Election 2004.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I'm betting that the Republicans will now also win in 2008, unless the Democrats pull out a pretty bloody spectacular candidate. (Which they won't.)

The Democrats need a candidate who:

- Has a good record.

- Has a personality.

- Is moderate.

Clearly, no such candidate exists atm. Well, she does, but she's called Hilary Clinton.

fixed.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Phang

fixed.

Hillary is the female equivalent of Kerry - Patrician, dull, and without any clear focus.

Also, a female candidate is a risky move. I'm betting she would turn off quite a lot of men and women for various reasons.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

i think thats a bit premature... it depends completely on what happens over the next 4 years. If iraq turned into another vietnam i doubt the republicans would be too popular. then theres the economy... etc.

The economy was probably the biggest domestic issue here. It simply wasn't big enough to overide the focus on national security.

It's likely that if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would have lost. He would almost certainly have lost in a place like Ohio without the terrorism/security issue.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Hillary is the female equivalent of Kerry - Patrician, dull, and without any clear focus.

She also carries all the political negatives of her husband without (m)any of the positives.

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The economy was probably the biggest domestic issue here. It simply wasn't big enough to overide the focus on national security.

It's likely that if 9/11 had never happened, Bush would have lost. He would almost certainly have lost in a place like Ohio without the terrorism/security issue.

then how can you think that the republicans are going to win the next one? the us-economy doesnt look that great to me and to me it seems bush does the exact opposite of the things that would make sence, just like in his war on terror.
without another big terrorist attack in the next years hopefully people will get over this whole terror-madness until the next election.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Also, a female candidate is a risky move. I'm betting she would turn off quite a lot of men and women for various reasons.

They need Maggie!

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Hillary is the female equivalent of Kerry - Patrician, dull, and without any clear focus.

Also, a female candidate is a risky move. I'm betting she would turn off quite a lot of men and women for various reasons.

Think of the average American though. Bush is firecely divisive, and most of his success in this election seems to spring from 'better the devil you know' syndrome. Hilary would be, inevitably and fortunately, seen as the obvious follow-on to her husband; after four more years of Captain Idiot, another Clinton, literally or metaphorically, will be welcomed. As for the fact that she's a woman? Surely the only people who would be 'turned off' would be Bible Belt types (who are pretty much safe seats for the Republicans now).

[Flayer]

It's final now. Kerry has admitted his defeat

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

then how can you think that the republicans are going to win the next one?

I don't see any reason for the breaking of the current national political situation, which favours the Republicans.

Originally Posted by wu_trax

the us-economy doesnt look that great to me and to me

I'm not an economist, but I find it hard to believe that four years from now it won't be improving in some measure.

I'm guessing here, but I do think that the next election will have of a more domestic focus, which wil probably assist the Democrats. The Republicans will have to tread carefully. Now they control the Senate, the House and the White House, and Bush doesn't have to get re-elected, they might be tempted to introuce some potentially quite divisive stuff.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Phang

Think of the average American though.

There is really no reason to supose that Hillary would appeal to any more greater numbers than Gore did in 2000, or Kerry did. She is in the exact same mold.

In fact, there is a good reason for supposing she would turn people off because of her gender - popular conservatism and, in many male cases, outright bigotry on such issues should not be underestimated, and is not merely confined to the deep South. Not to mention her other glaring faults, such as an obvious lack of experience, and no experience of state politics or executive decision making - almost all of the most recent Presidents of the last few decades have had some degree of gubernatorial experience prior to becoming President. Running a state before nomination can give the voters a view in minature of what your Presidency would be like. The Senate is simply the worst place for a candidate to come from, with senators having a disinct repuation for aloofness, which is certainly bourne out in Kerry's case.

In essence, she would be a gimmick candidate, mostly trading on her name, and little else. I hope the Democrats do not nominate her.

Unless she can pull off some master strategy for the election, or there is a serious economic recession or something miraculous of that nature, then she would not stand a greater chance than that of her predecessors. In fact, she would almost certainly lose.

[Nusselt]

we need the yanks in here to spank, damn you americans!!

btw i remember reading somewhere of a description of bush's look during the debates (when he wasn't speaking) 'a cow watching a train going past' i know its childish but i keep giggling at it, kerry wasn't much better though.

If we're being honest the democrats are in a bit of trouble hilary clinton isn't bill clinton, even i know he could be a bit of a scum bag he knobbed the interns and he used cigars in a wholly inappropriate manner but the man had charisma, he could say what he meant clearly and didn't appear to want to kill you. Hillary is like maggie thatcher but with better hair jesus haytch christ i wouldn't want to be round that woman during PMT. In britain the tories are dying because britain isn't as conservative as people think, i think in america the democrats are in trouble because at heart america is basically conservative. But i know nothing.

I want the cost of war to hit at least $1/2trillion, please god make me laugh.

[Nusselt]

oh and i heard something briefly about the republicans maybe getting enough seats in teh senate to basically do what they want (60 i think) don't understand someone explain, don't they already have a majority?

[wu_trax]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I'm not an economist, but I find it hard to believe that four years from now it won't be improving in some measure.

I'm guessing here, but I do think that the next election will have of a more domestic focus, which wil probably assist the Democrats. The Republicans will have to tread carefully. Now they control the Senate, the House and the White House, and Bush doesn't have to get re-elected, they might be tempted to introuce some potentially quite divisive stuff.

i find it hard to belive that they can go on like this. there social security system costs too much, the population (about 7 trillion i read somewhere, cant find the link) and the state itself (about 6 trillion) are far too deep in debt. that money mostly comes from foreigners now. the whole economy relies on foreign goods and foreign money. i seriously doubt the asians will continue to lend money to the us so that the us can buy there products with it, it just doesnt make too much sence for me.
and what does bush do ? he cuts the taxes for the rich people and reduces social security with the result that
- the rich have more money to invest in other countries (most likely china),
- the poor - middle class have less money, because they need to take care health care / education / pension etc. on their own ( and all that in an economy that heavily (2/3) relies on private domestic demand.)
- and the state has no money for its overaging population in a few years

i dont know that much about what bush really does or what he really spends all the money on. just some things i picked up on some (probably not totally unbiased) websites

[Ste]

Hilary Clinton Vs Jeb Bush in 2008?

EDIT i could see the republicans nominating Powell or Rice in 2008 though.
That'd be interesting!

[Nusselt]

the entire us economy won't collapse, the worst bush could do is increase the defecit and lose jobs, the government can still payback loans from tax and people would still be willing to invest in the us

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

oh and i heard something briefly about the republicans maybe getting enough seats in teh senate to basically do what they want (60 i think) don't understand someone explain, don't they already have a majority?

60 is the number of Senate votes needed to end a filibuster. Without that, a minority can--in theory--delay or prevent any legislation from passing the Senate. No way the Republicans are going to get that many seats this year.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Ste

i could see the republicans nominating Powell or Rice in 2008 though.
That'd be interesting!

Powell is far too moderate, Rice probably too. Besdies, I doubt either of them would want to be nominated. Powell has declined the idea in the past.

Jeb Bush would be a no-no. Aside from the obvious nepotism charge, the man seems to be quite a boring fellow from what I've heard of him. He's actually taken himself out of the runnng, anyway.

[Nusselt]

btw why the hell did powell go with the republicans?

[Marilyn Manson]

He just has a slight Republican leaning.

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Nusselt

In britain the tories are dying because britain isn't as conservative as people think, i think in america the democrats are in trouble because at heart america is basically conservative.

More conservative than some recent Democratic Presidential nominees, seemingly.

I'm not ready to bury the Democrats. They do fine when they remember to nominate moderate southern Democrats. Unfortunately, their nomination process tends to cater to their more liberal elements (the Republicans have the opposite problem, but not as extreme). There's a large pool of independent and "swing" voters who are up for grabs in every election.


I think Powell would be a winning pick for the Republicans in 2008 and could easily win the nomination--if only he wanted the job. McCain would be a decent pick too, but would have a lot harder time getting the nomination. Cheney would be a poor choice, although he might be able to get the nomination. He could only win against a really weak opponent--like Hillary.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

In essence, she would be a gimmick candidate, mostly trading on her name, and little else. I hope the Democrats do not nominate her.

Is this not what George W* Bush did?


As for Powell to be next president - is it not more likely there will be a female president before a black president? If not, I thought Will Smith was going to be the next President?




*Stands for wanker lololol

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Stew

Is this not what George W* Bush did?

Somewhat; but he did win two terms as Governor of Texas. And when it comes to the Presidency, Governor experience > Senate experience.

As for Powell to be next president - is it not more likely there will be a female president before a black president?

I don't know, but I think we're more likely to see either from the Republican side. Democrats already do well amongst women and especially blacks. Putting a woman or a black on the top of the ticket is not, in itself, going to get them many additional votes. For the Republicans, on the other hand, it could get them a lot more votes.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Tactitus

I don't know, but I think we're more likely to see either from the Republican side. Democrats already do well amongst women and especially blacks. Putting a woman or a black on the top of the ticket is not, in itself, going to get them many additional votes. For the Republicans, on the other hand, it could get them a lot more votes.

i think the question is not so much 'how many minority votes would a black president win' as 'how many conservative votes would a black president haemorrhage'...

[Tactitus]

Originally Posted by Phang

i think the question is not so much 'how many minority votes would a black president win' as 'how many conservative votes would a black president haemorrhage'...

I don't equate conservates with racists, but ymmv. The polling data I've seen on Powell indicates that conservatives generally liked him; but that was back after Gulf War I before he took up station at Foggy Bottom (which is the equivalent of the Barad-Dûr for many conservatives).

[Sunday8pm]

To be fair what decided these elections was the fact that

there was a less than 10% turnout of 18-24 year old voters of which the demographic Kerry has a 15 point lead in

The reason for this? Apparrently a lot of 18-24 yo voters are studying at uni's far from home and never got their absentee ballots or were not permitted to register in the state they were studying in even though there was an act brought through in 2002. Unfortunately most of these people who got screwed just said, Wow I'm disenfranchised and didn't kick up a fuss, it also helps that the people in charge of running this thing for absentee ballots and what not tend to usually be run by a republican and they saved informing anyone till 3 days before the election which was too short a time difference for anyone to fix their shit up.

The republicans successfully surpressed the young vote again.

[Nusselt]

do they really hate the state department that much? id have thought that it just depended on the situation rather than, for example, favouring the defence department over the state one.

[pablissimo]

Obama 2012.

[Sunday8pm]

So I guess no-one's concerned that after all the promotions, al the pushing at the 18-24 age range by celbrities everywhere.. that less than 10% of them turned out to vote... the most likely to care imo as well.

[Nusselt]

he went to the senate thought right? apparently going the route of governor ---> president is much more reliable *cough* arnie if law changes *cough*

[Leshy]

I'm just bummed Bradnarik didn't win.

[Sandsnake]

I expect they'll run McCain. He's done a really good job of garnering support from both Democrats and Republicans during this election by spearheading calls for campaign reform and an end to dirty politics. I expect the democrats to run Hillary in 2008 if she can maintain her level of popularity. McCain is just bipartisan enough to do a lot of damage to the Dems in 2008.

Powell could have and still could do the same thing, but it's unlikely that he'll run. His wife is steadfastly against such a notion, and he's known for involving his wife in these types of decisions. Nevermind he'll be considered tainted by most democrats, despite the fact that he's probably not happy about 1/2 the stuff he has to do.

That said, you never know. The black vote in the US is definately not to be discounted. DC's mayor is a convicted crack-cocaine addict (in office!) and still gets re-elected. Corrine Brown of Florida is considered the most corrupt congressperson with something like 7 seperate corruption investigations currently going, and yet, both still get re-elected by playing heavily on the race card. Should Powell decide to run, he would get a huge following of individuals that would vote for or against him simply on race alone.

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Arnie wouldn't be nominated; he's not a natural born citzen.

Fixed.

On a side note, I stood in line for an hour and half for nothing. Thank you ****ing Philly, Pittsburg and Allentown.

Oh, and for Randell not getting convenitnly the Absentee Ballots out in time for the people in the armed forces in time. My brother is extreamly pissed.

PA proably would have been even closer then it already is if they voted. At least Spector won and Mike was unstoppalbe in my district.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Hillary nominated = Automatic loss for the Democrats.

Arnie wouldn't be nominated; he's too liberal. He's great as a Republican in California, where he could pretty much pass himself off as a Democrat if he wished, but he would simply be chewed up and spat out by the Republicans nationally. Oh, and that rule about a Presidential nominee having to be born in The US.

Cheney will be determined to get the 2008 nomination, I'm guessing, heart problems and old age or no.

no cheney has made it clear that he has no intentions of running

Guiliani is going to be the republican nominee in 2008.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by wu_trax

bush is going to ruin his own country and turn the whole world into chaos, so whats the big deal?

HaHa... i hope you were kidding, or you were speaking out of anger as your choice for the american president was not what you wanted. Whether or not you like Bush, he is not going drive the world to chaos, please, give me a break. American conservatism won yesterday and there is no denying the fact that the rural/southern aspects of this country are what most Americans are in favor of. America is on top now, Bush will not ruin the country (follow any economic reports and you will see that our economy is groing strongly out of the recession), and America will still be on top... thats life, thats the way it is right now, live with it....

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

America is on top now, Bush will not ruin the country (follow any economic reports and you will see that our economy is groing strongly out of the recession), and America will still be on top... thats life, thats the way it is right now, live with it....

For your information this attitude causes people to despise America.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

For your information this attitude causes people to despise America.

I realize that, and I normally am not that blunt, or rude... but I just got a little riled up, its is definitely not the intelligent way of going about debating issues and whats best for America and the world, but sometimes things need saying... besides it is the truth....

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I realize that, and I normally am not that blunt, or rude... but I just got a little riled up, its is definitely not the intelligent way of going about debating issues and whats best for America and the world, but sometimes things need saying... besides it is the truth....

Sometimes what you say can affect the truth of what you are saying.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Sometimes what you say can affect the truth of what you are saying.

I agree, but quite frankly, my little pro-america comment is mild compared to the america hating that goes on in these boards

[Summanus]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I agree, but quite frankly, my little pro-america comment is mild compared to the america hating that goes on in these boards

It's not America hating. We have several valued American posters.

It's quite simply idiot hating.

IDIOTS LIKE YOU

[Event_Horizon]

[quote=Summanus]It's not America hating. We have several valued American posters.

It's quite simply idiot hating.

IDIOTS LIKE YOU[/QUOT

Well I know you have been following my posting rigorously over all these years, hell, I am sure you have proably even written a few articles on it... if i may ask, where is this mountainous, conclusive evidence that I am an "idiot"?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

I agree, but quite frankly, my little pro-america comment is mild compared to the america hating that goes on in these boards

Why should you have to stoop to their level then?

And the "america hating", on this board especially, is pretty mild.

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Why should you have to stoop to their level then?

And the "america hating", on this board especially, is pretty mild.

Well I guess the america hating thing is relative and since this is really the only european/global message boards that I read it strikes me as more america hating than I am used to in my everyday life. And yes I agree that my comment was completely useless and contributed absolutely nothing to intelligent debate, but as I said I was just a little riled up after reading that, bush is going to drive the world into chaos and ruin his country, i mean common that is just a ridiculous comment.

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

bush is going to drive the world into chaos and ruin his country, i mean common that is just a ridiculous comment.

Where have you been for the last 4 years? He's already made the world a less safe place to live in.

[Summanus]

[quote=Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by Summanus

It's not America hating. We have several valued American posters.

It's quite simply idiot hating.

IDIOTS LIKE YOU[/QUOT

Well I know you have been following my posting rigorously over all these years, hell, I am sure you have proably even written a few articles on it... if i may ask, where is this mountainous, conclusive evidence that I am an "idiot"?

That statement there is Exhibit A. I had no idea you even existed until you started posting like this

Basically Kerry/democrats are for more government programs/socialism and Bush/republicans are for less government programs and for more capitalism

That entire post is a pile of idiocy.

Kerry is deemed the most liberal in the senate according to the National Journal's congressional vote ratings

From another thread - what bugs me is that most Americans don't seem to know how to use the word Liberal. Liberal does not equal left-wing. Liberal is arguing for more choice. The conservative party in Australia is the 'Liberal' Party. Is it so hard to see the connection between LIBERTY and LIBERAL? Why do you adore one, and hate the latter? They're the same concept. So next time, please refrain from "OMG A LIBERAL THEY MUST BE PINKO COMMIES KILL IT!!"

I will be very disapointed in Iowa if Kerry wins there, I mean what the hell, Bush absolutely owns the heartland with Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Missouri, etc.

Why would you be disappointed in one state, but not others? Does it matter if it's Califonia, New York or Iowa? What even gives you the right to be disappointed in it? Because they have an opinion different to yours?

Whether or not you like Bush, he is not going drive the world to chaos,

He's already done it to Iraq.

Need I go on? What you'll find, hombre, is that the mountainous, conclusive evidence of your idiocy is in your own posts.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

Well I guess the america hating thing is relative and since this is really the only european/global message boards that I read it strikes me as more america hating than I am used to in my everyday life. And yes I agree that my comment was completely useless and contributed absolutely nothing to intelligent debate, but as I said I was just a little riled up after reading that, bush is going to drive the world into chaos and ruin his country, i mean common that is just a ridiculous comment.

Obviously the point is exaggerated but rhetoric is a common feature everywhere. I imagine that wu trax was referring to the economic problems and the tax cuts that bush has been responsible for over the past four years domestically and his invasion of Iraq which polarised the western world. In future I would advise you to talk the internet less seriously :)

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Where have you been for the last 4 years? He's already made the world a less safe place to live in.

That is not what the original poster was arguing, he said that bush is going to drive THE WORLD into CHAOS and if that wasn't bad enough he is going to ruin his own country. I do not think that any person with half a brain will agree with that.

And as for the world being less safer, perhaps, but when America decided to attack Germany and Japan i could argue that that made the world less safer as well, but it was still the right decision.... or was it...

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Obviously the point is exaggerated but rhetoric is a common feature everywhere. I imagine that wu trax was referring to the economic problems and the tax cuts that bush has been responsible for over the past four years domestically and his invasion of Iraq which polarised the western world. In future I would advise you to talk the internet less seriously

Well it is obvious that our economy is coming out of a recession and is growing immensly and is still by far the economic giant of the world. His tax cuts can be argued for and against by economists with more credentials than me, and as for taking the internet too seriously, it was you who took issue with a harmless comment from a supposive "idiot" (not that you called me an idiot but that other guy did).

[Deepflow]

i love it when the world gets less safer...

yeah what?

but seriously, are you comparing ww2 to the iraq war? i mean... really?

[arbondigo]

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

That is not what the original poster was arguing, he said that bush is going to drive THE WORLD into CHAOS and if that wasn't bad enough he is going to ruin his own country. I do not think that any person with half a brain will agree with that.

Well he already HAS driven the world into chaos. I don't follow American domestic affairs as that really doesn't interest me in the slightest so i can't comment there.

Originally Posted by Event_Horizon

And as for the world being less safer, perhaps, but when America decided to attack Germany and Japan i could argue that that made the world less safer as well, but it was still the right decision.... or was it...

You were attacked first by Japan, so that was in self-defence primarily. I don't seem to remember Iraq attacking you EVER. Do you?

[Event_Horizon]

Originally Posted by arbondigo

Well he already HAS driven the world into chaos. I don't follow American domestic affairs as that really doesn't interest me in the slightest so i can't comment there.




You were attacked first by Japan, so that was in self-defence primarily. I don't seem to remember Iraq attacking you EVER. Do you?

Parts of the middle east are in chaos but the world is not... in fact parts of the world have always and will always be in chaos. This is not about Iraq I simply said that by America invading Germany and attacking Japan it made the world a less safe place for the time. Do you disagree?