What do you guys think? I think that history is going to repeat itself here with a president named Bush. The economy sucks. You cut taxes and increase spending. Jobless rates keep increasing. The average joe will say "I think I was better off without Bush." To Bush's credit.. you could say that there were so many events that happened that provoked the economic downfall(9/11, Enron). Others blame the Clinton Administration for the bad economy. He also united a nation during troubled times and took out 2 evil governments. Yes or No and WHY. I have a feeling that he won't be elected because of the recession and I also feel that more people are going to vote due to the 2000 controversy. Higher voter turnout = Democrat president.
I think the collapse of the tech sector had more to do with the deficit that either 9/11 or shady accounting (Enron and others). Also, Bush I was voted out after raising taxes, something he had promised not to do.
I have almost no doubt that he will be re-elected. The easy argument will be that you do not exchange the president in the middle of a war...
No way he loses in the election. Simple as that. The Democrats facing him, for all the excited posturing on the board every time Dean and now Wesley Clark fart, are clowns, plain and simple. Another thing that will help Bush by the time the election rolls around is the fact the economy will continue its uptick. And I think Jackie Chiles is correct, people aren't going to want to change presidents in the middle of a successful war. The voters didn't do it during WWII and they didn't do it during the Civil War.
It all depends on who the Dem candidate is and if there are any third party Ross Perot/Ralph Nader types running. Bush is vulnerable on a number of issues. It remains to be seen if the Dem candidate can capitalize on them. By the way, Bama, if the Dem candidates are clowns, that makes the President an uber-moron, because at least the Dem candidates, with the exception of Sharpton, can speak in complete sentences. Also, what constitutes a "successful war"??
Looks like my vote put the 'no' out in front , 6-5. It would be 'yes' if the economy picks up more steam and the job market improves. It will be interesting to see who becomes the Dem candidate.
I voted "No" just because I hate the m***erf****r. If other states line up behind what Florida did in 2000----using computerized voting like Choicepoint systems, which can be manipulated to purge votes; and illegally disenfranchising voters (half of them black, most of them poor, and therefore Democrats)---then Bush might actually "win" an election. I think in Ohio the guy in charge of statewide elections actually said he wants to deliver the state to the President in 2004. And why not? Bush makes'em the moolah. Banana Republic voting in the U.S. Imagine. Don't believe me? Read "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy." (throwing a bone to the opposition: the book takes a dig or two at Clinton, too) Despite what someone else in this thread said, if Clark runs, Incurious George will have his hands full. Time for Karl Rove to start stroking Nader's meat, I guess. That could help King George, too.
I think he will win easily. He's proven himself as a strong leader during a time of crisis (9-11) and a period of war. While the motive questioning will go on, he set goals in the conflict, and achieved them. People like a strong leader and a winner, even if they don't agree on everything. The economy has a 2-4 year lag following events, and is cyclical. It was on a downward plunge in the last year of the Clinton administration, and arguably we would have been due for one with any president. 9-11 (and Enron) just made it worse. However, it also made the recovery more apparent, and things should be well into an upswing by the time the election rolls around. The "average joe" will be better off, and will be seing the light. He won't want to change midstream. More people may turn out because of the controversy, but it won't necessarily be a deciding factor. The bigger issue is the fractured nature of the Democratic party. They are disorganized and reeling from the 2000 campaign, and you can't move on while hanging onto that. No clear leaders have emerged. Their best candidate, at this point, would be Gore, and he's viewed as a loser. A year before the election, and there are no frontrunners -- they couldn't even get the debate televised on network television. If the Dems are pinning their hopes on Dean or Kerry, they are in trouble.
I would say a lack of attacks on American soil would be proof of a successful war. We've largely dismantled the Al-Queda chain of command and now their leaders spend most of their time on the run trying to avoid our planes and troops. Those Predator drones with Hellfires are as cool a way to obliterate someone as has ever been invented. And since they are very quiet and stealthy, it gives us that morale-destroying bolt from the blue that has already bagged some Al-Queda big wheels. And as for Bush being an uber-moron, they don't give MBAs from Harvard to complete idiots. Did you watch the Democratic debate? That's what really cemented for me the fact that the Dems are running a gang of indistinguishable clowns who can only throw mud at the Admin without so much as a single solution. There was no debate, it was just a anti-Bush mud-slinging fest. I'm not saying that I have a problem with tarring your opponent, but when you have nothing of substance to argue except "Bush is evil, he's helping the wealthy, he wants to starve old people and kids, he's a racist, he's stupid....blah, blah, blah, blah," people get tired of it.
Not exactly the same but similarly, I didn't think that there was a chance in hell Bush The Elder would be a one termer after he won the Gulf War. People usually love a winner, perhaps they won't love a quagmirer either.
bush was a C student. he told the Yale graduating class of 2001 that if an underachiever like himself could be president, than anyone could... way to aim high, there, Dubya... a war that would not have been started if 3, 000 people hadn't been murdered on American soil. not to mention Dubya's father is the reason Osama hates us in the first place.
whoa!!! hold the phone!!! 3,000 people were murdered on American soil...you're laying that solely at the feet of this administration??? ummmm..Clinton kept troops in Saudi, too. would you rather he and/or Bush Sr. and/or Bush Jr. sit down and negotiate with Osama?? "Osama...how can we help YOU?? Help me help you!"
no, i am simply pointing out that we wouldn't be "at war" had there never been a 9/11. not only did we get attacked, we got smoked on our own soil, that's the point I'm making. and another thing, a US embassy does count as American Soil, so we have been attacked since the "war" started.
Bush is unquestionably the favorite at this point, but his re-election isn't assured. Right now, his approval ratings are dropping pretty fast -- they're *about* where they were before Sept. 11. If Iraq continues to descend into Vietnam-esque hell, or the economy continues to suck ass, Bush will pay for it with his job. Also depends on how closely people look at his accomplishments: Accomplishments as president: * Attacked and took over two countries. * Failed to fulfill pledge to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive." * First president in U.S. history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community. * Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history. * Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in U.S. history. * Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market. * Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. * Had more states simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States. * In first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their jobs. * Cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any president in U.S. history. * First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in U.S. history. * After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in U.S. history. * In the two years following the 9/11 attacks, successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States. * Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history. * First U.S. president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability. * Refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions. * First president in U.S. history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. elections). * First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner. * Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in U.S. history. * Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television. * Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in U.S. history. * Presided over the biggest energy crises in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed. * Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have. * Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans. * Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States. * Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in U.S. history. * All-time U.S. (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations. * Changed U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts. * Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in U.S. history. * Entered office with the strongest economy in U.S. history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.
Great post GV76: Some will argue that many of those "accomplishments" are not his fault(eg. poor economy/big deficits/wars) but you can't argue with many of these facts. I have a feeling that, in the future, comparing Clinton to Bush will be like comparing a jaywalker to a mass murderer, respectively. You forgot to put "told poor intelligence to promote a war." NO is winning. I should have put one more category up and that would be "Not if the Dems choose a good candidate."
Yeah, Bush could *literally* take a dump on a little old lady, but if Democrats don't fight the good fight, he'll be re-elected.
