2004 General Election prediction...

[amicus]

Bush/Cheney 54% Kerry/Edwards 46%...Roe v Wade is gone, same sex marriage is gone, the barbarians and the socialists are held off for at least another 4 years...and then...and then...the country will not tolerate another Clinton...and those who respect freedom and individual liberty will have eight more years to perhaps diminish those who would control and dictate, so that that they may never rise again...alas....the evils of liberals and democrats will always arise from the night soil....woe is man...

 

[shereads]

I want you, stud.

 

[Dirty Slut]

Originally posted by amicus
Bush/Cheney 54% Kerry/Edwards 46%...Roe v Wade is gone, same sex marriage is gone, the barbarians and the socialists are held off for at least another 4 years...and then...and then...the country will not tolerate another Clinton...and those who respect freedom and individual liberty will have eight more years to perhaps diminish those who would control and dictate, so that that they may never rise again...alas....the evils of liberals and democrats will always arise from the night soil....woe is man...

I doubt the rising oil prices will make any friends for Bush this November. When oil prices go up the price of everything else goes up too. And yes, Bush is responcible as he could very well freeze the prices and stop this horse shit.

DS

 

[Edward Teach]

Bush/Cheney 54% Kerry/Edwards 46%...Roe v Wade is gone, same sex marriage is gone, the barbarians and the socialists are held off for at least another 4 years...and then...and then...the country will not tolerate another Clinton...and those who respect freedom and individual liberty will have eight more years to perhaps diminish those who would control and dictate, so that that they may never rise again...alas....the evils of liberals and democrats will always arise from the night soil....woe is man...

Kerry/Edwards 49% Bush/Cheney 48% Nader 3%. Although Nader will pull some of the liberal vote, Democrats will remember the lessons learned in 2000 and the Green Party will get a substantially smaller percentage this go around. Blacks, being continually reminded about Florida, 2000, will turn out in record numbers, but the biggest difference will be Kerry’s welcoming of Clinton to the campaign. To show that Gore made a fatal mistake by shunning him in 2000, Clinton will relish the chance to campaign, raise record amounts of money and prove that he is the Democrat’s number one resource.

Amicus, you seem to be alluding to what Nixon was trying to accomplish with Watergate. Having seen Barry Goldwater get painted ultra right by Johnson in ‘64 and subsequently drubbed so badly that it seemed no candidate in the foreseeable future would run from the extreme right, Nixon wanted to "choose" his opponent in ’72, paint him ultra left and beat him so soundly that no candidate for the foreseeable future would run from the ultra left. His goal was to posture politics to assure that the country would be governed from the middle for many, many years to come. Had his people not gotten carried away and created Watergate, he probably would have pulled it off.

If I understand what you are saying, I agree that the country is now so polarized that compromise, the "art of politics," will be practically forgotten for some time to come.

Ed

 

[Icingsugar]

Florida II: The Return Of The Chad

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Nader won't be a factor.

First of all, it's pretty clear now that the man is an egomaniac who's just besotted with the idea of Ralph Nader.

Second of all, this isn't a choice between Moe & Joe in a period of fat and happy budget surpluses and a healthy economy as it was in 2000. Its pretty much balls-against-the-wall time. The fact that Kerry's the front runner tells me that Democrats are voting for electibility, and that the main impetus for voting is Anyone But Bush. The people who voted for Nader now know that a vote for Ralph is a vote for Bush. I expect Nader to come in at maybe 1%.

There's more. I think Iraq is going to explode into chaos or civil war as soon as our troops leave next summer, which will be just in time for the election over here. It'll be very interesting to see how Rove & co. handle the withdrawal.

---dr.M.

 

[shereads]

Second of all, this isn't a choice between Moe & Joe in a period of fat and happy budget surpluses and a healthy economy as it was in 2000. Its pretty much balls-against-the-wall time. The fact that Kerry's the front runner tells me that Democrats are voting for electibility, and that the main impetus for voting is Anyone But Bush. The people who voted for Nader now know that a vote for Ralph is a vote for Bush. I expect Nader to come in at maybe 1%.

There's more. I think Iraq is going to explode into chaos or civil war as soon as our troops leave next summer, which will be just in time for the election over here. It'll be very interesting to see how Rove & co. handle the withdrawal.

---dr.M.

One percent of Nader's voters in Florida would have carried the state for Gore and determined the outcome of the 2000 election. Three percent of his voters would have carried New Hampshire.

http://www.turtlerock.com/RalphDontRun

I think Rove, Cheney Assoc. will be careful to avoid any changes to our situation in Iraq in the months preceding the election. There will be a symbolic withdrawal of troops, enough to get some television coverage of a victorious return, but there will be sufficient presence to delay a full-blown civil war until after November.

 

[shereads]

* As Uncle Duke pointed out in the Doonesbury comic strip last week, the civil war is months away. There's still money to be made in Iraq!

 

[Pure]

I agree with Amicus. Bush by more than a slender amt. **There will be scripted 'withdrawal' as in Viet Nam, and an attempt to keep a lid on things. Unless an unplanned disaster occurs, whose blame can't be deflected, the wartime drum beating; the security alerts, 'he's keeping America strong' is pretty sure to win.

Another way to look at this is that Bush has paired himself with Sharon. Both are heading for disaster, but not many have figured that out yet. It will take a while, since the approach looks so audacious and strong.

**
An in the electoral college with roughly the same states as before, maybe adding Ohio, even has a (slim) chance in CA.

 

[shereads]

the main impetus for voting is Anyone But Bush.

---dr.M. [/B]

I'm checking out online sources for bumper stickers. Thank you for the slogan, and remember A.B.B.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Here is a prediction for you, it dosen't matter who has 51% of the vote and who has 49%.

If the seaboards and industrialized NE go democrat as they usally do and the democratic party fails to appeal to the middle of the country and south again, then your winner will likely come down to florida again. The entrie question could be rendered moot if the Governator can deliver California to the Republicans.

Kerry can have a tidy majority in the popular vote if he carries the seaboards and industrialized urban areas and still loose, if he can't find a way to convince people arcoss the middle of the country that the Democratic party represents them in some meaninful way.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

vegetarian

I absolutely love your definition of, 'vegetarian'...I am writing about primitive societies...and wish I could find a way to use that, smiles..thank you

 

[kellycummings]

I can see Kerry winning. Bush has been shooting himself in the foot lately, what with the war and now the gay marriage thing. Does he realize that there are a lot of gay people out there that vote? If it was me, I would have kept my mouth shut as much as possible until after the election. But then, maybe the subject is simply too hot to ignore. I still say Kerry wins.

 

[Pure]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned a key fact (related to Bush's funds). Bush will be out when the military/industrial/petrochemical elite decide he's done what's possible and has become a liability to their interests.

The key questions: 1)Is the present Total, Hard Dominance of Mideast --going it mostly alone--proving to be a workable. Or is the more traditional masked, 'soft' dominance preferable?

2) Domestically: Is the present war and security footing creating enough jobs, binding together the middle and working classes in patriotic fervor, and silencing most domestic unrest?

Consider the election like that last half time show, with 'gay marriage' instead of 'bare boob' as the issue.

BTW, on CNN last night, Kerry, what's-his-name-happy-face, and Bush ALL said they are against gay marriage. Dems *very scared.

 

[oggbashan]

Effect of 2004 election

California votes to petition the Queen to become part of the British Empire.

Gay couples swamp British immigration centres.

British National Health Service reports "abortion tourism" increasing but pockets millions of dollars from it.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I can see Kerry winning. Bush has been shooting himself in the foot lately, what with the war and now the gay marriage thing. Does he realize that there are a lot of gay people out there that vote? If it was me, I would have kept my mouth shut as much as possible until after the election. But then, maybe the subject is simply too hot to ignore. I still say Kerry wins.

There are a lot of gays who vote. I would venture a guess that not only a majority, but a vast majority of gays vote democrat. Bush didn't loose many, if any votes by coming out (pun intended) for an amendment baring gay marriage.

The move has little downside for him, he placates his core constituency, and quite possibly strengthens his appeal where he needs to make sure he holds on, the south and Mid west, neither of which are bastions of acceptance of gays.

I think too, the move is timed and aimed at hoping to steal California. San Francisco, by offring gay couples marriage liscences, in defiance of state law is making itself a boon to the republicans. The law there that defines marriage as a man and woman only was passed by an inititive and passed with a handy majority. If enough of the people who feel that way are up in arms about it when Nov. rolls around it could hurt the Democrats in a huge state that they depend upon.

SF may very well force the Democrats to adopt the same stance as the president, or risk loosing a state vital to them in the electoral college. It is very much a political hot potatoe and Bush didn't really hurt himself by coming out publically for such an amendement. He did however leverage the Democratic candidate into a tight spot.

For better of for worse Kerry now cannot ignore the issue and however he declares it will hurt him because the Democratic party constituency will be divided on the issue where the Republican core is much more homogenous in make up and in general won't be.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

Kerry already has spoken to the issue.

The numbers aren't so important, and won't change much from last time in respect of gays. The *symbol* is important: Will the public accept this as THE issue: Will a 3000 year old institution--one supporting *the family*-- in every religion around the world be fatally undermined; Are "those who would allow this" suited to public office?

 

[shereads]

I can see Kerry winning. Bush has been shooting himself in the foot lately, what with the war and now the gay marriage thing. Does he realize that there are a lot of gay people out there that vote? If it was me, I would have kept my mouth shut as much as possible until after the election. But then, maybe the subject is simply too hot to ignore. I still say Kerry wins.

Kelly, I wish I shared your optimism about the power of the gay vote. Unfortunately, I think Bush's campaign machine has done the math and they know that the same-sex marriage issue cannot harm GWB.

Consider this: if the popular vote were all that mattered, the gay community would be a powerful voice in a national election. But the reality is, GWB need only care about a state-by-state majority, not a majority of voters over all. Gay rights advocates as a meaningful voting bloc exist clustered in gay-friendly communities like Miami Beach - as opposed to Miami-Dade County, which is significantly more populous than Miami Beach and is predominantly influenced by the right-leaning Cuban exile community; and Florida, which outside of the Fort Lauderdale/Miami Beach areas, grows closer to the Bible Belt not just geographically but culturally, every mile north of Ft. Lauderdale/Broward County.

California might be more gay-friendly than Florida; I don't know. But the only public outcry against this that I'm aware of from reading the news is in San Francisco, which like Miami Beach is not likely to influence the entire state.

Polls show that a majority of Americans are not in favor of same-sex marriage. That doesn't mean they're in favor of adding the first class-restrictive amendment to the consitution; but it may mean they won't object strongly enough to make a difference.

The people who put GWB in office did so against high odds. In his own words as heard on Swedish television during a state visit and quoted on several "Bushisms" websites, he was "running against peace, prosperity and incumbency." His campaign machine is not only the richest fund-raising organization in the history of American politics, it's also run by shrewder minds than the ones directing his policies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Re: vegetarian

I absolutely love your definition of, 'vegetarian'...I am writing about primitive societies...and wish I could find a way to use that, smiles..thank you

I cannot tell a lie, I nicked the quote. I believe it's originator was Andy rooney

-Colly

 

[shereads]

Re: Effect of 2004 election

California votes to petition the Queen to become part of the British Empire.

Well, if the alternative is Canada...

 

[shereads]

It's been pointed out on NPR just now that proposing a Constitutional amendment is the easiest way for the president to try to regain the loyalty of conservatives, because a president has absolutely no role to play in passing an amendment. It's entirely in the hands of the congress, where it must pass by 2/3 majority (definitely doable if Republicans gain the expected number of seats due to reapportioned voting districts and retiring Democrats) and the states, 38 of which must ratify the amendment.

It was also pointed out that while a majority of Americans polled say they are against same-sex marriage, less than 45 percent also say they are in favor of amending the constitution. Previously popular movements that failed to win amendments were the Equal Rights Amendment (my generation of new voters' first major political struggle and most disappointing defeat), an anti-abortioin amendment, and an amendment to prohibit flag-burning. People are rightly reluctant to change the constitution, especially when it's so much easier to lobby their states for tougher restrictions.

Senator Kennedy's statement to the press:

"Today President Bush goes down in history as the first president in the history of this country to propose adding bias to the constitution."

A proud day for our boy Dubya.

 

[Edward Teach]

Sher,

What's the chance of retiring that green AV thing and bringing back the orange?

Ed

 

[Guest]

Senator Kennedy's statement to the press: "Today President Bush goes down in history as the first president in the history of this country to propose adding bias to the constitution."

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom came out roaring against what he termed President Bush's shameful call Tuesday for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and challenged fellow Democrats to stand firm against the proposal.

The president has "tried to divide this country in order to advance his political career by messing with the Constitution,'' Newsom said at a City Hall press conference after Bush's comments from the White House.

"It's fundamentally wrong on principle, and we've got to have the courage to stand up and say enough, stop. And that's what we're doing here in San Francisco, and that's what I hope Democrats across this country will do as well,'' he said.
<snip>
"I can't believe people of good conscience, from any ideological perspective, can honestly say that the Constitution should be used to take rights away from people when the Constitution was conceived to advance the rights of people in this country,'' said San Francisco's 36-year-old Democratic mayor. "It is a terrible day because of what the president of the United States has decided to do to divide the United States of America. That, I think, is shameful.''

full article

 

[Guest]

Salon article

edit: It's Newsom, not Newson as mispelled in my pic title.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Salon article

Now that's a campaign photo! The slogan is failing me just now, but I'll keep working on it.

~lucky