Why Bush will win

[Gustaf]

1.  The economy is growing rapidly
2.  After catching Saddam, the war seems to be going considerably better.
3.  Gay marriage seems like it will be the big social issue of 2004 which plays right into the republicans' hands.
4.  Republican voter ID has overtaken dem ID in numerous key swing states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa, and Washington.
5.  Bush will have an astronomical amount of money.
6.  Dean will be the nominee.  Karl Rove will easily be able to paint Dean as an ultra-liberal who's out of step with mainstream America (They'll attack Dean on civil unions, the war, the tax-cuts, and draft-dodging among other things).
7.  Bush, acting very Clinton-esque, signed the Prescription Drug bill thus taking an issue away from the democrats.

Dean's opposition to the tax-cuts is going to kill him in the midwest and the southwest.  There's no point in Dean even campaigning in Missouri, Montana, Nevada, or Arizona.

Dean's opposition to the war is going to hurt him in New Jersey, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New York (although he'll win it anyway), and West Virginia.

The fact that he signed a civil unions bill is going to kill him everywhere else.  Once again, democrats won't win a single Southern state.  There going to do a lot worse in the midwest than they did in 2000.  Look for Bush to make some inroads on the West Coast (Oregon and maybe California or Washington) and in the Northeast (Maine perhaps).

We know, we know *sigh*.

[Gustaf]

The man is an idiot.  He has 55 posts already....he has posted in all of our buried threads.  I think it is fair to ask justification from him.

I wish Dave would make a few of us trusted members, moderators at the forums. (If the forums will allow him to, that is.) That way we can lay down the law with an IRON FIST, and stop all these fools and their stupid posts, and bring an end to trolls. As President Bush said about terrorist, I say about trolls.

We will hunt them down, and take em down. We'll smoke em out. These guys can't stay hidden forever. They will experience the justice they never gave to others.

But, if he did that, everyone would be crying for a moderator job.  If he did give some people moderator jobs, I don't think either one of us deserves it.  I have only been a member since May, and you weren't at the old board.  Somebody who has been here a long time deserves the job.

Agreed. I know that I don't really deserve it, since I'm realtively new the the forum, and plus I know I would abuse my power as moderator. lol

But someone else should be moderator, so they can end all of this nonesense. Someone strong.....someone smart....someone wise....

Maybe whoever got the most posts should be moderator (Hmm, it's gonna be hard cathing up with Realpolitik's 700+ posts, though!)

[Gustaf]

Well, you might have somebody like jrvansbo who has 570 posts and has been a member for a month, so I think Nym's tenure as a emeber here is impressive and earns him the job.

Well, I wasn't being that serious anyway. It would be tough picking moderators in any case, they would get a dangerous amount of power...

[Gustaf]

Well, you might have somebody like jrvansbo who has 570 posts and has been a member for a month, so I think Nym's tenure as a emeber here is impressive and earns him the job.

Well, I wasn't being that serious anyway. It would be tough picking moderators in any case, they would get a dangerous amount of power...

I think most of us would not abuse the power, but I am sure some would.

Someone might delete bible quotes or someone else might delete anything irreverent. Or what do you think?

[Gustaf]

Haha...
I'll tell you what I'd like to do with the bible quotes....

I can imagine...

[Gustaf]

Well IF dave needs some help we should do it like a democracy.

Take nominations by a certain date, give a little campaigning time and then take a vote.

Names from a hat.

What if people started to get external friends to sign up and vote? Or what if the 100+ "silent members" came around and turned out to be trolls, or something? Or the majority here comes from one party and nominates a hard-liner who is unfair? No, Dave is our strong leader and should make the calls! :)Promoting democratic take-overs of private property isn't very conservative, is it?

And, btw, the only who has indicated himself as a good choice is jvravnsbo, I think.

[Gustaf]

Well IF dave needs some help we should do it like a democracy.

Take nominations by a certain date, give a little campaigning time and then take a vote.

Names from a hat.

What if people started to get external friends to sign up and vote? Or what if the 100+ "silent members" came around and turned out to be trolls, or something? Or the majority here comes from one party and nominates a hard-liner who is unfair? No, Dave is our strong leader and should make the calls! :)Promoting democratic take-overs of private property isn't very conservative, is it?

And, btw, the only who has indicated himself as a good choice is jvravnsbo, I think.

Voter fraud.

Whatever the result, we will demand a recount!

[Gustaf]

Well IF dave needs some help we should do it like a democracy.

Take nominations by a certain date, give a little campaigning time and then take a vote.

Names from a hat.

What if people started to get external friends to sign up and vote? Or what if the 100+ "silent members" came around and turned out to be trolls, or something? Or the majority here comes from one party and nominates a hard-liner who is unfair? No, Dave is our strong leader and should make the calls! :)Promoting democratic take-overs of private property isn't very conservative, is it?

And, btw, the only who has indicated himself as a good choice is jvravnsbo, I think.

Voter fraud.

Whatever the result, we will demand a recount!

I'll take it to court.

See you there, then.

[Gustaf]

Well, you might have somebody like jrvansbo who has 570 posts and has been a member for a month, so I think Nym's tenure as a emeber here is impressive and earns him the job.

Well, I wasn't being that serious anyway. It would be tough picking moderators in any case, they would get a dangerous amount of power...

I think most of us would not abuse the power, but I am sure some would.

Someone might delete bible quotes or someone else might delete anything irreverent. Or what do you think?

Dave is the moderator.  That's good enough.

I BOW BEFORE YOU SUPREME LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, he is, but he can't be here all that much of the time (he has a life, unlike me), and he can't moderate all that much.  A second moderator would be helpful.

Begging for the job arn't ya?

No, I nominated Nym90.

What the heck is this all about? Being Moderator on your site Miami U, or on ATLAS? Well, you already offered me the position. So, that's more fair I would think!

This is about ATLAS, I think. At least that is what mos tof us has been discussing. Are you getting a moderator position on Dave's board, or what?

[Gustaf]

No but you could continue to isolate them and tellt eh Chinese we will arm Japan and the South fully if they don't head off North Korea.  China doesn't want that either.

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

It may be the only way to do this in the end.  we can't start another war, you know that as well as anybody.

I am not sure how much influence China can excercise over NK. Asian communists are really scary, I'm not convinced they can be negotiated with. NK in particular.

[Gustaf]

China could simply tell them straight up.  Get rid of your nukes or you go it alone.  We will not support you if the US attacks as we did in the first Korean war.

Without China , N Korea militarily is toast.

No but you could continue to isolate them and tellt eh Chinese we will arm Japan and the South fully if they don't head off North Korea.  China doesn't want that either.

Because if they let us in to look at least we will have more knowledge as to what they actually have.  

Plus we must be making some progress int he talks if they are willing to let us in.


Yes i know paying them off the Clinton approach, didn't like it then or now.

It may be the only way to do this in the end.  we can't start another war, you know that as well as anybody.

I am not sure how much influence China can excercise over NK. Asian communists are really scary, I'm not convinced they can be negotiated with. NK in particular.

Yeah, but do they know that? How deluded are they?

[Gustaf]

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway.

[Gustaf]

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway.

No problem. I am a fiscally conservative morally moderate independant. By fiscally conservative I mean not entirely a supply sider but that the people's money comes first before the gov't and I feel that we as a society are taxed enough. budget cuts should come first and if there is a tax raise I think the gov't should provide something with it not just more money for the gov't. As for moral issues I feel that this country needs to continue to explore alternatives and to seek ground that is good for as much of the majority as practical. However, I feel that recently those on the liberal side have gone too far with moral issues and in an attempt to "not offend" anyone we are starting to lose individuality. I think we should welcome people of faith to be able to dislpay and share their beliefs, just as we should with any and all cultures so long as the practices and rituals are not defammatory or injurious in nature, of course. I think that people should be able to say Merry Christmas without worrying about others rights. I think Children should be able to participate in voluntary prayer and the schools should welcome this because it is "voluntary" We should continue to strive for culteral diversity and freedom, not take it all away.
Lately I have ben siding more with Republicans although I have some serious issues with the party. If GW Bush wins fine what I'm more concerned with right now is that I feel that the democratic party is teetering on implosion and that will leave the Republicans with too much control. For all of these reasons and various others I am an independant.   Although I often score on a libertarian side with the ploitical identity polls I don't really consider myself one.

Sounds like you're close to me then! Thanks for the answers, I will try to remember which is which now.

[Gustaf]

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.

If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%

sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

[Gustaf]

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.

If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%

sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  

Heh...this is the 4th time this site is posted on the forum, but it never fails to give positive reactions each time...

I suppose you like it b/c it seems so encouraging to the Reos. Let me just remind you that some of them has a lot of undecided, and those usually go against the incumbant. States where Bush is polling below 45% now are not that likely to vote for him in Novemeber. But I agree that Bush chances are looking pretty good right now.

[Gustaf]

Hey I wonder what happened to my post above?

Here's a repost:
The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote:
 

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote:
 

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.

[Gustaf]

Honestly I like Kerry better for GOP win than Dean.  Dean has the potential to try and look moderate with record from VT.  Kerry is a liberal, was a liberal and always will be a liberal.

Love it.  I'd rather they nominate kerry than Dean.

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

I still think Dean's shaky, to say the least, position on Iraq and foreign policy would have done him in worse. And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

[Gustaf]

 
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Michigan will not go clearly for Kery. Kerry may win but it will be close.
 
 
 
 

It depends on the defintion of clearly. I am thinking 53-47 or something similar, that's clearly to me, but no landslide of course.

[Gustaf]

That's interesting, being pro-environment is very unusual for a right-winger, which isn't really logical though, btw.  

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[Gustaf]

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

Kerry is stronger only in one way - he seems very reliable, predictable, reassuring - a member of the 'establishment'.  I know he's a liberal, and by definition it is dangerous having a liberal in charge of anything - but particularly national defense and foreign policy.  I'm just saying that he gives the *impression* of someone who is more reliable than Dean for example - or even Edwards for that matter.  I don't think this will win him the election, but I do think it means he wins a few more 'leans Democrat' states than Dean would have.

Pretty much sums up my argument. I still think a war vet who supported the Iraq War will carry more weight than a mad doctor who dodged the draft and went skiing. But I COULD be wrong I guess...