Do you think the 2004 US Presidential race will be close?

[charrison]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

"You can have President Bush's tax cuts, or you can have universal healthcare that can't be taken away from you". I think that's a good argument and many people will choose the latter.

Translation: pick liberty and responsbility or choose to become more dependent on the State. (I have more problems with UHC apart of this as well.)

The nation has been conditioned to hold out our hands early and often and I don't see the entitlement mentality ending just yet.

Oh, and, actually that can be taken away when the money to fund it finally erodes to nothingness.

The nation has been conditioned to hold out our hands early and often and I don't see the entitlement mentality ending just yet.

No, that is the one thing I have been hearing from Dems as well as Reps is that the time of reaching deeper and deeper into the pockets of the citizens is over. That is at least the one thing we may and should see slowly coming about is User Fees.

For example a bicycle group here locally asked for 3 million dollars to pave a bike path, everyone said put some boxes up and stuff the boxes with your own money and pay for the project and guess what, that is what they are doing. They'll get their trail, a little paved at a time and without using everyone elses money.

That is the way it should be done.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Michael
I think the race will be close because the nation is split about 50/50 politically and I don't expect that to have changed much by the next election. If the economy is still sick and the Democrat candidate is decent, then it will be even closer.

It also depends if a third party like Nader runs again.

Michael

Nader? You don't think a Libertarian Candidate would have a bigger affect?

I believe the 50/50 split is accurate and many people are looking a lot more seriously at the Libertarian Party. Both the Incumbent Dem and Rep Parties have become so close in maligned with the general populice that another Party rising would actually be viewed as the new 2nd Party.

There appears to be far more discontent voters in the democratic party, than in the republican party. MOst of the libertarian leaning republican I know will only vote for a libertarian when they know the democrat running cant win.

That would be me. I plan to vote Libertarian in 2004 unless the Dems have a chance of taking NC or if that president wannabe from NC wins the primary. I disagree with Bush on 20% of his practices and beliefs but that is a far cry better than disagreeing by ~80% with the best the Dems can come up with. I am hoping Libertarians can capture 5% of the vote and win congressional funding by doing so.

Bush will win in a landslide. He will be able to point out the lies and half truths that the liberals and their lackeys have been spouting recently.

 

[JellyBaby]

I am hoping Libertarians can capture 5% of the vote and win congressional funding by doing so.

That day will mark the beginning of the LPs greatest challenge. Will they succumb to petty inter party bickering that did in the reform party?

Bush will win in a landslide. He will be able to point out the lies and half truths that the liberals and their lackeys have been spouting recently.

A hypocrite calling another hypocrite a liar. Devolution here we come.

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

I am hoping Libertarians can capture 5% of the vote and win congressional funding by doing so.

That day will mark the beginning of the LPs greatest challenge. Will they succumb to petty inter party bickering that did in the reform party?

Bush will win in a landslide. He will be able to point out the lies and half truths that the liberals and their lackeys have been spouting recently.

A hypocrite calling another hypocrite a liar. Devolution here we come.

All politicians are hypocrites and liars. You just have to choose one that is not as good at it so that you can tell.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
No, it's not going to be close. Bush will win by a landslide. No need for Republicans to donate cash or come out and vote 😉

Nicely handled 😛 I think the biggest threat to GW is not the democrats, it is the daily rise in body count in Iraq.

 

[JellyBaby]

All politicians are hypocrites and liars. You just have to choose one that is not as good at it so that you can tell.

Most but not all. But even if that were true, I believe we can do much better than picking the lesser of two evils in perpetuity. It may simply be a matter of eliminating the incentives for the scum of the earth to seek public service. I'm still working out the details. 🙂

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
How cute and naive.
You still believe you have a say.

Diebold, too.
But THEY are not naive.
They have more and more control over the tally.
And corporate TV controls the tally of the exit polls.
Corporations own your powerless vote.
That is a one of the many consequences of your apathy since 1963.
http://www.votescam.com/frame.html

Black Box Voting: Ballot - Tampering in the 21st Century

Do you have a say in your gov't, Guy?

Hmmmm

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: GuyDebordJudoClub
How cute and naive.
You still believe you have a say.

Diebold, too.
But THEY are not naive.
They have more and more control over the tally.
And corporate TV controls the tally of the exit polls.
Corporations own your powerless vote.
That is a one of the many consequences of your apathy since 1963.
http://www.votescam.com/frame.html

Black Box Voting: Ballot - Tampering in the 21st Century

Do you have a say in your gov't, Guy?

Hmmmm

CkG

What a good question!

In France there has been a coup by a general in 1958.

People did not revolt.

TV shapes the minds.

And we do not have a direct democracy.

So the answer is: NO !

British journalist Christopher Hitchens, in the Wall Street Journal, said Chirac was 'a monster of conceit... a man so habituated to corruption that he would happily pay for the pleasure of selling himself.'

Wow even the lefties don't like this guy! 🙂

 

[EXman]

No guy will be close to Bush post 9-11

Hillary will have a shot at getting close but then again the 9-11 issue will still put Bush over the top why?

The Dems have NO foreign policy leaders and are seen as weak to the public i.e. Al Gore.

 

[JellyBaby]

The Dems have NO foreign policy leaders

The Rs traditional own them here. The Ds if they're smart (read that as it won't happen) should come up with a common sense foreign policy that addresses both terrorism and the inconsistent, aggressive and overly hemogenous slant to our current dealings with other countries.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: EXman
No guy will be close to Bush post 9-11

Hillary will have a shot at getting close but then again the 9-11 issue will still put Bush over the top why?

The Dems have NO foreign policy leaders and are seen as weak to the public i.e. Al Gore.

I REALLY hate revisionist history. Al Gore earned more votes than any Democratic candidate has ever had. He received more than 500,000 more votes than GWB did in 2000. Gore had a LARGER percentage of the black vote (over 90%) than Bill Clinton ever did (around 84%). Gore served in Vietnam as a reporter. He has vast foreign policy experience from his time in the Senate and as Vice President.

The republicans might be preceived to have the distinct edge in foreign policy and the military but GWB doesn't give me any confidence in the way he has handled either so far.
The eventual democratic nominee will have increase stature and should be able to go head to head with the stumbling bumbling GWB.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: EXman
No guy will be close to Bush post 9-11

Hillary will have a shot at getting close but then again the 9-11 issue will still put Bush over the top why?

The Dems have NO foreign policy leaders and are seen as weak to the public i.e. Al Gore.

I REALLY hate revisionist history. Al Gore earned more votes than any Democratic candidate has ever had. He received more than 500,000 more votes than GWB did in 2000. Gore had a LARGER percentage of the black vote (over 90%) than Bill Clinton ever did (around 84%). Gore served in Vietnam as a reporter. He has vast foreign policy experience from his time in the Senate and as Vice President.

The republicans might be preceived to have the distinct edge in foreign policy and the military but GWB doesn't give me any confidence in the way he has handled either so far.
The eventual democratic nominee will have increase stature and should be able to go head to head with the stumbling bumbling GWB.

:Q
Foreign policy is one of GWB's strenghts?

 

[DZip]

The Republicans need to take lessons from the Democrats on getting the votes. They need more buses and taxis to pick up voters and take them to the polls. They need someone to get the dead vote in Chicago. They need to show people how to vote more than once by multiple registrations and absentee ballots (remember those bragging about it). They need to promise the big city liberal special minorities more welfare programs since many don't pay taxes and would not benefit from lower taxes. Most importantly, lower their moral standards and stop thanking God for blessing America. They need to remember that everything good about this country is the result of the Democrat?s and all bad things are all the Republicans' fault.