The upcoming US presidential election

Posted by: ErikL on 04 February 2004

Welcome are voices from all corners of the globe and all political beliefs.
Posted on: 09 July 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by ejl:
In case anyone cares, and apropos of my speculation here three months ago that Bush may have to ditch Cheney:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4799.shtml

Well, we know today that the Senate Committee investigating the CIA was not a whitewash -- thank God. But putting off phase two of the investigation -- the one focused on the White House's role in the faulty case for war -- until after November is obviously Hill politics at its finest (or worst).


I think the Bush people have been looking for a reason to dump him, as he has become a political liability. I would have guessed a well-timed "cardiac event" around the beginning of October would have Cheney "regretably" resigning from the ticket, to be replaced by . . .McCain, if he'll accept.

Judd
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by ErikL
McCain accepting would be so easy to criticize, given the flood of personal attacks Bush launched on him in/since '00.
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
McCain accepting would be so easy to criticize, given the flood of personal attacks Bush launched on him in/since '00.


nah. We just went through this last week regarding the critisism (back and forth) between Kerry and Edwards during the run-up. Despite the GOP report setting forth every jab ever made, most people understand this is politics as ussual.

Moreover, the "First Choice" campaign released by the Bush people on the internet this past week suggests that there is no bad blood between McCain and Bush (at least in terms of the election - if not on policy). I think Bush/McCain would be, unfortunately, unstoppable.

Judd
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by ErikL
Aren't Bush & Co just using McCain to corral alienated Republicans?

Supporting your view and despite McCain clearly (in recent years' interviews) not liking Bush he's already kissing Bush's ass in TV ads: "Bush has led with great moral clarity and firm resolve". It's becoming clear that McCain lacks any morality or spine.

I mean, Bush-Rove hobgoblins push-polled in '00 trying to convince Southerners that McCain's adopted daughter (from SE Asia) was an illegitimate black child for fucks sake!!!!!!!

Has the country already forgotten that lowest of low blows? I always thought that one was for the history books, but you're saying it's written off as "politics as usual"?
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by bhazen
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:

Has the country already forgotten that lowest of low blows? I always thought that one was for the history books, but you're saying it's written off as "politics as usual"?


Remember this is the country that watches psychologically abusive "reality TV"...and thinks that sort of behaviour is normal. No low blow psy-ops of the Rove Group will damage the Bush '04 campaign.

Unless Kerry & Co. wake up and attack back, they're done.
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Aren't Bush & Co just using McCain to corral alienated Republicans?



It's not for the base. It's for the moderate middle - it's for the people who would have loved to see McCain Kerry but are not so hot on Kerry himself.

Like you I am at a loss as to why McCain is signing up, but he is. What can I say.

quote:

I mean, Bush-Rove hobgoblins push-polled in '00 trying to convince Southerners that McCain's adopted daughter (from SE Asia) was an illegitimate black child for fucks sake!!!!!!!

Has the country already forgotten that lowest of low blows? I always thought that one was for the history books, but you're saying it's written off as "politics as usual"?


yes, that is exactly what I am saying. Why else is McCain showing up in adds and saying what he is saying?

A more interesting question is this: How could Kerry's people have so missjudged the prospects that McCain would want to be on the Kerry ticket? A polite disinclination was forseeable. But in that case McCain would be sitting the rest of the season out. As it happens McCain has gone beyond declining and into "active" (well, a matter of degree) stumping for Bush.

Judd
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by ErikL
Off Newswire a few hours ago:

...the latest Newsweek Poll shows that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would get 51 percent of the vote versus 45 percent for the incumbent Bush/Cheney ticket.

If President Bush replaced Cheney with Secretary of State Colin Powell, more people would vote for a Bush/Powell ticket (53%) than a Kerry/Edwards ticket (44%). That lead would decrease significantly if Sen. John McCain joined the Bush ticket. Forty-nine percent for Bush/McCain versus 47 percent for Kerry/Edwards.
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by ejl
"A more interesting question is this: How could Kerry's people have so missjudged the prospects that McCain would want to be on the Kerry ticket?"

That's a good question. There was talk of lots of wagon-circling among the Republican leaders when McCain was floated as a possible Kerry running mate. It would be damn interesting to know what was said.

You're probably right, Judd, that a Bush-McCain ticket is a possibility. For all of his bumbling as a leader, Bush has shown himself able to make savvy calls when it comes to running his campaigns.

A worst-case scenario for Kerry would be Bush-McCain followed by an upsurge in Nader's popularity. After all, what would better confirm Nader's old "they're all the same" line than the (possible) fact that both candidate expressed interest in the same guy.
Posted on: 10 July 2004 by ErikL
PS- Will we ever see ads discussing the Bush family's dealings with the Bin Ladens (via Carlyle Group) on TV? Or the bit about Bush blocking the FBI from interviewing the Bin Ladens and accessing Bush-BL business records post-9/11? I mean, let's turn up the heat on this motherfucker.
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Peter Voigt
Ludwig

Discussing Wanker Bush's and his ties with the Bin LAden family, him being a puppet for the oil idustry, his irresponsible and senseles economic policies, his immmoral and sick views on healthcare and social security, not to mention his iq level, would be to disucss relevant and important issues.
Thats hardly going to work in a presidential election.
Or then again, maybe it would. No one knows I guess. When did it last happen?

How on earth anbopdy ever could have voted for that person is a mystery to me. One look at the mans eyes, and you can tell that his is hardly the fastest animal on the savannah.
A fundamentalist retard in the white house.

Actually I agree with you. I believe Mike Tyson would make a better pres. than Bush. There is little doubt that he is a lot smarter.

I believe Kerry will win easily. I find it very hard to believe that the retard will be reelected.
A pity. I would have liked to see Hillary get her third (and maybe fourth) period as president.

regards
Peter

"Damn braces; bless relaxes"
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by bhazen
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Voigt
I believe Kerry will win easily. I find it very hard to believe that the retard will be reelected.


This is exactly the attitude, when exhibited among US liberals, which so alarms me...yes, it's obvious to those of us on the coasts, with eyes to see, etc. etc. ... there's a long, hard road ahead to get to 51% of the vote for Kerry; and I still maintain they don't have a clue about either a) how much the flyover states are in the Bush column, and b) what a freight train of propaganda the Rove regiment are going to be spewing on TV against Kerry/Edwards, who look to me like deer in the proverbial. Do I need mention Diebold?

People on the right tend to vote religiously; the left talk a good game, but don't show up at the polls.

Prepare for four more years of Bush/Cheney.

Apropos of that, how much $ for a flat in, I dunno, Leicester?
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Ludwig:
Off Newswire a few hours ago:

...the latest Newsweek Poll shows that a Kerry/Edwards ticket would get 51 percent of the vote versus 45 percent for the incumbent Bush/Cheney ticket.

If President Bush replaced Cheney with Secretary of State Colin Powell, more people would vote for a Bush/Powell ticket (53%) than a Kerry/Edwards ticket (44%). That lead would decrease significantly if Sen. John McCain joined the Bush ticket. Forty-nine percent for Bush/McCain versus 47 percent for Kerry/Edwards.


wow. that is suprising. Hmm. Well, at least a Bush/Powel ticket is out of the question. Why didn't Kerry look at Powel?

udd
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by bhazen:


Prepare for four more years of Bush/Cheney.



I worry about this too. I think it will be close. Still, I think it is worse than you think - I'm betting if Bush wins again, they'll put Jeb up in 2008 and we could have a Bush in the white house until 2016.

Judd
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Dick Cheyney's wife for President, now there's a Nightmare² on P-Ave.
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by ErikL
quote:
Originally posted by Justin:
I'm betting if Bush wins again, they'll put Jeb up in 2008 and we could have a Bush in the white house until 2016.

Oh the horror. If that happens, I'm moving to Brazil where everyone hates Bush, beaches abound, beer is cheap, and the women are very friendly.
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Berlin Fritz
quote:
Originally posted by bhazen:
quote:
Originally posted by Peter Voigt
I believe Kerry will win easily. I find it very hard to believe that the retard will be reelected.


This is exactly the attitude, when exhibited among US liberals, which so alarms me...yes, it's obvious to those of us on the coasts, with eyes to see, etc. etc. ... there's a long, hard road ahead to get to 51% of the vote for Kerry; and I still maintain they don't have a clue about either a) how much the flyover states are in the Bush column, and b) what a freight train of propaganda the Rove regiment are going to be spewing on TV against Kerry/Edwards, who look to me like deer in the proverbial. Do I need mention Diebold?

People on the right tend to vote religiously; the left talk a good game, but don't show up at the polls.

Prepare for four more years of Bush/Cheney.

Apropos of that, how much $ for a flat in, I dunno, Leicester?



Very well read that man, you described my present version of reality to a tee, let's hope the talkers become walkers, and go vote ?

Fritz Von I'mincharge ?
Posted on: 11 July 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Nice one Ludwig : But I thought the Florida Keys were bits of metal in Jebs pocket for starting his BMW ?

Cheers mate, F
Posted on: 12 July 2004 by Phil Barry
And our Secretary of Homeland Insecurity is reportedly looking into delaying the elction (at least in part of the country) because of an Al Qaeda strike.

No election in 2004...or after. Two thousand years ago, Rome shifted from a republic to an imperium, by a mediocrity in everything except politics.

Even if we do have an election, W is a hell of a campaigner. He's the guy who talked the people of Texas into paying for his stadium...and then, after cashing out at a price inflated by the state subsidy, he talked the people of all the states into forgoing the tax revenue on his tax-inflated profits.

Phil
Posted on: 13 July 2004 by bhazen
The way things are going, I'm fully expecting tomorrows' newspaper headline to read "GIANT LAND CRABS IN EARTH TAKEOVER BID"....
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Berlin Fritz
Well, it's on an island anyways.



Fritz Von Indianocean Cool
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by ejl
"W is a hell of a campaigner. He's the guy who talked the people of Texas into paying for his stadium...and then, after cashing out at a price inflated by the state subsidy, he talked the people of all the states into forgoing the tax revenue on his tax-inflated profits."

And then into electing him their Governor.
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by Justin
How's this election postponement thing supposed to work? Surely the decision is NOT left in the hands of either the current administration or a majority of Congress. Right???!!

If we are serious about this (I have not been reading up on it) it seems to me that only the judicial branch of government, following a hearing on the matter, should be permitted to stop an election about to happen. I don't like putting emergency electoral powers in the hands of the executive branch.

judd
Posted on: 15 July 2004 by ErikL
I thought the terrorists were already threatening to eliminate/disrupt the Democratic competition? Is the ridiculous postponment plan a backup then?
Posted on: 16 July 2004 by Stuart M
The election will probably be postponed if the voting machines get made secure.

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/12/2351241&mode=thread&tid=103&tid=123&tid=98&tid=99

And you thought the Hanging Chads were bad, at least there were chads to count!
Posted on: 17 July 2004 by Berlin Fritz
We all now know Chads were totally irreelevent in Florida Dade, etc, How will the next fiasco (which will not be postponed) even the American people aren't that stupid or blind, be conducted whren there's a clear winning margin ?
Foreign policy will take back burner big style, barring Iraq, so watch out Israel, you maybe financially and morally backed up, but you don't have Carte Blanche to do whatever you like forever, innit.

Fritz Von Twaddle²