Election Odds

[Demrepdan]

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.

[Demrepdan]

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’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’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’t affect President Bush’s re-election chances. But then you go on to say that you do not support the Post-War activities.
   It’s the Post-War activities that are causing more and more American deaths, it’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’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?

[Demrepdan]

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

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.

[Demrepdan]

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.

[Demrepdan]

Bin Ladin is probably dead!! The guy was on dialysis and given that he would be hanging out in (and shuttling between) caves these days without the latest in medical technology, the odds on him being hale and hearty are not good.

Besides doesnt it strike you as odd that a guy so fond of videotape messages has chosen to restrict himself to very unclear audio-tapes of late???

Obviously you see the reason Al Quaida wants to pretend he is alive?? Neo-Nazis insisted that Hitler was in fact alive and preparing a master plan to resurrect the Reich till well after he WOULD have been a hundred years old

I don't think Bin Laden is dead. You said it yourself, that the neo-Nazis attempted to convince the world that Adolf Hitler was still alive, but eventually, eventually, the truth will leaked out. We now know (actually we knew for sure less than 4 years after the war) that Hitler is dead! You can't keep a secret forever. If Bin Laden is dead, we are gonna learn about this sooner or later, and it won't take until AFTER the Bush administration to find out if he is dead. Assuming Bush is re-elected again, and serves until 2009. I'm the type of person that likes to have substantial evidence, and not be told that something is so, without me seeing it. Maybe thats why I stopped believing in Santa Claus years ago. I wanna see Bin Laden's body. Saddam's too. Is that too much to ask?

P.S. Santa DOES exist! (I doubt any children visit this forum, but if they do, I think I covered that up pretty well.) HO HO HO!

[Demrepdan]

80% election chances?!

I think at BEST he as 70%. 80% Pretty much as it wrapped up by now. It's too early to judge anything. Saddam has JUST been captured. I haven't heard a lot of feed back on the election in 2004, so don't be premature in your own judgements.

However, I will not deny that Bush's chances of re-election have greatly increased.

[Demrepdan]

Will dean win the nomination

Yes, unless something unforeseen happens, he is Mr. Democrat.

More like Mr. Far-Left.

It seems as though that is the only defense people have against Dean. He is FAR-left. I think (if nominated) he will slide to the center more for the general election. I mean, he's gonna HAVE to. But if he was SO left, why is he against gun control. And many think he is more fiscally conservative than Bush.