Will George Bush have a 2nd term?

[omichyron]

Originally posted by metalhead
Yes, for none of the reasons in the poll. His opposition is a bunch of ass.

I know. I get the impression people are voting on this poll as if it asked "should Bush get another term" instead of will he. but then a vote of yes requires you to say either Iraq was a good move or he's doing good things with the economy so it's no wonder that they are.

 

[eyrei]

Bush will be reelected because the Democrats seem unable to find anyone in their party who doesn't appear to be a slimy politician. Not that Republican candidates are not slimy politicians, they just do a better job disguising the fact.

Also, with the recent upswing of the economy, Bush's chances look even better. I doubt the war in Iraq is swaying very many Republican voters away from Bush, so peoples' opinions on it will have little effect on the election.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Originally posted by eyrei
I doubt the war in Iraq is swaying very many Republican voters away from Bush, so peoples' opinions on it will have little effect on the election.

I have no data to back this up, but I disagree with you there. Alot of Bush's support comes from the South and the Mid-West, the same parts of the country that have so many of their young people in the military. These people can be staunch Republicans, but when its their children being killed in Iraq and Bush makes comments like 'Bring 'em on', their support for him personally evaporates. I dont think this means that these same people will go out and vote democrat, but it would at least make them less likely to go vote for him on election day. If they stay home on election day the Dem candidate will win.

 

[Sims2789]

but still, the South will never vote for a Democrat and the non-Pacific West is pretty conservative, with the exception of New Mexico. but the Dems have California and New York in their pocket, and those are the 1st and 3rd largest states.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by sims2789
but still, the South will never vote for a Democrat and the non-Pacific West is pretty conservative, with the exception of New Mexico. but the Dems have California and New York in their pocket, and those are the 1st and 3rd largest states.

I give you NY City and San Fransisco. I could easily see both states going to Bush though.

You are dead on about the South though. The Democrat Party has become a party of the cities almost exclusively. When successful they get enough of the suburbs to take the Midwest and North Atlantic states, to go with the Pacific West. Making Florida close in 2000 was a bit of an aboration.

In 2004 the suburbs will be feeling better because of the economy. Add in the incumbants edge, and it does not look pretty. That's assuming there is a viable candidate.

J

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Dumb pothead

I have no data to back this up, but I disagree with you there. Alot of Bush's support comes from the South and the Mid-West, the same parts of the country that have so many of their young people in the military. These people can be staunch Republicans, but when its their children being killed in Iraq and Bush makes comments like 'Bring 'em on', their support for him personally evaporates. I dont think this means that these same people will go out and vote democrat, but it would at least make them less likely to go vote for him on election day. If they stay home on election day the Dem candidate will win.

But only a very few of their children have actually been killed. Not nearly enough to make any difference in the election, at any rate. Just because you see on the news everyday that a soldier was killed does not mean there are a lot of them being killed. There are, after all, only 365 days in a year. Regardless, the same people whose children enter the military (obviously I have no facts to back this up, but I think it is a good guess) are usually staunch believers in both Heaven and democracy. Their children are in Heaven and have earned the respect of their country as far as they are concerned.

 

[superslug]

Originally posted by sims2789
but still, the South will never vote for a Democrat and the non-Pacific West is pretty conservative, with the exception of New Mexico. but the Dems have California and New York in their pocket, and those are the 1st and 3rd largest states.

Are you speaking about the South as a whole or a generality? If as a generality, then yes, the South has definitive Republican tendencies in Presidential elections. However, Clinton won over several Southern states in both his elections. One of his primary reasons for initially selecting Gore was because he was "from" the South (as much as an insider can be anyway). This helped erode what is usually but not always a Republican stronghold.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
I give you NY City and San Fransisco. I could easily see both states going to Bush though...

J

You are right on this one. (I think so...) /at least he will have a back up from Arny in California /

Still I think it's too early for prediction, but repeat Bush have more likely chance to be reelectied.

Maybe it's easier to see that looking from "outside" not from US were everyone have opinion for whom to vote. Also, someone mention, many of you voted what you would like to happened which is diferent from question "Will he...?" .

For people outside of US : I hope you were against Bill Clinton whit same passion becouse he bombard my country 4 years ago, like you are angry becouse disagriement on Iraq issue on Georg Bush ( But I know you were not ).

 

[EzInKy]

Bush will win for one reason only. No matter how bad his economics are and no matter how bad his religious views are his foreign policy stand is the only one that makes sense.

 

[Matrix]

Impressive results. I believe Europeans never really liked Bush. I'm always in favour of the democratic candidate, whoever that is.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by Matrix
Impressive results. I believe Europeans never really liked Bush.

Perhaps if Europeans started favoring Bush Americans would vote him out B-)

 

[Martacus]

Originally posted by Matrix
I'm always in favour of the democratic candidate, whoever that is.

Take your pick. So far there are nine or ten of them.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

The Republicans have just one candidate.

Not only that, but they stand up and applaud after each sentence he says in the State of the Kremlin Addresses. Normally without waiting for him to finish.

Old habits die hard, I guess...

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Not only that, but they stand up and applaud after each sentence he says in the State of the Kremlin Addresses. Normally without waiting for him to finish.

The Dems. did the same for Clinton... that's just politics.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If I hear one more "Clinton did it too", I swear by God I'll go spastic with a bazooka! Is this the third or fourth time this ridiculous attempt at an excuse appears on this forum within the last forty-eight hours?

Bush's whole platform WAS "I'm not Clinton and I'm not Clinton's little lapdog either". I thought he wanted "change" and all that crap. "Reform", you know?

If the Republican excuse for every idiotic thing Bush does is "Clinton did it too", why don't you just cut out the middle man and vote Democrat, eh?

I was never a Clinton supporter - he and his wife give me the creeps almost as much as Bush and his sweetie Cheney... A smarter post would not have made the hasty generalization that every Liberal is a Democrat, and vice versa.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate

I was never a Clinton supporter - he and his wife give me the creeps almost as much as Bush and his sweetie Cheney... A smarter post would not have made the hasty generalization that every Liberal is a Democrat, and vice versa.

What exactly are you then?

 

[Roundman]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
If I hear one more "Clinton did it too", I swear by God I'll go spastic with a bazooka! Is this the third or fourth time this ridiculous attempt at an excuse appears on this forum within the last forty-eight hours?

Bush's whole platform WAS "I'm not Clinton and I'm not Clinton's little lapdog either". I thought he wanted "change" and all that crap. "Reform", you know?

If the Republican excuse for every idiotic thing Bush does is "Clinton did it too", why don't you just cut out the middle man and vote Democrat, eh?

I was never a Clinton supporter - he and his wife give me the creeps almost as much as Bush and his sweetie Cheney... A smarter post would not have made the hasty generalization that every Liberal is a Democrat, and vice versa.

What is wrong with you? Do you have problems reading, or are you just stupid? Right now, I think that its a combination of the two. You seem to lash out at everyone with ad hominem attacks for the slightest reason.

My post has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with any particular policies. I was simply pointing out that, during presidential speeches, the president's party applauds at everything,and that fact applies for both Democrats and Republicans. Your previous post made it seem that the overuse of applause was strictly a tool of the Republicans. It is not: it is a tool of all politicians.
I have no freaking clue how you managed to pull all of the other stuff out of it, especially the last part about all liberals being Democrats. I'm personally neither Republican nor Democrat, let alone a partisan Bush defender. I was just pointing out the fact that something you said wasn't really fair.

A smarter person would have realized that and would not have jumped to such strange conclusions.