 |
| |
|
|
Andrew1999
|
|
Arkansas had two-year terms when Clinton first became governor, but they switched to four-year terms in the late 80's. So he did quit in the middle of his term.
I don't think Hillary will run in '04. I think she'll have to have at least one full Senate term to be taken seriously. I have a theory that if they had started a few years later (when the climate was more receptive to women) it would have been Hillary as governor and president and Bill sitting at home baking the cookies.
I still think Lieberman will probably get the nomination in 2004. I don't really have a favorite candidate; no one besides Dean from Vermont is interesting. Everyone else seems like the usual stock candidate.
There was a cartoon in the spring of 1991 about how the Democrats could beat the Republicans in 1992. The Republicans would nominate Bush and Quayle again. The only way the Democrats could win would be to nominate Bush and Colin Powell. In other words, they might as well not show up. Whenever anyone says Dubya will win a walkover in 2004 I just remember that cartoon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shi Huangdi
|
 |
Pittsburgh, PA
Apr 1999
time: 00:24
|
|
"That's a BAM. There are more registered Dems than Republicans in the US, period."
You don't seem to understand what a political "base" is. It doesn't mean the amount of people who are registered as a member of your party. For instance, in the South many people are registered as Democrats but voted for Bush instead- if you look at the 2000 exit polls you will see a good number of Democrats did vote for Bush. The Democratic party registration also contains many nonvoters who have stopped caring about politics. Party registration does not equal base.
A political base is consisted of the strongly ideological wings of each party- for the GOP the conservative, for the Democratic party the liberals. They are important for running the grass roots work of the campaign, donating hard money, and for turning out in high numbers to support their party's candidate. And as the DLC says, their are more conservatives then liberals(thus making it neccesary for the Dems to get more moderate votes).
Keeping support from your base, as many of the left have recently pointed out, is important. If you fail to do so, you won't get as much energetic campaign work, you risk getting less donations, you may face lower turnout or people in your party may defect to a third party candidate. Still however, the majority of people in this country are moderates, and to it is among the moderate independents that the greatest number of votes in play are found. To be sucsessful, a candidate needs to do a delicate balance and appease your party's base while at the same time capturing as many moderate votes as you can. And if the democrats turn too far left, it becomes less likely they will be able to capture from GWB.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
Maybe the Dems will decide to nominate Ralph Nader.
I figured some of you needed a laugh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:24
|
|
It doesn't really matter who the Dems nominate. Bush's re-election hinges on:
a) how badly he screws up the U.S. economy and
b) how the nation-building in Iraq is going after Saddam is toppled. If we're bogged down in a guerilla war with suicide bombers routinely killing our soldiers, Bush is on the next train back to Texas.
Last edited by Zkribbler on 16-12-2002 at 09:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gatekeeper
|
 |
United States of America
Feb 2000
time: 23:24
|
|
Right now, Bush Jr. and friends are in something of a minefield. They can afford to step on the little ones — i.e. Sen. Trent Lott — and heal to a large degree from those detonations. But if they ever step on a large mine — i.e. Iraq, North Korea, al-Qaida and/or the U.S. economy — it'll be the end of them all.
I'm sorry, but if we go into Iraq and our troops get gassed or hit with God knows what else while we're trying to dig Saddam Hussein out of his hole, I'm holding Bush accountable, along with the Pentagon.
Furthermore, Bush says he won't have to ever use military pressure on North Korea. Yeah, right. Hell, even former President Bill Clinton says had had plans drawn up to blow the hell out of the NK nuke reactor back in 1994, and he let NK know what was going to happen if they didn't bend to U.S. will. Well, do you really think anything short of a military strike will scare the bejeezus out of NK now? Tell me, Mr. Bush, what can we do to make NK toe the line again? Not much! They break agreements in an almost whimsical manner and now they have the balls to blame the U.S. for the current situation. So, Mr. Bush, how to handle them ... ? I bet NK will be a tougher nut to crack than even Iraq.
Sometimes I can't help but feel that if al-Qaida strikes U.S. soil again, it can only help solidify the growing power of the federal government's "security" measures. What are we going to end up with? Poindexter on security steroids? That gives me chills. Anyway, if al-Qaida were to get successive strikes in on American soil (causing mass casualties), it'd be a blow to Bush and company.
As for the economy, well, it's hard to blame Bush for all the trouble. I lay a good deal of that at the feet of irresponsible corporate accountants and executives. Although I also think Bush and Cheney would do well to 'fess up to "improprieties" of their own while in the corporate world of the 1990s.
Bush is far from a guaranteed victory in 2004. Hell, he just has to look up to his father to learn that lesson.
Gatekeeper
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-12-2002 07:31
)
|
|