Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 21, 2014, 05:01:02 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  Election Odds
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Print
Author Topic: Election Odds  (Read 24109 times)
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18304
United States


View Profile
« on: November 03, 2003, 02:53:28 pm »
Ignore

Nov 2, 2003

12 Months until election day, and I'll boost Bush's chances at reelection to 65% from 60%.

Barring a major geopolitical event (30% chance) or scandal (5% chance), Bush is a shoe-in for reelection.
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16338


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2003, 04:01:11 pm »
Ignore

I agree but I put the odds of a geopolitical event that would cost Bush the presidency at only 20%. There is about a 75% chance that he will be re-elected.
Logged

© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35881
United States


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2003, 05:25:09 pm »
Ignore

ODDS TO BE ELECTED
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 2004

 Name Party Title Odds
George W. Bush (R) President 4/5
Howard Dean (D) Former Vermont Governor 4/1
John Kerry (D) Massachusetts Senator 8/1
Dick Gephardt (D) Missouri Congressman 12/1
Wesley Clark (D) Retired General 15/1
Joe Lieberman (D) Connecticut Senator 20/1
John Edwards (D) North Carolina Senator 40/1
Carol Moseley-Braun  (D) Former Illinois Senator 250/1
Dennis Kucinich  (D) Ohio Congressman  250/1
Ralph Nader (G) Consumer advocate 500/1
Al Sharpton (D) Civil rights activist 1000/1

From Americasline.com--

Anyway, bush's re-election is at 70%, a scandal won't happen, but the geopolitical event is at least imagineable.  Bush is going to have to beat himself in order to lose.
Logged

in a mirror, dimly lit
Canadian observer
Full Member
***
Posts: 157


P
View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2003, 12:11:18 am »
Ignore

Question

Which of the two do you think may hinder on Bush's reelection chances: the possibility of a faltering economy or Iraq?
Logged

 
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2003, 02:44:45 am »
Ignore

Question

Which of the two do you think may hinder on Bush's reelection chances: the possibility of a faltering economy or Iraq?

Right now I see both as being equally important. Earlier it was believed that foreign policy was Bush's strong suit and the economy could be the only cause of his downfall. Now (with the new economic numbers and the Iraq casualty figures) people are saying its the other way around.

I personally believe that the election will hinge on both these issues and there is no way of saying which one (if any) will eventually help or hinder Bush. Its the state of both of them by August-September 2004 when swing voters start to firmly rally behind a candidate that will make all the difference.

Should be interesting...lets wait and see.



Logged

Quote
NorthernDog
Full Member
***
Posts: 167


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2003, 08:09:17 pm »
Ignore

Question

Which of the two do you think may hinder on Bush's reelection chances: the possibility of a faltering economy or Iraq?
I think the economy is the bigger problem.  A lot of people are upset over casualties in Iraq (rightly so) but very few people are directly affected by it.  And Bush can keep arguing that it is part of the war on terror while his opponent could be painted as too soft on Nat'l Defense.  But the economy has definable measures - unemployment, deficit numbers, jobs lost, inflation, stock market, etc...It's easier to make arguments on economics in my opinion.  Make sense?
Logged
Canadian observer
Full Member
***
Posts: 157


P
View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2003, 09:30:21 pm »
Ignore

Don't worry, your answers make sense.  I'm just asking for some American opinion.

The Canadian media coverage of the current events in Iraq is highly negative.  I'm curious about the behavior of American voters when (or if) they hear of news on US casualties in Iraq.
Logged

 
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 07, 2003, 12:58:57 am »
Ignore

I don't think the casualties will affect the vote of MOST Americans. Assuming that the number of casualties doesn't dramtically grow any larger. Last time I looked, I think the list of soldiers killed in Iraq was somewhere around 400. By election day 2004, if the casualties are 500 or 600, some people may decide not to vote for George W. Bush, but I think  it would still leave Bush with a nearly 60% chance of re-election.  However, if the casualties climb to over 600, then Bush may face some problems. He will have to endure HEAVY criticism from the Democrats on how he handled post-war Iraq.  And if the casualties get to be four digit numbers (i.e. up in the thousands), then Bush's chance for re-election would be extremely low. Another major aspect that will effect the voters is, of course, the economy. Although the economy is beginning to recover, no one knows where it will be one year from now.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16338


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2003, 01:04:21 am »
Ignore

Given that the economy grew at 7.2% last quarter and productivity surged forward at a 8.1% rate (which means more growth in the future), it is likely that we will see a very strong economy next year. That is why I think there is a 75% chance Bush will get re-elected.
Logged

Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2003, 11:20:48 am »
Ignore

I wouldnt corelate the NUMBER of casualties to Bush's reelection chances. Remember US Presidents were re-elected in 1944 and 1964 two years of very high US military casualties.

The difference was that then people believed the sacrifice was worth it because they could see tangible results in the wars on at that time.

The American people, more than those of any other country, are willing to accept war-related hardships when they believe its worth fighting for.

AS to the current situation my impression is that 70% of Americans (including me) supported a war to take out Saddam Hussien. Casualties in that pursuit were acceptable.
A majority of Americans (including me again) do not currently support keeping our troops there in pursuit of nation-building. I/we  dont believe thats our job and that any results will be worth the price we are paying. The administration has not yet made an convincing case on that. This is not to say they will not by November 2004 or that the results may be self-evident by then, but right now they are not!!!!




Logged

Quote
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 35881
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 08, 2003, 02:15:47 pm »
Ignore

Ryan-
Are you saying, based on his job performance in the field of foreign policy, you will not vote for GWB in 2004?  

I did not support the war at the beginning, although I supported the 87B for Iraq and Afghanistan.
Logged

in a mirror, dimly lit
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2003, 05:21:11 pm »
Ignore

I wouldnt corelate the NUMBER of casualties to Bush's reelection chances. Remember US Presidents were re-elected in 1944 and 1964 two years of very high US military casualties.

The difference was that then people believed the sacrifice was worth it because they could see tangible results in the wars on at that time.

The American people, more than those of any other country, are willing to accept war-related hardships when they believe its worth fighting for.

AS to the current situation my impression is that 70% of Americans (including me) supported a war to take out Saddam Hussien. Casualties in that pursuit were acceptable.
A majority of Americans (including me again) do not currently support keeping our troops there in pursuit of nation-building. I/we  dont believe thats our job and that any results will be worth the price we are paying. The administration has not yet made an convincing case on that. This is not to say they will not by November 2004 or that the results may be self-evident by then, but right now they are not!!!!

†††I agree with you that people, especially during WWII, were willing to accept the sacrifice and knew that it was a war worth fighting. Thatís why they were willing to re-elect President Roosevelt to his 4th term. I fail to see why you brought up the 1964 election though.
†††Casualties in the Vietnam War didnít  get heavy until 1965 when United States involvement really began.  In the election after that, the 1968 election, people DID indeed vote for the other party. I think the Vietnam War was a big eye-opener for Americans. The American people realized that our involvement in that war was unnecessary, and did not "preserve" OR "defend" our nation in anyway whatsoever. All it did was scare the communist (i.e. The Soviet Union) and show them that the United States government was willing to go to ANY length to defend freedom, even if it meant fighting in foreign lands and risking American lives. World War II on the other hand, was probably the last FULLY justified war we took part in. People knew we had to win that war, and everyone supported it.
†††You yourself, Ryan, seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. You first speak of how the Americans are willing to sacrifice for their nation more than any other country in the world, therefore they wouldn't care too much about casualties and it wouldnít affect President Bushís re-election chances. But then you go on to say that you do not support the Post-War activities.
†††Itís the Post-War activities that are causing more and more American deaths, itís the fact that we are still over there. Now I'm not saying we should pull troops out, I actually feel the opposite. We got involved in fighting the war, we can't just pull out now that we did our dirty work.
   I mean, just the fact that you seem upset that we are still over there, leads me to believe that you think that more American deaths are unacceptable. If thatís the case, then how can you say that their should be no correlation between the number of casualties and Bush's re-election chances?  I will say one thing, however, that the soldiers killed in Iraq have little effect on Americans OVERALL. Not everyone has a family member or friend that is wounded or killed in Iraq, thus people are not as sympathetic towards how many die. So in that respect, I can clearly see why there should be no correlation between the number of casualties and Bush' re-election chances.
†††But the overall POINT that the American people SHOULD and WILL realize, is the REASON as to why we are still in Iraq and losing more and more American soldiers. THAT in itself is what will spark attentions in most American's minds, which will ultimately force them to question whether or not President Bush should continue as President. So I still believe that the list of casualties, which is a direct result of the War with Iraq and Post-War activites, will ULTIMATELY effect the voters. Maybe not directly, but ultimately nonetheless.  
†††And I would also like to followup on Miamau1027's question, since you seem to dislike our post-war activities in Iraq, will you be voting for President Bush in the 2004 election?
« Last Edit: November 08, 2003, 05:29:48 pm by Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2003, 09:32:03 am »
Ignore

Ryan-
Are you saying, based on his job performance in the field of foreign policy, you will not vote for GWB in 2004?  

I did not support the war at the beginning, although I supported the 87B for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Well I’m not a dogmatic republican. I’m republican because I agree with most of the GOP platform and feel most comfortable with the ideology and bent of mind of the GOP. I have however voted for democrats on a case-by-case basis when they have good policies and are personally impressive. One example would be Sen. Breaux (D-La). I would vote for Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga) any day. Still most such candidates would be right of center and I wouldn’t consider a liberal democrat unless the republican alternative is really unpalatable.  

In the case of 2004 the answer is yes I will vote for George Bush. (If you read my post carefully I never said I wouldn’t)
I want to make clear that I like and respect this President as do the vast majority of republicans and a majority of independents. I agree with at least 80% of his domestic policy.

On foreign policy (if you look at it over his entire term) I am STILL a strong supporter. The first time I had serious doubts were in May when though the threat from Saddam was clearly neutralized, it was clear we were still going to run the country. The concept of “nation-building” is a liberal and Clintonian concept not a conservative one. Conservatives do not believe that we should be building nations, in fact they believe that one nation cannot build another. The people of that country must do it themselves. Any help they ask for fine, but no other nation should be supervising it. I am unhappy that Bush has is not abiding by this concept but it is by no means enough for me to vote against him.

To expand further on my last post, though I have never seriously considered switching Dem in 2004, I did do some research on Joe Lieberman to see if he was someone I MIGHT consider supporting if other reasons came up. (after a look at his voting record all such thoughts ceased- I wont vote for someone so liberal)
Still, The fact that a generally committed republican like me could even think of doing that means there may be trouble down the line for Bush. Other more centrist republicans and independents may have had the same thoughts I had and may not have put them aside yet. As a matter of fact I know several of the above category that are in fact uncertain of voting Bush in 2004.

However lest the above give democrats too much joy I want to mention the following:
-   The last few weeks have seen an almost incessant barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric in the media mostly fueled by the democratic race. Once the Presidential race begins in earnest The President and his team will have an opportunity to state their case and a lot of current doubters might be persuaded.
-   If someone like Dean is nominated I can confidently predict that all doubting right-of-center voters will go back to being solidly Bush. We wont let a nutcase like him take over and screw up the country just because we are pissed with our President on one issue.
-   My gloomy outlook on Iraq is predicated upon an indefinite long-term engagement there and continuing casualties. I still believe this is likely but it may well not be so. I admit that I didn’t think we would win the original war so easily and cheaply (casualty-wise) either.
-   If the war goes better, remember to add that to a rapidly improving economy and this would be bad bad news for the democrats.

Still it will be an interesting race. Cheers.
Logged

Quote
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2003, 10:50:11 am »
Ignore

Demrepdan, we are even!!! I can assure you I found your post as confusing if not more so than u found mine Smiley Smiley

I want to clear up a couple of things. I said the American people, more than those of any other country, are willing to accept war-related hardships and casualties when they believe its worth fighting for.

Thats why I said, when looking for whether Bush is in trouble over Iraq, look not at the <<number of casualties>> but at whether the nation <<perceives the cause for which they were incurred as worth it>>

I fail to see how that is a contradiction.

As to how the country currently perceives our remaining in Iraq, I accept in all honesty that a majority views it negatively. Still I repeat my assertions made in the last post that
-   The last few weeks have seen an almost incessant barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric in the media mostly fueled by the democratic race. Once the Presidential race begins in earnest The President and his team will have an opportunity to state their case and a lot of current doubters might be persuaded.

-   My gloomy outlook on Iraq is predicated upon an indefinite long-term engagement there and continuing casualties. I still believe this is likely but it may well not be so. I admit that I didnt think we would win the original war so easily and cheaply (casualty-wise) either.

Thus the jury is still out on what effect the Iraq issue will have on the elections in NOV 2004. We will have to see the situation closer to that date before determining that.


I wouldnt corelate the NUMBER of casualties to Bush's reelection chances. Remember US Presidents were re-elected in 1944 and 1964 two years of very high US military casualties.

The difference was that then people believed the sacrifice was worth it because they could see tangible results in the wars on at that time.

The American people, more than those of any other country, are willing to accept war-related hardships when they believe its worth fighting for.

AS to the current situation my impression is that 70% of Americans (including me) supported a war to take out Saddam Hussien. Casualties in that pursuit were acceptable.
A majority of Americans (including me again) do not currently support keeping our troops there in pursuit of nation-building. I/we  dont believe thats our job and that any results will be worth the price we are paying. The administration has not yet made an convincing case on that. This is not to say they will not by November 2004 or that the results may be self-evident by then, but right now they are not!!!!

†††I agree with you that people, especially during WWII, were willing to accept the sacrifice and knew that it was a war worth fighting. That&#8217;s why they were willing to re-elect President Roosevelt to his 4th term. I fail to see why you brought up the 1964 election though.
†††Casualties in the Vietnam War didn&#8217;t  get heavy until 1965 when United States involvement really began.  In the election after that, the 1968 election, people DID indeed vote for the other party. I think the Vietnam War was a big eye-opener for Americans. The American people realized that our involvement in that war was unnecessary, and did not "preserve" OR "defend" our nation in anyway whatsoever. All it did was scare the communist (i.e. The Soviet Union) and show them that the United States government was willing to go to ANY length to defend freedom, even if it meant fighting in foreign lands and risking American lives. World War II on the other hand, was probably the last FULLY justified war we took part in. People knew we had to win that war, and everyone supported it.
†††You yourself, Ryan, seem to be contradicting yourself somewhat. You first speak of how the Americans are willing to sacrifice for their nation more than any other country in the world, therefore they wouldn't care too much about casualties and it wouldn&#8217;t affect President Bush&#8217;s re-election chances. But then you go on to say that you do not support the Post-War activities.
†††It&#8217;s the Post-War activities that are causing more and more American deaths, it&#8217;s the fact that we are still over there. Now I'm not saying we should pull troops out, I actually feel the opposite. We got involved in fighting the war, we can't just pull out now that we did our dirty work.
   I mean, just the fact that you seem upset that we are still over there, leads me to believe that you think that more American deaths are unacceptable. If that&#8217;s the case, then how can you say that their should be no correlation between the number of casualties and Bush's re-election chances?  I will say one thing, however, that the soldiers killed in Iraq have little effect on Americans OVERALL. Not everyone has a family member or friend that is wounded or killed in Iraq, thus people are not as sympathetic towards how many die. So in that respect, I can clearly see why there should be no correlation between the number of casualties and Bush' re-election chances.
†††But the overall POINT that the American people SHOULD and WILL realize, is the REASON as to why we are still in Iraq and losing more and more American soldiers. THAT in itself is what will spark attentions in most American's minds, which will ultimately force them to question whether or not President Bush should continue as President. So I still believe that the list of casualties, which is a direct result of the War with Iraq and Post-War activites, will ULTIMATELY effect the voters. Maybe not directly, but ultimately nonetheless.  
†††And I would also like to followup on Miamau1027's question, since you seem to dislike our post-war activities in Iraq, will you be voting for President Bush in the 2004 election?
Logged

Quote
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2003, 11:44:50 am »
Ignore

I just thought I'd attach a couple of articles (links) which speak of increasing republican identification in the country. I submit that they suggest that Bush continues to have support for his policies in general (though with a small majority)

And if (like me) members of this increasing majority are unhappy about Iraq its not affecting their likely vote at this time.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17267-2003Nov8.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/poll_party_allegiance031104.html

The washpost one is more consice if you prefer.
Logged

Quote
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2003, 02:58:01 pm »
Ignore

Demrepdan, we are even!!! I can assure you I found your post as confusing if not more so than u found mine Smiley Smiley
Ha ha! I know what you mean. After having read what I said again I now realize I have no idea what the hell I was trying to say. And you're right, I don't see a contradiction.
    But in essence, the point I was trying to make is that it is the War and the way it was handled and is being handled that will affect the vote of Americans. And the Americans killed in Iraq is a direct result of how the war is being handled, and how more things could be done to prevent more loss of Americans lives. So again, I don't know what the hell I was trying to say. haha. Sorry for the confusion.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
zorkpolitics
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1047
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: November 09, 2003, 10:28:02 pm »
Ignore

I give Bush about a 70% chance of being re-elected (though by small vote margin), based on two assumptions.  1) The economy will be improving as compared to  2001-2003.  The recent jobs and GDP numbers make this a very likely scenario.  2) Iraq will be getting better:  fewer casualties and some evidence of a functioning Iraqi government.  Although this is much less sure, the plan to train and turnover security duty to ex-Iraqi soldiers, will probably reduce US casualties.  

I don't think a future terrorist attack affects the outcome of the election: if there are no new attacks on the US, Bush receives credit; if there is an additional attack, it proves him right for fighting against the threats.
Logged

"Scientists are treacherous allies on committees, for they are apt to change their minds in response to arguments" C.M. Bowra
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 10, 2003, 12:18:50 am »
Ignore

I don't think a future terrorist attack affects the outcome of the election: if there are no new attacks on the US, Bush receives credit; if there is an additional attack, it proves him right for fighting against the threats.

But it doesn't say much for his ability to fight terrorism here on our own soil, which is most important. If there were to be another terrorist attack many people would question President Bush's defense in our own "homeland". Isn't that what the Department of Homeland Security is for? The ultimate goal of the Bush administration is to stop terrorism, and my guess is if there were another attack on U.S. soil, it would take a little more than a "SEE I TOLD YOU FIGHTING TERROR ABROAD WAS A GOOD IDEA!! I TOLD YA SO I TOLD YA SO!!" statement from the White House in order to win more votes.
   Many people (myself included) feel that no matter if the President were a Democrat or Republican, the risk is terror is still high and could happen at any time. And I see your point that another attack would justify our military actions. Well, it may justify it, but I guess we can't say it "prevents" it. But you can't say that there would be absolutely NO criticism towards Bush's preformance if another attack did occur.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #18 on: November 10, 2003, 02:02:32 am »
Ignore

I agree, if there was another 9/11 type terrorist attack, it would not help Bush. It would hurt him. A lot of people would be questioning why we weren't able to stop it and there would be a lot of questions as to whether the current policy was not only not working but making things worse.
As the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Logged
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2003, 05:31:42 am »
Ignore

Demrepdan, we are even!!! I can assure you I found your post as confusing if not more so than u found mine Smiley Smiley
Ha ha! I know what you mean. After having read what I said again I now realize I have no idea what the hell I was trying to say. And you're right, I don't see a contradiction.
    But in essence, the point I was trying to make is that it is the War and the way it was handled and is being handled that will affect the vote of Americans. And the Americans killed in Iraq is a direct result of how the war is being handled, and how more things could be done to prevent more loss of Americans lives. So again, I don't know what the hell I was trying to say. haha. Sorry for the confusion.

LOL Don't sweat it bud Smiley Happens to the best of us -   by which I mean ME Smiley Wink  I don't remember how many times I've gone back to a post I made and said "what WAS I trying to say here?? I know I had a good point at the time but I cant figure out for the life of me what it was" Cheesy

In any event though I was unable to summarize your post in any way (which I usually can for all posts) I did get the gist and we both agree that Iraq is not going well for America and CAN be a big problem for Bush in 2004. However for reasons I have specified in my last two posts in this section I have strong reasons to believe it wont prevent his re-election.
Logged

Quote
Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3617


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.61

P

View Profile
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2003, 10:56:32 pm »
Ignore

I put Bush's chances at reelection at about 50 - 55%.

Right now, I believe he's got about a 60% chance, but, alas, the election is not right now.
Logged

Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 17, 2003, 03:41:56 am »
Ignore

I put Bush's chances at reelection at about 50 - 55%.

Right now, I believe he's got about a 60% chance, but, alas, the election is not right now.

Too true. There has been a definite downward trend that doesnt look like its going to stop.

Still take into account the following:

-   The last few weeks have seen an almost incessant barrage of anti-Bush rhetoric in the media mostly fueled by the democratic race. Once the Presidential race begins in earnest The President and his team will have an opportunity to state their case and a lot of current doubters might be persuaded.
-   If someone like Dean is nominated I can confidently predict that all doubting right-of-center voters will go back to being solidly Bush. We wont let a nutcase like him take over and screw up the country just because we are pissed with our President on one issue.
-   A gloomy outlook on Iraq is predicated upon an indefinite long-term engagement there and continuing casualties. I still believe this is likely but it may well not be so. I admit that I didn&#8217;t think we would win the original war so easily and cheaply (casualty-wise) either.
-   If the war goes better, remember to add that to a rapidly improving economy and this would be bad bad news for the democrats.

Still it will be an interesting race. Cheers.
Logged

Quote
Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3617


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.61

P

View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 17, 2003, 10:30:13 am »
Ignore

We could also find Osama bin Laden or Saddam before November next year, and that would be a huge boost for Bush's numbers.  Finding either of those two would signal a "turn" in the war (even though we're still winning), since a lot of voters might be unhappy with the Iraq situation right now.  Remember, Abraham Lincoln wasn't even a shoo-in for reelection.  The Republican party was split at first.  The Democratic opponent was a well known and liked general.  Lincoln was only sure of being reelected after Sherman's march to Atlanta and it looked like the North was going to win the war.  So Lincoln won b/c nobody wanted to vote against the winner of the war.
Logged

Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15225
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 17, 2003, 05:21:54 pm »
Ignore

True, but conversely if we haven't found Bin Laden, Saddam, or the WMDs, then it becomes a potent issue that can be used against Bush. So either way, there are political risks for both sides.
Logged
Paul
Rookie
*
Posts: 32


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2003, 07:50:57 pm »
Ignore

1. As far as poll numbers go, W's have pretty much settled in the low 50s for the past few months.  There has been slight movement up and down, but not permanently or significantly.
2. Bush's re-election chances?  I'd put them at about 55% right now...of course that could (and probably will) change.
3.  WMDs have (for now) disappeared as a front page issue, and I don't see them resurfacing.  Saddam's capture would help Bush, but as long as Iraq stabilizes, then it really doesn't matter.  The big deal is Bin Laden.  If he isn't captured by next November, you can bet that will be a big campaign issue.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines