The Official US President Election Thread

[brownjenkins]

i agree with IR... whoever looks best in november is getting my vote... other than the fringe candidates, which won't win the nomination anyway, they are all improvments over gwb

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Its all about not who SHOULD be president but who SHOULDN’T. and the one common theme you hear is ANYBODY but Bush. The average democrat considers him such a detriment to so many things they hold as important that its caused a consciousness shift as far as picking a candidate goes.

It's that what among the democrats - which is only half the electorate. The democrats hated Bush ever since 2000 though - so it's no surprise. How many times did ignorant people through up the "un-elected president" or the "theif" or everything else to describe the 2000 elections. The democrats have been bitching and moaning since 2000. It'll be interesting in november - whoever is elected as the democratic nominee.

[Nurvingiel]

This was brought up in the Superbowl Commercials thread, but I feel my question would be more appropriate here.

About moveon.org, I don't support Bush, but I don't support making up random numbers either. The USA doesn't really have a $1 trillion defecit, right? Why do they say that? (This was in an ad called "Child's Pay" by Charlie Fisher, on their website.)

[gollum9630]

you can view the comercial right here

got it from a local radio staions web site

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for the link Gollum. I have seen the ad, I was just wondering where their defecit information came from.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
This was brought up in the Superbowl Commercials thread, but I feel my question would be more appropriate here.

About moveon.org, I don't support Bush, but I don't support making up random numbers either. The USA doesn't really have a $1 trillion defecit, right? Why do they say that? (This was in an ad called "Child's Pay" by Charlie Fisher, on their website.)

No - we don't have a 1 trillion dollar debt. They are trying to use scare tactics. We have a 400 billion dollar deficit, but they are estimating that in the future we will have a 1 trillion dollar deficit. Which I don't believe for several reasons, unless we get another terrorist attack. The deficit is related to the slow down in the economy which is related to 9/11 and the corportate scandals and the tech bubble bust. None of which was bush's fault - but hey - the democrats need someone to blame, especially since all those things were started under Clinton's presidency (not blaming Clinton - except for 9/11 - we had a several chances to go and get Osama - he didn't push hard enough because public opinion was against it).

As the economy picks up - the government brings in more tax revenue, which will help to bring down the deficit - we will have to cut back on spending though. I don't really like the amount we are spending on stuff - but some of it is very necessary.

[gollum9630]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Thanks for the link Gollum. I have seen the ad, I was just wondering where their defecit information came from.

yah, mainly i was putting it up for people who havent seen it.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
The deficit is related to the slow down in the economy which is related to 9/11 and the corportate scandals and the tech bubble bust. As the economy picks up - the government brings in more tax revenue, which will help to bring down the deficit - we will have to cut back on spending though.

Did Bush's tax cut to stimulate the economy work? Maybe the other factors you mentioned cancelled out its possible effect. Thinking back to a class last year, I can only remember that my Economics prof thought the plan wouldn't work (though I don't remember why now.)

I don't really like the amount we are spending on stuff - but some of it is very necessary.

What is the government spending it on? Before 9/11, you did have a large army, does it just take a lot of money to move it to two countries?
400 Billion dollars is a huge defecit. The Anti-Bush website could have stuck with the real numbers and made their point more effectively. In my mind, they destroyed their credibility by making that up.

[gollum9630]

i thought that it was trying to put out a message that at this rat e there will be a trillion dollar deficit if bush is reelected

[Nurvingiel]

If that's what they meant, they should have been more clear. They made it seem like that's the current debt.

[Insidious Rex]

from MSNBC:

WASHINGTON - Federal deficits will total nearly $2.4 trillion over the next decade, the Congressional Budget Office projected Monday, a worsening of nearly $1 trillion since its last forecast in August.

In its annual wintertime economic update, Congress’ nonpartisan fiscal analyst also projected that the red ink would hit a record $477 billion this year.

The office factored in new costs like the prescription drug benefit created last fall. In addition, the report projects lower federal revenue than was anticipated earlier, partly as result of lower inflation that the budget office now expects.

But the budget office did not include the costs of programs or initiatives lawmakers are considered likely to approve in coming years. These include making at least some tax cuts permanent, changing the alternative minimum tax so it doesn’t affect growing number of middle-income earners, and spending increases for popular programs or unforeseen needs like war or disasters.

The cumulative national debt is already over $7 trillion.

[Insidious Rex]

Well it looks like the John Kerry train has a full head of steam going. And Bush has had a really bad month or so and has dropped a lot in the polls. So what are people's thoughts now on the election? I havent heard very much "landslide" talk out of republicans of late as I did most of last year. Theyve kind of clammed up. And they can no longer salivate about facing a Howard Dean as an opponent. Now they have to deal with a much tougher advisary I think. A well liked democrat with a military background who knows how to get along in the congress. I bet Carl Rove is blue printing his october surprise plans as we speak though. Hes capable of anything.

[GrayMouser]

Have just been starting to see a bit of Kerry here and there -if this is the 'new and improved' ' all fired up' model, what was the old one like?

This guy is a terrible public speaker.

[Lizra]

I still like Edwards. I'll vote for him if he's in the Indiana primary. Kerry....I just can't get too excited, I guess cause he's tried before and didn't "have it" . The only thing I can say negative I suppose is "no charisma". Is this important? (It is to me, but I can't defend why....just a gut thing. )

[Insidious Rex]

So somebody want to explain to me why Dean is getting such grief about dropping out (and the media has just been peppering him with this since like New Hampshire) just because his once full speed ahead campeign train has stalled and is now literally falling apart all around him and yet they never really ask the same thing to Kucinich or Sharpton who obviously never had a chance from the start? Why cant Dean just become another view point candidate who is destined not to win (like those other two)? Is it because the democratic party still considers him too dangerous and wants his supporters to jump on the Kerry bandwagon? Is it really healthy for the democrats to have their candidate determined by mid January when the election isnt until November and you risk the possibility of people losing their interest in him? What the heck more could Kerry possibly say about Bush by say May that he hasnt already said?

[Ben]

Well it seems I'm a little late to the party. It's fun to read everyone's speculation before Iowa and before Bush started slipping. Btw please keep full-fledged discussion of issues, such as gay marriage, out of this thread.

Question for Arien the Maia and other Indiana residents:

Would having Evan Bayh the vice-presidential candidate influence your vote in November? From what I've heard, Sen. Bayh is extremely popular and could even allow the Democrats to carry the state. If Kerry retained all the states that Gore won in 2000, the addition of Indiana would give him the presidency.

Either way, I like the things Bush has done, especially the way he handled 9/11.

This is something I've never been able to understand. How, precisely, did Bush's response to the attacks differ from what any other president would do? The Republicans promptly took partisan advantage of the attacks, by pushing through their extremist agenda. Look what they did to former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam: they accused him of being unpatriotic and ran ads that morphed him into Osama bin Laden.

It seems to me that Bush squandered all the international goodwill and sympathy produced on 9/11 by invading Iraq on faulty premises. I want to know not only where Osama bin Laden is, but why it's taken so long to get him. (The second question is more important because I suspect he'll "turn up" right before the election).

Even once the recount was finished - it was determined that no matter whihc ways the ballots were counted - even the way Gore wanted them counted - he won Florida. He won the election - it was almost four years ago - get over it.

I couldn't let this comment go. More people walked into the ballot places in Florida intending to vote for Gore, but for various reasons, their votes were not counted. For example, some people voted for Gore and also wrote in his name. There were "hanging chads" which hadn't properly separated. And of course, there was the infamous illegal butterfly ballot - unless you believe several thousand Jewish grandmothers in Palm Beach County really voted for Pat Buchanan. You can say all you want about following instructions, but there is no literacy requirement to vote. The bottom line is, if the will of the people had prevailed, Gore would have won Florida and the presidency. Bush was never elected and luckily it's looking less likely he'll ever be elected President.

Bush has 65% approval; rating. So the majority of Americans do support him.

Not anymore! In all the latest polls, Bush's approval rating hovers around 49%, and Kerry would beat him if the election were held today. Needless to say, polls this far in advance are nearly worthless with regards to the November election, but they are good indicators of the country's current mood. The voters are seriously concerned about Bush's credibility problem. Poll from a recent issue of Time magazine: "Do you think George W. Bush is a leader you can trust or do you have some doubts and reservations?" 55% have doubts and reservations, while 44% think he is a leader we can trust.

Bush will lose the election because people won't put up with his administration's lies.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.-Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Paul O'Neill, former Cabinet member, says that the plan was to invade Iraq the whole time. It's up to the public to decide whether Bush and friends exaggerated the threat to get public support for their invasion, or whether the intelligence is entirely to blame. I'm going with the former.

[Ben]

Why cant Dean just become another view point candidate who is destined not to win (like those other two)?

Uh, I think being lowered to the level of those two clowns would not be in the doctor's best interest. Dean has given the Democrats a backbone, and while he won't be their presidential nominee, certainly he has other aspirations. He has a shining future in the party, as long as he can get out of the presidential race without making a fool of himself or tearing down our nominee.

I'm also disappointed with the media's coverage of the race - they essentially ignored General Clark, the most qualified man in the race. The coverage of Dean's "scream" was way over the top, even more crazy than the actual scream. Still, Dean wasn't exactly best friends with the press. If he would be getting poor coverage all through the general election, then it's good he's not going to be the nominee. Not fair, but realistic.

Is it really healthy for the democrats to have their candidate determined by mid January when the election isnt until November and you risk the possibility of people losing their interest in him?

I agree that the primary season has been a blessing for Democrats. Their attacks on Bush went unanswered for months until he responded recently with his ill-fated State of the Union address and Meet the Press appearance. I would love it if the process continues at least through Super Tuesday, so Rove can't start the $200 million barrage against the Democrats quite yet.

I didn't think Kerry was the most electable candidate (a stiff Massachusetts liberal!), but the polling evidence is hard to ignore. Democrats came to their primaries in record numbers, and they selected Kerry. One thing that will weigh heavily is that Kerry is a decorated combat veteran from Vietnam. Bush, on the other hand, despite supporting the Vietnam War, decided to bravely defend the shores of Texas. His last name got him into the Guard over 500 other people. Once there, he didn't show up for his physical and so was grounded from further flights. He got out of the Guard months early to attend Harvard business school. There is also a several month long period where Bush's whereabouts are unknown, when he was supposed to be at the Guard. The one guy who claims to have seen him there has all the wrong dates - he claims to have seen Bush at the base months before Bush's own records put him there.

The veteran/military vote will go to Kerry this year.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bmilder
This is something I've never been able to understand. How, precisely, did Bush's response to the attacks differ from what any other president would do? The Republicans promptly took partisan advantage of the attacks, by pushing through their extremist agenda. Look what they did to former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, who lost three limbs in Vietnam: they accused him of being unpatriotic and ran ads that morphed him into Osama bin Laden.

The mjority of democrats at the time approved of the Patriot Act. There are things in their that I don't like, but the left also is using that as a way of discrediting things without even reading it. Last week a university made an accusation against the patriotic act and someone pointed out that what they were complaingin about isn't even allowed by the patriot act. Even after being told this - they said they were going to continue to make the accusation.

It seems to me that Bush squandered all the international goodwill and sympathy produced on 9/11 by invading Iraq on faulty premises. I want to know not only where Osama bin Laden is, but why it's taken so long to get him. (The second question is more important because I suspect he'll "turn up" right before the election).

Changing the Middle East is what is important. Bringing democracy there and freedoms is what is important. If the Middle East doesn't change - bin Ladin doesn't matter - since their are thousands more waiting in the wings. As for international support - US actions are not determined by them. There were many countries who supported the US.

I couldn't let this comment go. More people walked into the ballot places in Florida intending to vote for Gore, but for various reasons, their votes were not counted. For example, some people voted for Gore and also wrote in his name. There were "hanging chads" which hadn't properly separated. And of course, there was the infamous illegal butterfly ballot - unless you believe several thousand Jewish grandmothers in Palm Beach County really voted for Pat Buchanan. You can say all you want about following instructions, but there is no literacy requirement to vote. The bottom line is, if the will of the people had prevailed, Gore would have won Florida and the presidency. Bush was never elected and luckily it's looking less likely he'll ever be elected President.

The ballots were counted BOTH ways after the election. They were determined that Bush would have won Florida. I know people have a hard time accepting this - but after 4 years you would think you guys would have gotten over it by now. By the way - how many of these ballots did you see that had Gore written on them? And the Butterfly Ballot was not illegal.

Not anymore! In all the latest polls, Bush's approval rating hovers around 49%, and Kerry would beat him if the election were held today. Needless to say, polls this far in advance are nearly worthless with regards to the November election, but they are good indicators of the country's current mood. The voters are seriously concerned about Bush's credibility problem. Poll from a recent issue of Time magazine: "Do you think George W. Bush is a leader you can trust or do you have some doubts and reservations?" 55% have doubts and reservations, while 44% think he is a leader we can trust.

His poll numbers have been going up and down. For one thing - there hasn't even been any debates between Kerry and Bush yet. As for his numbers in relationship to Kerry's - I have seen CNN poll numbers that show that Bush is 2 points ahead of Kerry. It's meaningless at this point - they're statistically in a dead heat.

Bush will lose the election because people won't put up with his administration's lies.

Which lies would those be? The fact tht no WMD was found? People seem to forget that Clinton even sayed before the Iraq war that his adminstration as well as the UN also believed Iraq had the weapons. The majority of intelligence said that iraw had them. The difference of world opinion dealt with how to deal with it. France and Germany wanted to protect their millions in backdoor deals with Hussein - so they didn't want to go in.

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Paul O'Neill, former Cabinet member, says that the plan was to invade Iraq the whole time. It's up to the public to decide whether Bush and friends exaggerated the threat to get public support for their invasion, or whether the intelligence is entirely to blame. I'm going with the former.

Well according to Clinton during his adminstration and right before the war - he said all intelligence pointed to Iraq having WMD. Paul O'Neill also has back peddled repeatedly on his statements in his book - which he didn't even write.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by bmilder
The veteran/military vote will go to Kerry this year.

Where you getting this from? I asked my brother who is in the navy - he said he was vting for Bush. I asked him if that was the general concensus. He said at his base it is. Everyone is very happy with Bush. I have also asked another military person who is IN Iraq and he's voting for Bush and he said the same thing as my brother did.

So where is Kerry going to get the military vote? From the Vietnam veterans who were against vetenam I suppose.

I guess once the REAL campaigning begins and the november comes closer - we will see.

[Beruthiel's cat]

Looks like Howard Dean is out of the race now. John Edwards is still hanging in there and I like him, but it's academic now, I think. Kerry looks to be the Democratic nominee.

ABB!