Landslide 2004....

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by g5man
jef,

I am glad to read that someone other than myself can see the future.

Now your last sentence indicates that between now and Nov 04 there could be plenty of bad news to trip Bush. I don't see that happening.

in politics, a lot could happen

george hw bush had the highest rating of any us president at 90 percent through much of 91 but the recession still being around at election time haunted him and clinton won

in 2000, the economy was strong and it looked pretty good for gore, but the economy slipped the final quarter of clinton's term and it made just enough voters nervous enough to vote for bush and it didn't take much to swing the election in the current president's favor...and though he won by one electoral vote, he lost the popular vote

bush needs to see every financial quarter between now and the election to be strong which will be a big task for those voters nervous about the economy who are on the fence...and it would be good for bush to catch bin laden who many feel is resposible for september 11th

the election is not easily won by either side one year before the election and if i were on bush's re-election team, i would keep a close eye on the economy and the pulse of the disenfranchised workers who have not felt the recovery yet...any economic recovery takes time to reach all sectors and they have to feel the relief if they are to have faith in our current administration...and since the days of ford, the economy has been the chief issue with american voters...that's why reagan and clinton have enjoyed the best presidential ratings overall over a long period of time with regular consistency

the greatest strengths of both presidents was their main focus was on the national economy...reagan had his pet military projects and clinton had his pet social projects, but both pushed the economy of the usa first and did well in their terms even though they both saw a downturn at the ends of their terms on a small level...but both improved on the economy over jimmy carter in january 81 and george hw bush in january 93

i have felt in the last few months that bush was not as bad as i thought he was, but not enough to the point where i would vote for him...let him catch bin laden and pull out of iraq but keep the country in better condition than when he entered, reverse his bad environmental record, and really focus on the national economy, and then i will actually consider voting for him in 2004...ashcroft, though not to my political liking, has proved to be better than i thought...donald rumsfeld needs to go and though republicans have been good on foreign policy, he has not measured up to republicans of the past who ran the defense department like cohen *under clinton, and cheney before him

condi rice and colin powell, though considered an enemy to a lot of liberal african americans on the left, have still proved to be able administrators in their positions and some see future gop presidential plans in their futures

bush has done a good job in choosing a defense minded moderate democrat in norm mineta to run the department of transportation and it is hard for any democrat to criticize mineta's record

so we will all have to see how the president finishes out his last year of his presidency and the people will choose

my prediction is that i will not find reason to vote for bush and his popularity will go down considerably from what it is now but that he will still win the election by a hair...again...not what i want but how i think the american people will vote in 2004...and part of the reason the gop will win is that my democrats are infighting so much and trying to take down the front runner in howard dean and this cannot be good for the democratic party...but it's politics as usual and in the end, it becomes a personal battle and every man for himself with america as a second priority

it's our system in america and it won't change unless the voters make changes

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Sayhey
zim, that's easy for you to say from Chicago! Arnie jumped all over Davis for his attempts at solving the budget crunch and then tries to employ some of the same techniques. I'm not one of those who think more and more bond measures is the answer. Something about having children who will have to pay them off. In that regard, Frohickey, you and I agree. However I think the solution has to be a combination of cuts in some limited programs (prisons comes to mind) and tax increases. With those last two words I know Frohickey's blood pressure just jumped!

I've got a better idea...

Ask the Legislative analyst to investigate past budgets, going back 5 years, 10 years, and when they finally find one that fits the current state revenues, adopt that particular budget.

Of necessity, that would mean that programs that did not exist in that past budget would not be funded, so only the programs that existed since back then would be funded. Call it govt program seniority.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sure Arnold's a republican! He's following the lead of the chief republican, GWB. Cut taxes, increase spending, and blame factors beyond his control for having to do it. Push off all the tough decisions for another administration to deal with later. Sounds like a republican Dubya could really enjoy. Plus he's got that macho image that Bush just drools over. Fiscal conservatives are the RINOs these days, the real republican party is showing just how much they are like the democrats they detest when it comes to fiscal policy.

Now if Arnie will stop following the Bush playbook before he invades Oregon we might be ok.

Huh? Arnold increased spending?

Everytime I see a post from you like this, I wonder if you ever passed Reading Comprehension 1 in high school.

[g5man]

:D :D

Now! Now!. Lets be nice and not attack each other. i don't want to become a lonely voice in the wilderness.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Huh? Arnold increased spending?

Everytime I see a post from you like this, I wonder if you ever passed Reading Comprehension 1 in high school.

Hey now, someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.... And thanks for the insinuation of stupidity.

Now lets see here, I realize Arnold didn't actually do this WHILE he was govenor, and the funding isn't guaranteed (kind of like the 2nd half of the Bush tax cuts) but I think you will find Arnold has championed something that will cost money.
Arnold's after-school program. (http://www.cta.org/News/2002/20020219_1.htm)
The After School Education and Safety Act will make available more than $400 million annually to provide matching grants to every public K-9 school in California. The measure will only appropriate money in 2004 or later, when the state's non prop 98 funds grow by at least $1.5 billion over the highest level of any previous year. Extra grants will be available to schools in poor neighborhoods. None of the new funds will be taken from funds guaranteed to education under prop 98.

"I am keenly aware of the fragility of our economy and the resulting weakness in state revenue," Schwarzenegger said. "That's why I chose to fund this not out of new taxes, but out of growth in state revenues. I have included tough trigger points and have deferred implementation until 2004, when most economists expect the economy to be moving again."
As for reading comprehension, I wonder that about you every time you say California has the highest taxes around.

[Rower_CPU]

Play nice folks. You know the rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/announcement.php?s=&forumid=4).

[mactastic]

Sorry. Shouldn't have stooped to his level in adding my bit about his own reading comprehension.

Frohickey, would you like to continue to defend Arnold as a tax-cutting-only fiscal conservative? Or would you like to admit he is not of your ilk and will likely end up presiding over a growth in California's spending, while also "cutting taxes"? (In quotes because as he cuts the VLF, other fees rise.):eek:

[g5man]

I found this tonight and decided to post it hear and see what you guys thought of this article.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3738281/

He seems to come to the same conclusion that many of you are starting to admitt. Bush will win next year. He does not talk about a landslide because he does not quite understand how much this president is respected by most Americans and not just the republicans.

[Sayhey]

g5man,

what are you going to do if your hero Bush is not reelected? Will you formally retire this great crystal ball of yours?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Sayhey
g5man,

what are you going to do if your hero Bush is not reelected? Will you formally retire this great crystal ball of yours?


First of all he is not my hero. Secondly I personally do not get affected by who is president. Weather they are democrat or republican my life will not get worse or better. The US allows any person to succeed and live a good life regardless of who is in power.

Lastly, since I am confident my crystal ball is quite accurate, so I do not worry one bit about being wrong.:D

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
Weather they are democrat or republican my life will not get worse or better.


immune from policy, eh? that's quite a trick. i hope i'm around when you get your rude awakening.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
immune from policy, eh? that's quite a trick. i hope i'm around when you get your rude awakening.

I don't know if I remember correctly you said something about moving out of the country if Bush is re-elected.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't know if I remember correctly you said something about moving out of the country if Bush is re-elected.

i _did_ say that -- good memory. though i've not committed to anything, i am exploring my options.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
First of all he is not my hero. Secondly I personally do not get affected by who is president. Weather they are democrat or republican my life will not get worse or better. The US allows any person to succeed and live a good life regardless of who is in power.

Lastly, since I am confident my crystal ball is quite accurate, so I do not worry one bit about being wrong.:D

Sorry, I assumed from all the "rah-rah" that was the case.

Not affected? I wish all those folks sent into harm's way by this administration could feel the same way. I'm all for the good life, but not at the expense of others lives. If it takes empire building to allow Americans to live in ignorant bliss then count me out.

[zimv20]

GOP 'Dominance' Is Just Trash Talk (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsul173587580dec17,0,1207190.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines)

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
GOP 'Dominance' Is Just Trash Talk (http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpsul173587580dec17,0,1207190.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines)

Well written, but dead wrong. The writers are living in a very small echo chamber and those who are encouraged and given hope by their anaylsis will be rather surprised come Nov. 2004. This country is no longer split 50/50. It was in 2000 but all the data from the 2002 election point to a right turn along with data in registered voters since then. There is no clear GOP dominance as of yet, but all signs point in that direction for the future. We are talking a true dominance in about 10 years.

[Sayhey]

IJ, I particularly liked this quote from the Newsday article:

Conservative commentators like Brooks and Barnes are right about one thing. We are in the midst of a genuine radical transformation of key political institutions and organizations spearheaded by conservatives no longer content to battle fairly through the ballot box. Though accomplished largely behind the scenes, Republicans have succeeded in moving the lobbying industry firmly into their column, thus ensuring big-business support for decades to come.

How anyone can cheer this is beyond me.

[g5man]

Sayhey,

Their observations and conclusions are simply wrong. First of all they are implying that the GOP is not winning votes with their message but rather their methods. This could not be further from the truth. Lobbying has been strong on both sides of the isle for decades. In fact special interests will donate more to the DNC than the GOP this election.

It is humors how they take a shot at conseravtive talk shows and think tanks. More people are influenced by the mass media than those two groups. It is events and the message of boths sides that determine which side wins the hearts and minds of the electorate.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by g5man
Sayhey,

Their observations and conclusions are simply wrong. First of all they are implying that the GOP is not winning votes with their message but rather their methods. This could not be further from the truth. Lobbying has been strong on both sides of the isle for decades. In fact special interests will donate more to the DNC than the GOP this election.

It is humors how they take a shot at conseravtive talk shows and think tanks. More people are influenced by the mass media than those two groups. It is events and the message of boths sides that determine which side wins the hearts and minds of the electorate.

No, I don't think they are wrong. The attempts for second redistricting in Colorado and Texas are examples of how the GOP is rewriting the rules in order to win at any cost. I believe the elimination of minority voters in the 2000 Florida election and the position of the Republican Party to use thugs to try and stop the legal counting of votes is also another example of the lengths the GOP leadership is willing to go. I also think that the concerted strategy to use the mass media for partisan political purposes has risen to new levels with the politics of the Republican Party. Fox News (a channel started by Murdoch in order to give an explicit conservative view) and the plethora of right-wing nuts who masquerade as commentators on AM radio are examples of this strategy.

You get lost in your triumphalism at every perceived victory of the Republicans and don't look at the cost of the tactics for a civil society. I've said it before, when a man like Max Cleland can be baited by the GOP for his "lack of patriotism" then there is no level to which they won't stoop.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Sayhey
How anyone can cheer this is beyond me.

I'll second that emotion. My only consolation is having lived long enough to see the fruits of such arrogance harvested once before. The "conservative revolution," such at it is, is almost wholly a product of liberals becoming so confident that they forgot the need to make sound arguments for the direction they were leading the nation. At some point, they figured that the debate was over, when of course it never is in a democracy. Conservatives today are making the same mistake, in spades.

[jefhatfield]

Originally posted by g5man
Well written, but dead wrong. The writers are living in a very small echo chamber and those who are encouraged and given hope by their anaylsis will be rather surprised come Nov. 2004. This country is no longer split 50/50. It was in 2000 but all the data from the 2002 election point to a right turn along with data in registered voters since then. There is no clear GOP dominance as of yet, but all signs point in that direction for the future. We are talking a true dominance in about 10 years.

with saddam caught and the usa still rejoicing over this great accomplishment, i am sure the gop leads like 51-49 or 52-48, or slightly more

but i would not call this a gop dominance:p

if you want to look to gop dominance, look at reagan in 1984 before the defecit climbed back up or the us fell into a recession shortly after which george hw bush took the blame for

reagan in his first term was probably sitting in the white house when america loved conservatism the most...bush jr. is no reagan and he does not have the same type of national loyalty and the dragging war in iraq, saddam or no saddam, is a thorn in the current president's side...the economy, not being near the clinton years is also not W's proud point of his presidential legacy to america

the usa will have another conservative revolution as it will another democratic revolution, but 2004, like 2000, will be remembered as years when the dems had some power and the gop had some power...nobody completely dominates to a point of having 2/3rds of the country on the side of the president in most or all matters

both sides would like to claim that in ten years there will be a total love affair with america like reagan in the early 80s or roosevelt and truman in the 30s-early 50s where the democrats won five consecutive trips to the white house, but it won't likely happen and america will most likely still be split...with a general trend of college educated professionals and minorities on one side, and rural blue collar workers, churchgoers, and the ultra rich on the other side

[wwworry]

Originally posted by jefhatfield
with saddam caught and the usa still rejoicing over this great accomplishment, i am sure the gop leads like 51-49 or 52-48, or slightly more

but i would not call this a gop dominance

But the rub is that the gop is using what little advantage they have to cement on consolidate it further. Witness that the gop congress will not even let democrats into the room where legislation is being written. Then they give them 3 hours to read a 1000 page bill before voting. New and despicable tactics. Redistricting between censuses. New. Ever more radical judges. New laws that broaden the presidents powers and remove any judicial restraint on them. They consistently refuse to answer any questions put to them. The media rolls over in the name of patriotism and fear.

I am beginning to think there will be a landslide in 2004. We are on the edge of complete corporate/GOP control. This administration has lied so many times and gotten away with it so much it is incredible.

[g5man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22493-2003Dec22.html

As a candidate in the general election, Dean starts well behind Bush in the public's estimation. In an early test of strength, 55 percent of those surveyed said that if the election were held today, they would vote to reelect the president, and 37 percent said they would favor Dean. No other Democrat was tested against Bush in the Post-ABC poll.

Dean's Democratic rivals have warned that the former governor's lack of foreign policy experience would hurt him in a general election against Bush, and when asked in the poll whether they trusted the president or Dean more to handle national security and the war on terrorism, 67 percent said Bush and 21 percent Dean. Even on the kind of domestic issues that normally favor Democrats, such as Social Security, health care and education, Bush bests Dean by 50 percent to 39 percent.

What is interesting about this is the fact that Bush has not even started to campaign, while Dean has been doing so for about a year. Once the election gets into full swing come August of 2004, if Dean is the nominee he will be crucified.


On the economy, a bare majority (51 percent) approve of Bush's performance, the first time he has been above 50 percent since late April. The new poll found that 42 percent of Americans rate the economy as "good" or "excellent," up from 33 percent in late October. The percentage who rate the economy as "not so good" or "poor" (57 percent) is the lowest since just before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

By almost 4 to 1, more Americans said they expect their family financial situation to improve over the next year than said it would deteriorate.

This trend does not help the Democrats one bit, given the way they positioned their arguments against Bush's policies on the economy. The other poll quoted by me show even bigger numbers in how people feel positively about the economy.

Six in 10 political independents believe Bush is doing a good job, a significant improvement since mid-October, when fewer than half of those swing voters had a favorable view of the president's performance.

And if you recall my past thread showing how more Democrats are leaving their party and some becoming Independent, once again we see a trend that does not help their party one bit.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by g5man
What is interesting about this is the fact that Bush has not even started to campaign, while Dean has been doing so for about a year. Once the election gets into full swing come August of 2004, if Dean is the nominee he will be crucified.

I'd say Bush has been campaining for '04 since Jan 22, 2001. Every move has been made in a calculated attempt to get Bush re-elected. Plus his name recognition is pretty_high. Voters barely know who the Democratic candidates are yet, let alone have settled on one. Wait till after Iowa, we'll see some dems drop out and the race will get clearer. The winners will be getting lots of press exposure between then and March 3rd.

This trend does not help the Democrats one bit, given the way they positioned their arguments against Bush's policies on the economy. The other poll quoted by me show even bigger numbers in how people feel positively about the economy.

And if you recall my past thread showing how more Democrats are leaving their party and some becoming Independent, once again we see a trend that does not help their party one bit.

And 2 months ago the trend was favoring the Democrats. Bush's numbers are enjoying a boost from the capture of Saddam. That will subside and he will be back where he was again long before election time.

[g5man]

Originally posted by mactastic
I'd say Bush has been campaining for '04 since Jan 22, 2001. Every move has been made in a calculated attempt to get Bush re-elected. Plus his name recognition is pretty_high. Voters barely know who the Democratic candidates are yet, let alone have settled on one. Wait till after Iowa, we'll see some dems drop out and the race will get clearer. The winners will be getting lots of press exposure between then and March 3rd.

I agree with you. What I wanted to point out is that Dean along with the other candidates has been attacking Bush very aggresively the last 10 months. Bush has not fought back directly. Inspite of these attacks he still is killing them in the polls. This is while according to a few here the economy is terrible and we are in the middle of another Vietnam.


Originally posted by mactastic
And 2 months ago the trend was favoring the Democrats. Bush's numbers are enjoying a boost from the capture of Saddam. That will subside and he will be back where he was again long before election time.

Yes this is true. I actually stated he will fall behind against the nominee at one point. What is worth pointing out is that if things are so bad (right now) as we are led to believe by the candidates (and a few posters here), can you imagine how things will look for Bush when things get better in one year. Actually everything looks pretty good right now, I can't see it getting any better.:D

[wwworry]

whatever happened to pseudobrit and g5man?

I'm tired of all that g5 iMac talk

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_06_20.php#003097

[zimv20]

whatever happened to pseudobrit and g5man?

g5man was banned, though i wonder if he's returned under another name. i just checked pbrit's profile, he hasn't been here for nearly a month. hmmmm.....