Predictions for 2004

[(*]

We've seen a lot of threads about Kucinich etc...

But who do you think will be the final candidate to run against Bush?
Who will win?
Will it be as close as the last one?


I'm thinking Dean will be running against Bush.
It will be pretty close, but Bush will win. He'll probably get around 60% +- of the votes.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

I think Dean will win the primaries.Better him then Clark though.It'll be close in the Dean vs. Clark race,but Dean will pull out.He was the first big publicity democratic candidate.I honestly can't say if he will beat bush yet.It depends what Bush does,or dosen't do in the next 10-11 months.

[Pete]

Liberal win a slim majority (130), Separtists become the 'Queen's Loyal Opposition' (ohh the irony) 40, next the new united Conservitve Party of Canada with something around 35 seats, and then the NDP with 25 or so, and teh Green party with about 5 seats. I know those numbers don't add up, but hey I'm giving round guesses!


Mwhahah may we Canadians overrun your thread!

Edit: I also think that the PC will not be totally dead for atleast another elction.

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Dean, and I think he will beat Bush. Dean is on top and everybody who is loosing really should just let Dean win, there is too many people running.

[SonofRage]

Dean will win the Democratic nomination easily, it won't even be close. I think the general election will be close, but Dean will win. The Green Party candidate will do very poorly.

[Comrade Ceausescu]

The Green Party candidate will do very poorly.

Good.There is no point in this day and age in running a green.Normally,I would say sure,run.But when it is really,really neccassery to get someone like Bush out of office,all it does is give votes to him.Every leftist should vote democrat in the 2004 election.

[Pete]

CG1917, sort of sounds like what the communist parties where saying before WWI eh?

[canikickit]

I don't know how the system works in the US, but it does seem really, really stupid.
You guys have primaries and New Hampshire and all sorts of crazy shit going on....I'm not too sure what happens in Ireland, but I think there's just one vote after all the campaigning nonsense.

New Hamp is the first primary, right (or the last)? But if, say Kucinich does badly at that, does he not get to go on to the next one?

Anyway, Bush will get voted out. It doesn't matter though. :)

[Jesus Christ]

No matter how much I would love to see a Green in office, it's not going to happen because of industrialists and the like.
Dean will win the election, hands down, I think.
And when it is absolutely necessary to get Bush out of office, any type of Independent or Green should run, they would not GIVE him votes

I say VOTE GREEN
http://www.gp.org/

[Alejandro C]

The first primaries are in Iowa. lucky for me i'll be there for them. the second primaries are in New Hampshire. My parents live in Iowa and they wont even watch TV anymore because they say every other ad on TV is one politrickan slaming another. same with radio.

my predictions- i'll have to go with the statistics. the biggest fundraiser has won the election in the last thirty years (?). bush will undoubtedly raise an unprecedented amount of money. by the time dean wins the primaries he will have spent most of his money bashing fellow democrats and will be lucky to have HALF of what bush has for the presidential election.

i think kucinich and sharpton will be out after New Hampshire. clark, dean, and possibly kerry will stay with it until the end.

There is a lot of talk about voting kucinich on this board. what you fail to realize is that there is no way in hell he'll get past even the second primary. So unless you live in Iowa or New Hampshire, which i'm sure a lot of you don't, you won't even get the chance to vote kucinich. i'm registered in Iowa but the real ***** of it is this- if you don't belong to the democrat party you can't vote in their primary! so the only people who will be given the chance to vote kucinich are the democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire.. on this board.... i think i can safely say that will be zero people.

it would be really great if kucinich would start a splinter party. that would take away a bit of the democrats vote hopefully losing the election for them just like nader 'lost' the election for them in 2000. perhaps if they got fucked out of two presidencies in a row they might start paying attention, but probably not they ARE democrats.

[Pete]

What is this stuff about 'primaries'? It does nothing to shake the stereotype that American politics is nothing more than a turtle rolling in the mud for fun...


they wont even watch TV anymore because they say every other ad on TV is one politrickan slaming another. same with radio.


The PC's tried that style in Ontario and then they got trounced in the elections. How do you people put up with it? I mean up here in Canada that kind of bullshit immediately discredits whatever you are saying. (Eves was fucked even without that style ads, but they did not help).

-Pete

[RebeldePorLaPAZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2003, 03:32 PM
No matter how much I would love to see a Green in office, it's not going to happen because of industrialists and the like.
Dean will win the election, hands down, I think.
And when it is absolutely necessary to get Bush out of office, any type of Independent or Green should run, they would not GIVE him votes

I say VOTE GREEN
http://www.gp.org/
I think in order to move the green party you need to have the Democrates in power. Once the left is in then we can just start moving more down. Plus what would you rather do, vote for green knowing their not going ot win, or voting a Democrate in hoping to replace G. Bush

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Thus far, Dean and Clark are the leading candidates. Kerry has raised a lot of money, which may keep him in the race. Thus far, Dean appears to be the favorite, but Clark seems to have momentum to already be in second place after joining the race so late. Honestly, I have heard both Dean and Clark, and I am much more impressed with Clark. His past certainly troubles me, as does his penchant for using military metaphors for all kinds of civilian questions.

Interestingly, every poll that says "Any Democrat vs. Bush in 2004" shows clear support for the Dem, yet no candidate when named can best Bush in polls.

If Kucinich does not survive the primaries, then I will vote for a third party in the general election. Here in Nebraska, it really does not matter since Bush would carry my state even if he was revealed as the devil himself.

[(*]

I really despise both dean and clark, but favor them over bush.

I still think bush will take the next election. "Something" will happen that will rally americans to support bush etc... We all saw how easily manipulated they were after 9/11 and once the iraq war started (numbers changed from like 70% opposed to war, to 70% in support of the war :rolleyes: )

[Alejandro C]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 7 2003, 05:06 PM

Interestingly, every poll that says "Any Democrat vs. Bush in 2004" shows clear support for the Dem, yet no candidate when named can best Bush in polls.

that reminds me of a saying i recently heard about regan

'if regan was running unopposed he would have lost, but since he was running against carter....'

same thing could be said for bush

[Jesus Christ]

i heard some stupid politicians talking about putting Reagan on the nickel
corny

[Comrade Ceausescu]

Liberal,I would call it insulting.Almost as insulting as Jackson on the 20.

[Jesus Christ]

It would never go through, only the republicans back it.
the only US president I would reccomend on money would be Teddy for helping dissolve many trusts and monopolies

[RedCeltic]

For most people in liberal states... it doesn't matter how many more vote for the democrat. Gore won my state (New York) overwelmingly and recieved the votes from here... my vote for Nader didn't affect that election. Don't get me wrong... a republican can win in New York (Our governer is one) however not a republican as far to the right as George W. Bush. His beliefs are very different from republicans from this state.

I think the battle will be over some of those mid west states... and southern states like Florida.


I'm pretty sure Deen will win the democratic nomination... as for winning the presidency... if enough "fence sitters" are concerned about domestic issues without buying into the "war on terrorism" propaganda, than he may have a chance.

[Funky Monk]

Lieberman to win it, captures New Hampshire and goes from strength to strength.

Not going to stand a chance against Bush, going to increase Republican majority in Congress

[Sabocat]

The first primaries are in Iowa. lucky for me i'll be there for them. the second primaries are in New Hampshire.


Technically, New Hampshire is the first Primary, as Iowa is a Caucus.



Lieberman to win it, captures New Hampshire and goes from strength to strength.

:lol: :lol: :lol: Strengths? What strengths? That he's a clone of GW?


I'm pretty sure Deen will win the democratic nomination... as for winning the presidency... if enough "fence sitters" are concerned about domestic issues without buying into the "war on terrorism" propaganda, than he may have a chance.

Yet of course, Dean has himself bought into the war on terrorism and is all in favor of status quo military budgets and increases.

My predictions.....

Kucinich with a pretty good grass roots org. will not drop out in New Hampshire but probably will run out of money soon thereafter. Same goes for Sharpton.

Kerry is a wealthy bourgeois politician, and will continue to the bitter end.

At the Democratic Convention, it will have to be brokered between Dean and Clark. Dean will be given the nod, because he can "play ball".

In the end, no matter who wins between Dean and Bush, nothing will change, except the name on the desk in the Oval Office.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Alejandro C,


'if regan was running unopposed he would have lost, but since he was running against carter....'

Yeah. It goes to show ya how many support one of the two major parties when 60% do not vote at all. Their clear answer is "neither"! Howard Zinn noted that the biggest reason given in recent elections when control of the White House shifts to the other major party is a feeling of need for change. The voters are not really embracing the opposition, so much as trying to get away from the incumbent.

liberAL,


i heard some stupid politicians talking about putting Reagan on the nickel

Actually, they want Ronnie to replace FDR on the dime. Of course, this country replaced FDR and Keynesian economics with Reagan and Milton Friedman a long time ago. It may happen, since Republicans are the majority in Congress and many Dems are too afraid to oppose a new shrine devoted to that great patron saint of "anti-communism."


the only US president I would reccomend on money would be Teddy for helping dissolve many trusts and monopolies

As I understand it, TR's successor William Howard Taft dissolved many more monopolies, but just never got properly credited. I will warn you against taking too much pride in "Theodore Rex", as he was a naked imperialist who only supported reform to take the steam out of socialist movements. Howard Zinn does a great job in shattering Teddy myth. I suggest you look into it.

RedCeltic,

Good points. I agree that leftists in what are considered "liberal states" should not hesitate to vote for the Green Party or other third parties. Those comrades have no reason to fear delivering their state to Bush. The coastal states go to the Democrat in nearly every election, while the Republicans sieze the most backward states every time (like Nebraska)... the states that are in contention are the less conservative states in the Midwest and South.

Funky Monk,

Do you follow American politics at all? I think Lieberman's campaign has been miserable. He cannot be better off than fourth or fifth place. What makes you think he will get the presidential nomination?

Disgustapated,

Good post. I have nothing to add to it.

[praxis1966]

i heard some stupid politicians talking about putting Reagan on the nickel
corny
Actually, they want Ronnie to replace FDR on the dime.

It would only be fitting since he stole so many of them. In 80 my parents made 16k and had 1 kid. In 81 they made 13k, and had two kids. After the Reagan tax cut, they payed more out in taxes in 81 than 80.

Dean is gonna win the primaries hands down. I think the only candidates left at the convention will be him, Lieberman, and Clark. Kerry and Gephardt have the potential to make it that far, but I'm wagering that they won't make it out of South Carolina. If Dean has any brains in his head, he'll select Clark as his running mate.

[Blibblob]

If Dean has any brains in his head, he'll select Clark as his running mate.
Oh, I hope not. There is something about Clark that scares me(other than the general part). Dean has a freaky smirk on his face all of the time, even when he gets slammed for stupidity. Most of the debates that I've seen Dean appears to have a lot of admirance(I don't think that's a word...) of Kucinich, as him being one of the few that avantly opposed most of Bush's decisions. It would be kick ass if somehow he pulls through and could become Dean's running mate. Only thing that annoys me about him is the constant blabbing about his plan to switch the US with the UN in Iraq. I know Kucinich has some support in my area(Tampa Bay, Florida), as does Dean.

i heard some stupid politicians talking about putting Reagan on the nickel
corny
All the better to melt them with my dear!

[praxis1966]

Well, I have mixed emotions about Clark myself. But, bringing the second most popular canditate onto the general election ticket would be smart salesmanship. It's a tactic often employed in presidential elections.

I'm not so sure about the saleability of Dean leading the ticket however. You have to consider the fact that the last three Democrats to take the Oval Office (Clinton, Carter, and Johnson) were all from the south. This strategy has proved effective since it has been hard for northern Democrats to carry southern swing states. After all, if you go back and look at the way the electoral votes broke down, Florida was what won Clinton the presidency in '92. I don't think his election would have been successful without it. Unfortunately, I have the sneaking suspicion that Florida will be the electorial lynchpin in 2004 as well.

[(*]

I've already come to terms that Bush is going to win.

[Ortega]

He just might.... :(

Actually, I'd say he probably will... :unsure:

[Monty Cantsin]

bush fixed it the first time so why couldnt he do it again.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I would agree with the opinions above that Bush will attempt to steal the next election. First of all, he is said to be interested in raising $200 million for his campaign. If he raises it, it would be a record. That money will be spent lying to Americans, exaggerating his talents and the necessity to continue his would-be presidency. Then, there seems to be a lot of buzz on the internet about tampering with voting machines to the point of fraud. Seeing as how many of these firms are owned by very partisan Republicans, this will be a huge advantage to Bush. And of course, the vital state of Florida is still under the administration of brother Jeb.

[SgtPepper369]

So let me get this straight... Iowa and New Hamshire hold the fate of the democratic nomoniee... since when does Iowa get to speak for the rest of the country ?