician that he really is yet. He is a wishy-washy panderer to the masses. His time is coming. Bush has been bashed for the last few months.

The republican PR machine will fire up and we will be victorious. :D

Bush,
He knows how to play the game and has the team. They are getting ready to destroy Kerry and Bush's skeletons are already public knowledge.

Looks like I picked another controversial one, eh? LOL

There is lots of time before the election, but I think Bush is a virtual shoo-in. I say this principally because the economy is coming back very rapidly. This may not be so apparent to the general public yet, but the capital markets are humming and that foreshadows lots of new jobs and happy voters.

Plus I think we're going to continue kicking ass abroad, which won't hurt. ;)

Bush.

He has the right team at the right time. GWB is about to MASSACRE Kerry. I can not even stand to hear Kerry speak he makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

I am proud to be serving with Bush as CINC. I think President Bush is the right man for this country at this time in our history.


Best Regards,

JJ

BUSH 2004

Kerry does not have a platform. If he does, he forgot where he put it. :D

President Bush will win.

Thank God there is no Ross Perot wannabe this time around.

It will be Bush. I'm more worried about the NEXT one than this one. I would bet that the Clintons are somehow going to undermine Kerry, so's Hillary will have a clean shot next go-round !!!

Who will there be to put up a very good opposition then ???

So he is going to run with the " I'm a liberal from Massachusetts ! " strategy

Great I get him back as a Senator for 4 more years............:rolleyes:

President Bush will win.

To frame the question differently: Which candidate does our enemy want to lose?

Where did you get that quote?

Well it's here according to Google...QUOTE


Getting paid to surf the web is such a bonus

I believe President Bush will win. Kerry's voting record alone speaks volumes..at least to me. Anybody that wants to allow the UN to dictate to us how to handle our Country's security does not deserve to hold office. The WOT isn't about making nice and appeasing the world at large, but that is all I hear out of his mouth. I shudder at the thought of Kerry wi...no can't say it, and I pray after the next 4 years in office Bush's replacement will be equally as strong.

Sorry, I forgot to cite my source.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/lileks021204.html

Edit: I see DunbarFC beat me to it. :)
Edit 2: Can't spell either.

Bush.

Kerrys been on the warpath for months and Georgy hasn't even begun to fight. They can release all the poll numbers about W slipping that they want (We saw how accurate they were 2 months ago for Dean.) When Kerrys voting record and true left-wing position (more liberal than Teddy!) gets out there to the masses, they'll quickly see whats truth.
And this hoopla about the country being 50/50: BS. As usual, the loud minority "own" the media and appear bigger than they are by shear headlines. Has anybody else noticed the voter turn-outs for the primaries? I thought there was a Democratic juggernaut out there to "take back the stolen 2000 election!"...? :rolleyes:

Intruder posted:
I completely agree with this. The minority always seems to be far more vocal and thus get more attention. I think the majority of the U.S. will see Kerry for what he really is. A wishy washy, hypocrite...I won't get into it.

Like others have said, Bush and his team are just barely getting started and he has said as much in recent days. Time magazine recently had a pretty good article on this. I particularly like this qoute from Bush, "The candidates are an interesting group, with diverse opinions: for tax cuts and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. In favor of liberating Iraq and opposed to it. And that's just one Senator from Massachusetts." LOL, (Time, March 04 pg. 41) I think we will all be seeing a lot more of that over the next few months.

I like this one...a sound bite off of a comment President Bush made (from FNC). Paraphrasing here but the basic statement was to the effect that Kerry has been a senator for a long time and because of that has been able to vote on both sides of the issues. :D

Do you know the POTUS? I mean personally.

;)

As a George myself.....we hate being called "Georgie" some time after we turn 5.........

"North Koreans for Kerry", a non-editorial account...

(hope this hasn't been posted already)

North Korea warms to Kerry presidency bid
By Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington
Published: March 4 2004 20:24

North Korea's state-controlled media are well known for reverential reporting about Kim Jong-il, the country's dictatorial leader.

But the Dear Leader is not the only one getting deferential treatment from the communist state's propaganda machine: John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic candidate, is also getting good play in Pyongyang.

In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr Kim's communist regime.

The apparent enthusiasm for Mr Kerry may reflect little more than a "better the devil you don't know" mentality among the North Korean apparatchiks. Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme.

But both Mr Kerry and Mr Bush are committed to North Korean disarmament. Mr Kerry, however, would renew bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang, while Mr Bush has sought to manage the conversation with North Korea through multilateral talks. Mr Kerry has also been more forthright about setting out the economic rewards for North Korea if it disarms.

The Bush administration appears in no hurry to tackle the North Korea issue before the election, aware that a US compromise with Pyongyang would represent an embarrassing climbdown, while confrontation would risk a bloody - and electorally disastrous - war.

If North Korea is hoping that a Democratic victory would herald a return to Bill Clinton's policy of engagement with Pyongyang, then Gordon Flake, head of the Mansfield Centre for Pacific Affairs in Washington, cautions Mr Kim against expecting too much from Mr Kerry. "It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," he says.

Either way, the North Korean media is a constituency Mr Kerry could do without. Second only to the warm words Mr Kerry has enjoyed from Jane Fonda, the actress and antiwar liberal who is still a bugbear of the American right, a signal of support from the Dear Leader will delight conservative talk-show hosts and Republicans eager to paint Mr Kerry as soft on national security.

A small group of Vietnam veterans has already branded Mr Kerry as "Hanoi John" - a reference to his antiwar activities in 1971 after he returned from serving in Vietnam.

Mr Kerry was first introduced to North Korea's information-starved people in early February, when Radio Pyongyang reported that opinion polls indicated he was likely to defeat Mr Bush.

A few days later, the station broadcast comments by Mr Kerry criticising Mr Bush for deceiving the world about Iraq's elusive weapons of mass destruction. Later in February, KCNA welcomed Mr Kerry's pledge to adopt a more "sincere attitude" towards North Korea if elected.

"Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticised President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea," said the news agency.

Pyongyang's friendly attitude towards Mr Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.

Maybe.

Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was
blown

Every time I hear someone say that Kerry is unelectable, I have can't help but recall that Al Gore actaully won the popular vote. The dems, it's true, don't have a message and are really just campaigning on anti-Bush rhetoric, but I'm not sure there aren't a lot of Americans who are influenced by this garbage.

I think it will be Bush, but it's not a lock. Another attack, or serious problems in Iraq, could really hurt Bush as well. If the economy falters it could be pivotal as well. I hope it's Bush, but I'm not as positive as some others.

I agree. a lot of people thought Bush I was a lock too.

By 500,000 votes. That's not a lot in the overall scheme of things. A great deal was made of under-votes in Florida (hanging chads) but there were over-votes as well. Had those been counted the results might have been different than Bush winning the state by a mere 500+ votes. some people were so adamant about voting for him that they blocked in their vote then wrote it in as well. Florida was not the only close state. Iowa was unbelievably close. People point to the closeness of Florida and New Hampshire I think was and how Nader caused a loss for Gore. There may be some truth to that but it's equally fair to point out that had a nationwide recount been done the popular vote could easily have gone to Bush.

One thing is for certain, people should be aware of how important it is to mark their ballots carefully, so regardless of the type used if there is a mistake it's on the person. Voting is not something to be taken lightly. Everyone should check and double check that they've done it right regardless of age or education level.

Intruder, the voter turn-out for the democratic primaries/caucuses has been quite high compared to previous years. In my Washington State, which admittedly doesnt count for much, there was about 5 times the turnout, I believe. About double participation occured in Oklahoma, Deleware, S. Carolina, Arizona, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Iowa, New Hampshire, etc.

Republican primary participation has always been higher in numbers in places like S. Carolina. If you compare democratic primaries to democratic primaries you will find that the numbers of participating voters have increased.

I have such a like for and trust in the guy I feel like I know him.
So no, I don't know him.

I can't find the "hard numbers" right now, but this article says basically what I was saying (I also heard similar things about California). My point was being that 2 of the largest "liberal democrat" states had low turnouts. "Surprising" since the media makes a huge deal about how many people dislike Bush.

Do yourself a favor and don't refer to the CinC that way.

Roger?

1. We don't elect Presidents on popular vote. We elect members of Congress on popular vote.

2. Did Gore win the popular vote? It isn't as cut and dried as some would have you believe. As far as I know, a comprehensive count of every ballot has never been done except in Florida (where Bush won).

Record lows (A site for NDD)

Numbers

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia... all low...

Primary Turnouts Down

Media Accuracy

Vermont

More

There's more if you want it...

LOL - NOW you've done it!

Actually, state-by-state, turnout varied. Some states had significantly higher turnouts, some not much higher, and some less.

It is also to some extent misleading to compare changes in turnout. For many of these states, there was no contest in previous years, so turnout was low because there was no point (as the Newsday article implies for NY). It is a logical leap, not necessarily supported by evidence, to ascribe any higher turnout to anger at Bush.

New York: Total turnout for the 2004 NY Democratic Party primary was 673,620. New York's 2000 primary was on March 7, 2000, and turnout was 974,463, so Newsday's blaming low turnout on the time of year is ridiculous. In 1996, Pres. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot so the Democratic primary wasn't held. Newsday's putting it on Kerry already being the presumptive candidate doesn't explain it, as by the 2000 NY primary, Gore had already left Bill Bradley behind too (Gore 66%, Bradley 33%). The main factor is the cost of the NY media market, so no candidate wanted to waste money here. In 2000, it was slightly different in that the Republican field was still open, so there was more attention paid in the NY media to the election in general.

California is also an expensive media market. California, though, had propositions on the ballot as well as a party primary, so there were other reasons to vote besides Kerry vs. Bush. California Democratic turnout was 2,740,023, compared to 2,654,114 in 2000 (Gore 81%) and 2,523,062 in 1996 (Clinton 93%).

For the most part, increased Democratic turnout in certain states seems to reflect the fact that there was a contest for the nomination. Many states held no primary in 1996, as Clinton faced no rival, and had weak turnout in 2000, as the Gore/Bradley contest was either not big in that state or already over.

Looking through a few states where I have data:
- Georgia more than doubled turnout compared to 2000 (which was triple the 1996 turnout).
- Connecticut turnout dropped by a third from 2000, and was slightly less than 1996
- Tennessee turnout was up 71% from 2000 (when Gore took his home state with 92%, only to lose it in the general election), while 2000 turnout was up 56% from 1996, when Clinton was the only candidate
- Oklahoma was up significantly from 2000, but less than 1996
- Delaware tripled from 2000, which had been only slightly higher than 1996
- Arizona 2004 turnout was almost half of 2000 turnout; in 1996 hardly any Democrats voted in the Arizona primary
- Missouri 2004 turnout was up a little over 50% from 2000; there was no 1996 primary
- New Mexico had a caucus; the New Mexico primary is in June. Caucus turnout was 96,704. You can't really compare caucus turnout to primary turnout, but the June 2000 primary had 132,280 and the June 1996 primary had 121,362 Democrats

To discount the Kerry's-already-wrapped-it-up-so-why-bother factor, go back to New Hampshire, when the nomination was still up for grabs: 2004 turnout was 219,246, up 42% from the 154,609 who turned out in 2000. But the 2000 number was up 41% from the 91,974 who turned out in 1996, so it is hard to read much into this. However, I would note that President Bush only got 115 write-in votes for the Democratic nomination, while he had gotten 827 back in 2000 :rolleyes: Still, that's an improvement over the 3 write-in votes for Bush (either him or his father) in 1996.

GH,

thanks for the links. the point I have in mind is the one made in "Primary Turnouts Down". I agree with the analysis of the problems in taking a ratio using VEP. I believe it could matter which parties are having contests. This is purely in response to the charge of inventing a surge for 2004.

"Record Lows" (1998): LOL.

I think President Bush will win because I don't believe Kerry does a good job of speaking on his issues. Whenever someone asks what he thinks about a issues, his reply is "well, here's what Bush thinks and here's why he's wrong". In the end, I think too many will be tired of the "Bush-bashing". Secondly, I think the President does a good job of not taking the bait when someone does bash. He has said almost nothing in response to what the candidates were saying about him in the past debates. He even called Kerry to congratulate him on his soon-to-be nomination. People remember stuff like that.

I agree. I don't listen to the polls, I listen to people I work with, associate with etc.
A poll based on their comments gives me concern about Bush winning.
The typical comment is "anything but Bush".
I hope Kerry doesn't select Graham for VP. I think that would affect Florida.

I understand, I only meant that if someone as bland as Al Gore can manage to run it that close, then I think it's hard to say Bush is a lock this time.

In Oklahoma, in many instances, if you want a voice in local politics, you must be a registered Democrat. When a Presidential primary is in question, of course, they will vote for the best Democrat available, but when it comes to the General Election, many people I know will vote for President Bush again. I believe there are a few other states where this is also true.


Edited for spelling.

It's the same way in Western Pennsylvania. Democrats get elected to the majority of offices (though I never understand how party affliation matters for a office like the Recorder of Deeds). So we have alot of very conservative Democrats who would fit in more with the Republican party in any other area.

Vacination for Demo-Disease
 

uh, this isn't a liberal website? Boy and I'd thought all along...(time to hide, incoming) NDD, if a clinton (yes my Shift key works) gets elected the time after this, you got room for a shop near your location? Answer is BUSH! Reason, a majority of the population here understands that if we get another case of demo-disease that this country is dangerously exposed to whatever would be next by the groups that hate us. We've hit the hornets nest real hard and now isn't the time to back off. I hope this is what the majority of the country thinks...