POLL:political bias aside: does anyone think that Kerry has a viable shot?

[conjur]

I wish Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich would pull out of the race and give Edwards a real shot at upending Kerry.

 

[Napalm]

Kerry has little chance for 3 main reasons:

1) America seems to be in a mood that favours Bush
2) The Republican spin monkeys will destroy Kerry with truths and half-truths
3) Bush has Osama and will spring his capture for maximum effect

Napalm

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Do you any of you really think we will come closer to world peace through increased military spending. You Repub. just don't get it, the way to win peace is not through war. We must change our foreign policy in big ways. Deploying more troops around the world is only making the problem worse. We are fueling the hatred for these terrorists.

You're right. We should give them a hug.

Oh, and BTW - we are starting to reduce our military footprint across the globe. The problem comes in when the countries we try to pull out of start whining about the loss of revenue created by our troops and such over there.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Do you any of you really think we will come closer to world peace through increased military spending. You Repub. just don't get it, the way to win peace is not through war. We must change our foreign policy in big ways. Deploying more troops around the world is only making the problem worse. We are fueling the hatred for these terrorists.

You're right. We should give them a hug.

Oh, and BTW - we are starting to reduce our military footprint across the globe. The problem comes in when the countries we try to pull out of start whining about the loss of revenue created by our troops and such over there.

CkG

Countries whined when we went to war in Iraq. That hardly stopped Bush.

We don't give a rat's behind about what others want. We are in these regions because of US interests. It is much harder to have a global military presence when starting from the US, or US territories. Having bases around the world allows for a more rapid response to situations requiring military interventions. Having bases in certain areas also serves as a deterrent to some governments. They see the big gorilla, not just hear of him.

If we reduce or pull out, it is because we can.

Countries do not have friends. They have common interests. Host countries get the economic benefits, and we get location, location, location. If being in a region becomes a liability, they will be removed in a heartbeat.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I'm sorry but what planet do you people live on? Do you go outside and actually talk with people?

The majority consensus here in California is that the war in Iraq is a huge disaster. People in this country are not in the same "mood" as Bush. We are as divided as ever. To think otherwise is not only moronic, but completely false. Just check the polls on every major political issue (war on iraq, economy, etc.), and we are split down the middle.

 

[0roo0roo]

but but but...he's a "uniter, not a divider"!!

he said so!

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm sorry but what planet do you people live on? Do you go outside and actually talk with people?

The majority consensus here in California is that the war in Iraq is a huge disaster. People in this country are not in the same "mood" as Bush. We are as divided as ever. To think otherwise is not only moronic, but completely false. Just check the polls on every major political issue (war on iraq, economy, etc.), and we are split down the middle.

Sometimes I think that California is so out there in left field that it should just drop out and become its own country. If that were to happen, instead of 50-50 split, it might be something like 25-75 in favor of Bush

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: EXman

Bush is too vulnerable on too many issues, Kerry will win.

And Kerry has Voted on both side of almost every issue so he can say he can go with the flow on any popular trend. I do not see how any vet can vote for this lame though they are totally duped. He's more liberal than Teddy in defense. Now that is saying something!

Doesn't really matter how Kerry has voted. Bush has been at the helm, not Kerry, and Bush's record will sink him.

 

[Vic]

As someone who is independent of both parties, I believe that if the elections were held today, Kerry would win though is would be somewhat close. It's a long time until November though, and people's memories are shorter than ever.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

California has the 5th largest economy in the world. So your statements have some validity, though we are just as much a part of this country as any state is.

 

[maddogchen]

Now that I thought about it some more, the idea of Arnold as a leader of his own nation sounds scary.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm sorry but what planet do you people live on? Do you go outside and actually talk with people?

The majority consensus here in California is that the war in Iraq is a huge disaster. People in this country are not in the same "mood" as Bush. We are as divided as ever. To think otherwise is not only moronic, but completely false. Just check the polls on every major political issue (war on iraq, economy, etc.), and we are split down the middle.

Sometimes I think that California is so out there in left field that it should just drop out and become its own country. If that were to happen, instead of 50-50 split, it might be something like 25-75 in favor of Bush

which is why arnold runs around as governor right now right? get a grip

 

[Ferocious]

I would say he's got a 45% chance of winning.

Bush still has a comfortable edge.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: conjur
I wish Dean, Sharpton, and Kucinich would pull out of the race and give Edwards a real shot at upending Kerry.

Thank you... IMHO he's the best candidate.

As for a Kerry win, there are a few wild cards..

If Nader runs, no.

The ABB (I'll vote for Anybody But Bush) factor. I've heard this a lot over the last few months.

I'm hearing 50 year old white men threatening to vote for Sharpton because he's ABB...

 

[Tiorapatea]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Do you any of you really think we will come closer to world peace through increased military spending. You Repub. just don't get it, the way to win peace is not through war. We must change our foreign policy in big ways. Deploying more troops around the world is only making the problem worse. We are fueling the hatred for these terrorists.

That's absolutely right, IMO.

I should declare I'm from the UK.

Some things America should do for its own security that won't happen under Bush:

1. Put serious pressure on Israel to provide a viable sovereign State for Palestinians. That means the whole of the West Bank and some compromise on the status of Jerusalem. Many settlements will have to be dismantled. The plight of Palestinians is significant not only for its own sake but because it has enormous symbolic importance throughout the Middle East. Israel should, of course, continue to receive military assistance from the US and the area will take a long time to settle down.

2. Admit that the doctrine of pre-emptive invasion was a mistake. Since intelligence can be either wrong or manipulated by politicians, it is not good enough to say "trust me, this is about the safety of America".

3. Get rid of the legal abomination of Guantanamo Bay. If these people have committed criminal offences, charge them; otherwise, release them. It is very damaging for the US to be seen to create legal novelties by which it detains foreign citizens indefinitely and without trial and especially when it has to do this in the "non-jurisdiction"/legal vacuum that is Guantanamo Bay.

Oops, gotta go. Maybe I'll think of some other things later.

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm sorry but what planet do you people live on? Do you go outside and actually talk with people?

The majority consensus here in California is that the war in Iraq is a huge disaster. People in this country are not in the same "mood" as Bush. We are as divided as ever. To think otherwise is not only moronic, but completely false. Just check the polls on every major political issue (war on iraq, economy, etc.), and we are split down the middle.

Sometimes I think that California is so out there in left field that it should just drop out and become its own country. If that were to happen, instead of 50-50 split, it might be something like 25-75 in favor of Bush

which is why arnold runs around as governor right now right? get a grip

no, arnold is gov because the last one did such a horrible job and burdened California with a huge debt. In the last election Bush got blown out of the water by Gore in California. Something like Gore 64%, Bush 30 something. California's economy has tanked under Bush. In California Bush is gonna lose by a lot more this year.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Kerry needs to do two things to win:

1. He needs to get off the tax increases. Period. It is an issue that will be brought up but he needs to distance himself from it.

2. When he gets to debate Bush he needs to completely ignore whatever the question is that is asked, look right at the President and ask him, "Where are the weapons you said were in Iraq?", and he needs to keep hammering on the President, completely ignoring any interference from the moderator or simply not accepting any answer except for, "We were wrong." from the President. It is the issue in this election and it should be. Stay away from the job creation BS, environmental diatribe, etc. Keep hammering and hammering and hammering about the weapons. Make him answer. None of this "you saw the same evidence" (he didn't), none of this, "you voted for it" crap. Make him answer the question on a national stage and don't let him off the hook like Russert did.

Yes, I'm serious.

Kerry does that and he would be finished....they will call him Dean Jr.

No he wouldn't. I am not advocating screaming like an idiot or getting pissed off. Kerry is a statesman, he knows how to handle himself. He needs to force this issue. He needs to do it on a national stage. If he does he will win.

Kerry and the Senate received the SAME information the president did. He voted for war. He really would lack alot of credibility by doing what you described. Not to mention would get raked over the coals for doing it in a forum such as a debate.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
I'm sorry but what planet do you people live on? Do you go outside and actually talk with people?

The majority consensus here in California is that the war in Iraq is a huge disaster. People in this country are not in the same "mood" as Bush. We are as divided as ever. To think otherwise is not only moronic, but completely false. Just check the polls on every major political issue (war on iraq, economy, etc.), and we are split down the middle.

Sometimes I think that California is so out there in left field that it should just drop out and become its own country. If that were to happen, instead of 50-50 split, it might be something like 25-75 in favor of Bush

which is why arnold runs around as governor right now right? get a grip

no, arnold is gov because the last one did such a horrible job and burdened California with a huge debt. In the last election Bush got blown out of the water by Gore in California. Something like Gore 64%, Bush 30 something. California's economy has tanked under Bush. In California Bush is gonna lose by a lot more this year.

californias economy has nothing to do with bush. gay davis tried this approach during the recall and the voters saw through it. the democrats will most likely win california come november but with with a republican govenor its gonna be a lot closer than in 2000

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Do you any of you really think we will come closer to world peace through increased military spending. You Repub. just don't get it, the way to win peace is not through war. We must change our foreign policy in big ways. Deploying more troops around the world is only making the problem worse. We are fueling the hatred for these terrorists.

if other countries werent threats to each other then we'd have world peace. what do you suppose we do in the meantime? group hug?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

How about peace talks? Collaborating with the UN and through a joint effort of many countries try to fix the world's problems, that sound like a bad idea? Was the "threat" in Iraq, which we now know to be completely false, that imminent that Bush couldn't wait for the UN?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Mmm, I'm independent and I have no intention of voting for Kerry OR Bush. Of course, I can't really say I have a candidate, either; it seems this year is completely dry of good presidential candidates. Depressing.

Just looking at it from an analytical standpoint, if Bush's guys manage to capture or kill bin Laden verifiably...even God couldn't beat Bush in November under those circumstances. It'll be interesting to watch what happens (but I'm not gonna stay up late watching Elections. Buffy maybe, but not elections

Jason

 

[maddogchen]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
How about peace talks? Collaborating with the UN and through a joint effort of many countries try to fix the world's problems, that sound like a bad idea? Was the "threat" in Iraq, which we now know to be completely false, that imminent that Bush couldn't wait for the UN?

The UN.....soooo slllllooooowwww. Too slow for people with no patience, like Bush

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
How about peace talks? Collaborating with the UN and through a joint effort of many countries try to fix the world's problems, that sound like a bad idea? Was the "threat" in Iraq, which we now know to be completely false, that imminent that Bush couldn't wait for the UN?

The UN.....soooo slllllooooowwww. Too slow for people with no patience, like Bush

While I agree that patience is a virtue, the fact is that we had 12 YEARS of patience. That's 3 presidential terms worth; it's more than plenty.

In either case, the UN is worthless, and with any luck we'll be thrown out entirely. Of course, we can already tell that will never happen since, after all, the UN gets most of its cash and troops from the US. Can't give that power up, of course.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: maddogchen

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
How about peace talks? Collaborating with the UN and through a joint effort of many countries try to fix the world's problems, that sound like a bad idea? Was the "threat" in Iraq, which we now know to be completely false, that imminent that Bush couldn't wait for the UN?

The UN.....soooo slllllooooowwww. Too slow for people with no patience, like Bush

While I agree that patience is a virtue, the fact is that we had 12 YEARS of patience. That's 3 presidential terms worth; it's more than plenty.

In either case, the UN is worthless, and with any luck we'll be thrown out entirely. Of course, we can already tell that will never happen since, after all, the UN gets most of its cash and troops from the US. Can't give that power up, of course.

Jason

So why didn't the Dub present his case based on that instead of using faulty and ficitious Intel to woo the American Public into supporting his Excellent and extremely costly Adventure in Iraq?

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
How about peace talks? Collaborating with the UN and through a joint effort of many countries try to fix the world's problems, that sound like a bad idea? Was the "threat" in Iraq, which we now know to be completely false, that imminent that Bush couldn't wait for the UN?

The trouble with this idea is that most of the UN member nations are *sympathetic* to the cause of nations who want to have dictators who can murder, rape and pillage at their whim. The UN is *NOT* about human civil rights in the way that we as Americans understand them; they're version of civil rights means that some people are allowed to enslave others under the banner of "the good of society."

Jason