The 2004 American Presidential Election

[Timexwatch]

Democracy is unAmerican. Republicanism, on the other hand, is as American as Apple Pie and Hipocracy. Didn't they teach you anything in Civics, Comrade?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Man I can remember a year ago when Gov. Grey Davis won election where 70% of the population hated his guts simply because the other party couldn't get their act together. If Davis can out smear his opposition then I suspect Bush will be able to smear a flip flopper like Dean in no time.

The 200 million dollar+ War chest doesn't hurt either

[Agathon]

Bush will be beaten because:

1. His pontificating on the Iraq issue has been completely, utterly and absolutely discredited.

2. Tax cuts don't work.

3. He has failed in the War on Terror.

4. He has made the US look like Satan and alienated almost all its friends.

[Japher]

I understand that sentiment, which is why I'm curious as to why you support a system which actually encourages this as opposed to a popular system.

As jack_www stated most of the time popular vote wins out. Yet, in a close call popular vote is less robust. I don't know the demographics, but lets say the majority of the population lived on the East Coast (I think they do) and a canidate from Maryland ran on a platform that included federal funds for disadter relief with no premium for hurricanes only, and no disaster relief other acts of god such as tornados, earthquakes, or texan stupidity (just kidding sloww)?

We are a large country with diverse needs in concerns as a majority and as local majorities. Our counts should amount to one vote and not to many, as we are electing one president.

So you're opposed to democracy?

Don't put words in my mouth

Anyway, the governor doesn't make the laws, he executes them. The state legislature makes the laws, and they come from all over the state.

The governor example was just an example and nothing more. Yet, some people say the president doesn't make the laws and he just executes them.... The executive member (the governor, president, mayor) is there as an axis for the balance of power. Checks and Balances man, I think you know that. The governor can make the laws and does when you have a stupid senate.

Plus, if the market has a better use for the land, as a supporter of capitalism, why don't you see this as a better use?

Yes, I am a supporter of capitalism. Yet, I am also a supporter for Lazze-faire politics, especially in the corporate world. If the market has better use for the land then good, use it for the better use. Yet, in many cases the government dictates the market, as with Ag zoned land and water allocations which limit these zones.

Note: I have been eyeing the central valley for sometime as a place for emerging biotechs. Seems that it is a great place to go because the city water systems can handle the large amount of waste generated by the biotech industry, since those water facilities are use to handling contaminated water from the Ag industry...

[Shi Huangdi]

It's not over for Bush yet, even if it look like he is hurting. Reagan and Clinton both had very low approval ratings at their point in their first terms and both coasted to victory. Polls this early are not a good predictor of the outcome of the election. Although, if the Unemployment rate doesn't decrease and we have made no progress on Iraq, Bush will have a hard time winning.

Another thing to keep in mind is that money matter, and Bush is raising ALOT of it, and he won't have to go through an expensive primary campaign to spen money either.

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Agathon
Bush will be beaten because:

1. His pontificating on the Iraq issue has been completely, utterly and absolutely discredited.

Most people don't care if he was wrong on Iraq. The issue of dead soldiers in Iraq matters more than the lack of WMDs.

2. Tax cuts don't work.

He's weak on the economy, yes, but will most people care to learn anything about the cuts beyond "They were tax cuts for the rich!"?

3. He has failed in the War on Terror.

As long as he's "bombing Sand Farmers" (to quote my roomate) and there isn't another attack on the continental U.S., it's successful in most people's eyes. The question isn't is he failing or not. The question is whether Bush will be able to bang the drum on that issue come election time.[/quote]

4. He has made the US look like Satan and alienated
almost all its friends.

When will the rest of the world realize that

a) Foreign Policy isn't that important to American Voters when Election time arrives
b) We just don't care what the rest of the world thinks. As long as the rest of the world is portrayed as Frano-German Eurocoms who hate America, Crazy "Islamofascists" or Communists in the media, we simply won't give a damn. Americans do not care what you think.

[Jack_www]

The real purpose behind the system was to prevent the masses from directly controlling the government and putting in their wishes. The whole point was to get people into the office of the President who knew what they were doing. At least that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

Today though Electoral Collage votes are now determined by the popular vote in each state by law(state not federal law). Some states though dont have such a law but they vote according to the popular vote.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jack_www
The whole point was to get people into the office of the President who knew what they were doing.

Well that certainly backfired, didn't it.

[Ramo]

Actually, on the positions I've seen them take, Clark is more to the left that Dean. Dean isn't a left-wing candidate.

How so? Which leftist positions has Clark taken? I can't figure out what the hell he stands for.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo


How so? Which leftist positions has Clark taken? I can't figure out what the hell he stands for.

Funny, I can't figure out what the hell Dean stands for, given how many differing positions he's taken, depending on who he's trying to appeal to.

[Ramo]

I'm not saying that Dean is a left-wing candidate. I think he's pretty clearly a centrist. But AFAIK, Clark has basically made no specifics on what he wants to do, in constrast to Dean. The devil you know and all that.

[Japher]

Well that certainly backfired, didn't it.so true

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher
I will vote for Bush

you bastard

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Japher

Ag will slowly fade out of California as the manufacturing industry creeps into the corridors into the valley (i.e. Vacaville, Fairfeild, Gilroy, Bakersfeild). Food production will drop and not only will the state starve but so will the world. Why? Because the governor is elected by popular vote, and popular vote does not guarentee social welfare and well-being, it only guarentees selfishness.

Now this is a good example of a slippery slope argument guys.

[Guynemer]

I was wargaming 2004 today with a moderate Republican friend of mine, and we agreed that if there were no huge surprises in the next 14 months, if the Dems nominate Clark, he would beat Bush.

Look at the states that are likely to flip from 2000. Bush could easily lose Florida, New Hampshire, Arkansas, and West Virginia if Clark ran. Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky would likely stay red, but not without some effort by the Republicans.

The Dems could lose Pennsylvania... but everything else is in that "maybe, but probably not category." Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon... likely to stay blue, but the Dems would have to work at it.

The big questions: New York and California. Could be wildcards due to 9/11 and the recall respectively; however, I'd still be very surprised to see Bush defeat Clark in those states.

If the Dems nominate someone else, it's anyone's ballgame. But it they nominate Clark, and there are no major "October surprises", Clark will be elected President in 2004. Take it to the bank.