Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Democratic President in 04?
America's Debate > Archive > Political Debate Archive > [A] Republican Debate
Google
Juber3
If say a democratic president gets chosen and *gulp* wins, do you think the senate will throw away all bills made by the president say... "No war against terorism"
Google
Mike
No, it'd be political suicide.

The Republicans used the public's percieved view of the Democratic stance on homeland security in the last election, and we see where that got the Democrats.

I don't see much changing in two years.

It'll be a big election issue, if not the biggest.

Mike
Digital Patriot
I see Bush running for re-election and winning. I think his overall popularity will assure us of that.

--cheers
Juber3
yea he is becomming pouplar now

GO BUSH
otseng
However, if the economy continues to tank and the Democrats can effectively blame the president for it, I see the Dems with a good chance of winning.
Lord Zeved
there is a chance, but wars usually make prez' popular. it happens in this case too. he won the first time, and there's a better chance now.

L. Zeved
GoAmerica
QUOTE(otseng @ Dec 13 2002, 12:13 PM)
However, if the economy continues to tank and the Democrats can effectively blame the president for it, I see the Dems with a good chance of winning.

The Economy is coming out of the hole it fell in

I think the 8 week rally in October & November proved that

The NYSE just finished it's 2nd consecutive UP week last week

The market is getting back on it's feet
cyclone
We'll be well out of this dip by then. Dems are in a bad way, because they have to hope and pray that the economy stinks by election time--hard to support people who ardently wish the worst for you for the next two years. Otherwise, what do they have to run on? Especially if this stupid prescription drug benefit goes through. Bush is successfully co-opting traditional dem issues, in much the same way as his predecessor co-opted GOP issues as his own. Bad times for dems in '04. I'm hoping they just pass on the election, do us all a favor and wait until '08 to make a play.
Aquilla
It's a little early to be paying much attention to polling data and the like and thus start to take the 2004 election for granted. Much work needs to be done by the Republicans in Congress and in the White House between now and then. Thus far, President Bush has proven himself to be a most formidable political force. He has managed to stay a few steps ahead of his opponents and frustrating their efforts by taking his message directly to the American people.

It has thus far been quite entertaining actually to watch "dumb ole Bush" outsmart them at every turn. laugh.gif
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Juber3 @ Dec 6 2002, 10:37 PM)
If say a democratic president gets chosen and *gulp* wins, do you think the senate will throw away all bills made by the president say... "No war against terorism"

Dude...you are talking MAJOR political suicide

Clinton ignored terrorism (except fior the time he blew up 2 tents in Afghanistan & a drug factory in Sudan for the Embassy bombings) and look where we are now....2 toppled skyscrapers & a part of the Pentagon collapsed & an Economy that just collapsed along with the Twin Towers

The American people will learn from all that & vote Republican (Bush or another Repub.)
Google
HeatherRob
Looking at the pitiful field the Democrats are trotting out, I can't see the Democrats winning in 2004. THe economy is going to be the big issue, because people know Bush is right on terrorism and Iraq. But I want the Republicans to get out the facts that the good "90's" weren't good at all. As we are seeing now, most of the good times were accounting mirages that are blowing up each year. Accounting chicanery is chopping away at the myth of the great economy of the 90's. WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, GLobal Crossing, AOLTimeWarner, all these companies are being revealed as paper successes, and like the Clinton Years, all the successes are being shown to be smoke and mirrors.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(HeatherRob @ Feb 7 2003, 08:29 PM)
Looking at the pitiful field the Democrats are trotting out, I can't see the Democrats winning in 2004.  THe economy is going to be the big issue, because people know Bush is right on terrorism and Iraq.  But I want the Republicans to get out the facts that the good "90's" weren't good at all.  As we are seeing now, most of the good times were accounting mirages that are blowing up each year.  Accounting chicanery is chopping away at the myth of the great economy of the 90's.  WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, GLobal Crossing, AOLTimeWarner, all these companies are being revealed as paper successes, and like the Clinton Years, all the successes are being shown to be smoke and mirrors.

Exactly

Bush gets to foot the bill & clean up after Clinton...again mad.gif
Aquilla
QUOTE(HeatherRob @ Feb 8 2003, 01:29 AM)
  But I want the Republicans to get out the facts that the good "90's" weren't good at all.  As we are seeing now, most of the good times were accounting mirages that are blowing up each year.  Accounting chicanery is chopping away at the myth of the great economy of the 90's. 



I'm not sure that is a very effective tactic. People are only going to be concerned with how well they did in the 90's, and if they did well, they really don't care why. They are going to say, "Smoke and mirrors you say? Ok by me, that smoke and those mirrors bought me my house. Now, what are you (the Republicans) going to do to make sure I can continue paying for that house?" We have to stop looking backwards and beating up on Clinton, even though that is quite an enjoyable thing to do. But, if the Republicans want to remain in the majority and in the White House they need to craft plans that will work and get this economy going again.
HeatherRob
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Feb 8 2003, 07:23 AM)



I'm not sure that is a very effective tactic.  People are only going to be concerned with how well they did in the 90's, and if they did well, they really don't care why.  They are going to say, "Smoke and mirrors you say?  Ok by me, that smoke and those mirrors bought me my house.  Now, what are you (the Republicans) going to do to make sure I can continue paying for that house?"  We have to stop looking backwards and beating up on Clinton, even though that is quite an enjoyable thing to do.  But, if the Republicans want to remain in the majority and in the White House they need to craft plans that will work and get this economy going again.

wink2.gif wink2.gif wink2.gif But don't you see that the front-loaded good times are coming home to roost now? Personal debt is at an all-time high. SO people may have bought that big fancy house in the 90's, but with little cash and now have little equity. The banks that were eager to lend then, are now more discerning. I don't think many hard working AMericans expect the government to help them pay their bills, that is a liberal idea. Most Americans would like to see the government stay out of their pocketbook and just let capitalism work like it can if not meddled with. wink2.gif
Aquilla
QUOTE
I don't think many hard working AMericans expect the government to help them pay their bills, that is a liberal idea. Most Americans would like to see the government stay out of their pocketbook and just let capitalism work like it can if not meddled with.


Oh, I agree with that, but the Republicans are going to have to sell that idea to the American people. They can't just say, "All those good times under Clinton were smoke and mirrors and they are over". I don't think that would be a very effective thing to say and continue in power. The American people aren't going to care why it happened, only that the economy gets back on track. Tax cuts and reduction of governmental interference would be a good way to do it, but it has to be sold right I think.
ConservPat
QUOTE(otseng @ Dec 13 2002, 12:13 PM)
However, if the economy continues to tank and the Democrats can effectively blame the president for it, I see the Dems with a good chance of winning.

If we go to war the Repubs are as good as elected. Most Americans pray that we don't have a war time liberal.

CP us.gif
Aquilla
If we go to war soon, it will hopefully be a distant memory by the time of the 2004 elections. The first Bush proved that simply winning a war during his administration wasn't sufficient to get re-elected. I think the Republicans in the White House and in Congress have to step up to the plate on the economy and make some significant changes. Republicans talk about wanting a more limited government, let them prove that's truly what they want and shrink it. Otherwise, it's just empty rhetoric.
GoAmerica
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Feb 11 2003, 06:15 PM)
If we go to war soon, it will hopefully be a distant memory by the time of the 2004 elections.  The first Bush proved that simply winning a war during his administration wasn't sufficient to get re-elected.

There is stilll the war on terror to think about Aquilla

No one would want a Democrat to run the war on terror, especially Hillary, considering the slacking off Bill Clinton did with Terrorism from Al-Queda during his 8 years
Aquilla
Goamerica,

It is a very dangerous thing to run a Presidential campaign on a single issue, even one as important as the war on terror. The American people aren't going to elect the next President based solely on that person's ability to "run the war". For one, they realize that the President doesn't actually run the war, that's what our generals do, and secondly, they recognize that something like the war on terror has an 'inertia' of it's own, even a President can't completely change the direction that course of events is taking.

The Republican Party is going to have to act on the core values they expouse in the next 2 years and implement policy based on that across the board or 2004 could be a disaster.
Izdaari
QUOTE(Aquilla @ Feb 12 2003, 02:18 PM)
It is a very dangerous thing to run a Presidential campaign on a single issue, even one as important as the war on terror.  The American people aren't going to elect the next President based solely on that person's ability to "run the war".   For one, they realize that the President doesn't actually run the war, that's what our generals do, and secondly, they recognize that something like the war on terror has an 'inertia' of it's own, even a President can't completely change the direction that course of events is taking.

The Republican Party is going to have to act on the core values they expouse in the next 2 years and implement policy based on that across the board or 2004 could be a disaster.

I agree. The Dems can certainly hurt themselves by appearing weak on national security, but merely being successful in war doesn't guarantee reelection at all. Churchill and the previous President Bush were proof of that.

The GOP must have a positive program as well, one that keeps the party base on board and excited, not inclined to sit on their hands, and that can attract enough independents to make a majority. Forget committed Dems, we can't win them over regardless. We can maybe win some that think of themselves as Dems but don't agree with their party's current stance on issues; those are the "Reagan Democrats."
Amlord
I agree that the Democrat field is weak, however, I am not certain of success in '04. The Dems are experts at turning issues against Republicans. George HW Bush lost only a year after the Gulf War ended, so war is no guarantee of success. Alot is going to depend on the economy, which I hope the President's tax cuts will help with.
Aquilla
2004 will be a most interesting and unusual election I think. For the first time in decades the Republicans go into it with political control of both houses of Congress and the White House. Past Republican Presidents have been able to frame the debate by at least running against a Democratic controlled House and rightly or wrongly, blamed problems on them. President Bush can't do that this time around. He can use the Democrat obstructionist tactics in the Senate to certain extent, but I fear that won't carry the day.

The Republicans absolutely have to come up with an agenda, implement it and make it work. They have to be seen as the party of ideas and progress. The next two years better be one of the most pro-active times from a Republican standpoint that we've ever seen, or we could be in big trouble in 2004. That's the responbility of leading.
fisherman51
I agree with Aquilla all the way. And also, Who can the democrats possibly dig up to upset bush? Now that Mr."I want a recount" Gore isnt going to run,and the world surely isnt ready for four years of Hillary, All dubya has to do is keep his nose clean for another year and a half and he is in!!!!!


! GGGOOOO Mr. Bush!!!!!! rolleyes.gif wink.gif wink.gif wink.gif




Just got in trouble for sticking my nose in dems. site. whistling.gif whistling.gif
Izdaari
Hillary might be well be who the Dems turn to. Michael Reagan seems pretty sure she's counting on that. I think she could possibly saunter in and steal the nomination if none of the others have enough delegates locked up. Whether she could win the general election is another matter.
Passion51
QUOTE(Izdaari @ May 2 2003, 09:19 PM)
Hillary might be well be who the Dems turn to. Michael Reagan seems pretty sure she's counting on that. I think she could possibly saunter in and steal the nomination if none of the others have enough delegates locked up. Whether she could win the general election is another matter.

Hillary won't run in'04 if Bush remains as popular as he is now. She'll wait 'til 08, thinking her chances would be better. That also gives more time for her to distance herself from Bill.

I don't think she realizes we know her to be worse than her old man ever was.
O'Neill
QUOTE(otseng @ Dec 13 2002, 12:13 PM)
However, if the economy continues to tank and the Democrats can effectively blame the president for it, I see the Dems with a good chance of winning.

You say if the Dems can continue to blame Bushh for the economy.
Well, they are not getting away with it any more.
They do not have the lock-step media junta that they have had in the past.

Also, The way GW has conducted himself, The 'new tone' haas highlighted the politics of personal destruction the Dems use and it makes them look bad
GoAmerica
QUOTE(O'Neill @ May 10 2003, 07:40 PM)
QUOTE(otseng @ Dec 13 2002, 12:13 PM)
However, if the economy continues to tank and the Democrats can effectively blame the president for it, I see the Dems with a good chance of winning.

You say if the Dems can continue to blame Bushh for the economy.
Well, they are not getting away with it any more.
They do not have the lock-step media junta that they have had in the past.

O'neill

You made a good point about the Dems & the economy issue

The Democrats pounded Bush in the 2002 Senate race with the economic issue & all they got was a Republican-controlled Congress

I don't know if the fact that the media is more conservative is the point but that is highly possible or doubtful

It was probably the fact that the Dems didn't support Bush on an iraq war

So what i'm saying is is that the economy issue will not make a great impact on voters choice unless it takes another dive bomb.
Jaime
STOP POSTING HERE IF YOU ARE NOT A DECLARED REPUBLICAN!!!!! mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif
ConservPat
QUOTE(fisherman51 @ May 2 2003, 03:54 PM)
I agree with Aquilla all the way. And also, Who can the democrats possibly dig up to upset bush? Now that Mr."I want a recount" Gore isnt going to run,and the world surely isnt ready for four years of Hillary, All dubya has to do is keep his nose clean for another year and a half and he is in!!!!!


! GGGOOOO    Mr. Bush!!!!!! rolleyes.gif  wink.gif  wink.gif  wink.gif




      Just got in trouble for sticking my nose in dems. site. whistling.gif  whistling.gif

Just a question, and you probably get this a lot, but, a LIBERAL republican, please explain.

CP us.gif
Izdaari
There are liberal Republicans, CP. They're pretty common in New York and Massachusetts, and not unknown in Washington and Oregon either.
Anarchy Praxis
The 2004 election is going to be a record setting landslide, in 2008 it will be Evan Bayh. He would have ran in 2004 but he wanted to spend time with his twin sons not miss their childhood because of his political career. He is the only Democrate that could do it. I've wondered for years what Rush Limbaugh would do about him in the White House, scandle mongering would not work, he's more consevative then most Republicans, he was a two time governer and in his second term as Senator so hes obviously qualified for the office.
He put his family first, like Powell, thats forgivable.
Cyan
Anarchy Praxis, this particular forum is for Republicans only. If you would like to discuss this topic, you need to start a new thread in the General Political Debate section.
Izdaari
Even though he shouldn't have been here, that was a interesting thought: I agree Evan Bayh would be perhaps the strongest candidate the Dems could run in the general election. But how could someone so middle-of-the-road get through the Dem's nominating process? Maybe it could happen but only with the help of crossover voters in the primaries in a year in which there are no Republican primaries ... like 2004. That won't be the case in 2008.
Hugo
I think the most likely candidate for the first woman President will be a pro-choice moderately conservative Republican. Someone who can cut into the gender gap without losing traditional Republican voters.

Whoops, wrong forum.
Bill55AZ
It looks like the only person whose actions can lose the presidency to the Dems is the shrub, and only then if he makes the same mistakes GHWB did while facing a viable conservative democrat. It wasn't just the "read my lips" fiasco, or the economy, but not controlling the likes of Newt, Pat Buchanan, etc. that helped tank him. Hopefully Junior and his crew can keep the party in line this time.
ConservPat
QUOTE(Izdaari @ May 13 2003, 11:10 PM)
There are liberal Republicans, CP. They're pretty common in New York and Massachusetts, and not unknown in Washington and Oregon either.

I just don't get it, how can you be liberal and a republican, what is the difference, between a liberal Republican and a traditional Republican.

CP us.gif
Bill55AZ
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Jun 7 2003, 10:52 PM)
QUOTE(Izdaari @ May 13 2003, 11:10 PM)
There are liberal Republicans, CP. They're pretty common in New York and Massachusetts, and not unknown in Washington and Oregon either.

I just don't get it, how can you be liberal and a republican, what is the difference, between a liberal Republican and a traditional Republican.

CP us.gif

For me, a liberal republican is pro-business but not to the extent that the rich continually get richer at the expense of the poor. Sort of a capitalist with socialistic leanings. They are more willing to allow the poor to have a larger share of the wealth.
They won't go all the way in that direction, though.
Extreme capitalism is so harsh that I find it hard to believe that the 'Christian Right' types find it acceptable.
Jaime
We're getting a little sidetracked here. Please get back to debating:
QUOTE
If say a democratic president gets chosen and *gulp* wins, do you think the senate will throw away all bills made by the president say... "No war against terorism"
bd123
Democratic President in 04? keep dreamin, ppl are fed up with liberalism and hyprocrisy of the democrats, especially me.
Juber3
QUOTE(bd123 @ Jun 10 2003, 09:25 PM)
Democratic President in 04?  keep dreamin, ppl are fed up with liberalism and hyprocrisy of the democrats, especially me.

I agree...
johnlocke
QUOTE(bd123 @ Jun 11 2003, 01:25 AM)
Democratic President in 04?  keep dreamin, ppl are fed up with liberalism and hyprocrisy of the democrats, especially me.

I agree as well. That is why I believe Kerry has the best possibility of gaining the chance to run. Obviously Bush will win in a landslide. us.gif
Wertz
Over forty posts in seven months - and only one sentence has addressed the topic here. Do you guys think maybe you should start a new thread? whistling.gif

On the other hand, if anyone actually wanted to answer Juber's hypothetical, some of us would read the responses with interest...
Jaime
Wertz - stay outta this forum, please. The Republicans seem to be handling themselves just fine here dry.gif
ConservPat
QUOTE(johnlocke @ Jul 6 2003, 02:55 PM)
QUOTE(bd123 @ Jun 11 2003, 01:25 AM)
Democratic President in 04?  keep dreamin, ppl are fed up with liberalism and hyprocrisy of the democrats, especially me.

I agree as well. That is why I believe Kerry has the best possibility of gaining the chance to run. Obviously Bush will win in a landslide. us.gif

Yes he will, but I think Liebermen has the best chance of winning the Liberal Party's bid, he's the most centrist one, and there's no way those leftist loonies like Dean are going to win the primaries.

CP us.gif
Aquilla
Right now it looks like Dean is much stronger than people thought he'd be. I'm not sure whether I like this or not. For one thing, were he to win, he'd be a disaster in the White House, but on the other hand, unless Bush completely self-destructs, Dean could be the next McGovern.
aquapub
We can only do so much on debate websites. If you really want to be heard and make an impact, go to www.GOPteamleader.com.
aquapub
If you need a resource for powerful, CURRENT facts on affirmative action, check out Reader's Digest, June edition, Pg 106. WOW!

If you actually want to DO something about discrimination, you can join (free) the American Civil Rights Institute, and also keep an eye on a site called "Conservative petitions" that allows you to sign petitions to the government and companies.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.