POLL: Looking Ahead to 2008

As much as I like him, it can't be Joe Biden, because he's already ran once.

 

Joe Biden won't run - he's from Delaware (my home state) and it only has 3 electoral votes. The Dems will need a moderate democrat from a southern state in order to win in 2008. Unless Dubya completely blows this term...

As for #17 in M. Moore's rant above. Don't take too much stock in the numbers for Kerry. A sizable number of those votes were from people that just wanted Bush out (like me). My reasoning for voting for Kerry was not so much that he was the right choice, but that if he won, the Republicans would still control Congress - which meant Kerry would have need to play a more centrist policy if he wanted to get anything done.

Being a middle of the road voter, that would have suited me just fine.

 

I second what Bel just said. If the Left wants to believe Moore's spin on the election...let them have it. They can put the "Liberal" Clinton (the one who wears the pants in the family) against the "Moderate" McCain and be utterly crushed in 2008.

The Left is so far out of touch with America, it's almost frightening.

 

Grow up.

 

Go you!

What is "Out of touch with America" in the democrats' agenda? Sticking up for Civil Rights? Abstaining from giving corporations big, juicy tax cuts?

 

I think what Hacken Slash was implying is that the majority of voters dislike homos. So by taking a stand against bigotry, democrats are "out of touch."

Here is a mainstream American's view on issues:
a. Saddam Hussien attacked us on 9-11 and had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
b. The Bible is literally true.
c. Wal-Mart is good for America.

Personally, I consider it an honor to be out of touch with the average voter.

 

Not to open old wounds, but what about learning from the past? Say, Germany in th 1930's...

A month after taking office as German Chancellor, a fire broke out at the Reichstag, the German seat of power. The Nazis were quick to point the finger to the German socialist party. The Nazis argued that new laws had to be enacted to quell the "distress" of the German people. In fact, they called the new act, "Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich," and it would get rid of the democratic process in Germany and established Hitler as a dictator.

The law passed after Hitler had been in office for less than three months. Now the time span may be longer, but who says it can't happen again, this time with Bush?

 

The majority of Americans condoned slavery for decades.

Were the republicans(Lincoln, Fremont, etc) out of touch with America when they rallied against it?

 

I agree with BTA in this. For a Republican, Bush the younger has a terrible bad voter turn out. As I see it, a Republican has always a home advantage in the South and in the Mid-West. Bush pales against his Republican predecessors. He's no match to Reagan (Ragean Rugean Ragian ?) who took 49 states in his re-lection, I think. For a democrat, his result would be decent, for a republican, clearly under-average. He should have at least broken the 300 mark with the electoral votes. 315 would have been a decent result.

1972 Richard M. Nixon 520
1980 Ronald Reagan 489
1984 Ronald Reagan 525
1988 George H. Bush 426
1996 William J. Clinton 379
2000 George W. Bush 271
2004 George W. Bush 274

It's like Pat Buchanan said, since 1968, the Republicans dominate every election. It isn't like Bush the younger is so strong, it is more that the Democrats are so weak. And for a Republican, Bush looks bad.

 

Taluntain - It's too close of an election for a Republican to use the same tactics, stay the course, et cetera. They know, just like we do, that the majority of the people who voted for John Kerry only voted for him because he wasn't George W. Bush. Hell, that was his whole campaign. They'll differ greatly from his policies in an effort to get those voters back to the Republican party, as many of them were in it before this last election. They probably know they won't be able to get out the strong Republican base the way W. did this last year.

 

@ Hacken Slash:

Agreed. But maybe with a different emphasis. The people have spoken and Bush is in. For some reason, I'm still worried.

@ Slith: Fear works exceptionally well as a motivator, as does religion and appeals to a crisis in morality/law and order. These aren't specific comments about the US election; they apply generally. I think that people claiming that this is a ringing endorsement of Bush are losing sight of the fact that a year ago, he had an approval rating of nearly 70%. This is much more complex than Bush vs Kerry - and I'm not confident that Bush's second term will be greatly different from the first.

I hope Bush puts the US back on the road to prosperity, while improving the international reputation of the country and making it something to be proud of, for the majority of the world, I truly do. I hope the administration steps back from this precipice of unilateralism and hegemony and Bush decides to stop being such a polarising populist. But as I've said, I'm usually right about people, and I know not to expect much that isn't more of the same. I don't think I've ever wanted to be proven wrong so much in my life.

[ November 08, 2004, 01:06: Message edited by: NonSequitur ]

 

NonSequitur - you have a good point. If the Republican candidate can keep the same fear in the US of terror, they might manage to retain a stranglehold on politics for another four years. And, of course, most religious people are going to go out for the Republicans pretty consistently, as they tend to back the Bible with an interesting level of accuracy. If I let my religious views, along with my morals, govern my view of politics, I would be forced to vote for Republicans for the rest of my life, most likely...

It's very unlikely that Bush can do anything for the reputation of the US while in office. The majority of the anti-US sentiment in the international community, from what I've seen and heard, is directed at the man himself, and nothing short of his removal from the office and, indeed, from the Earth would satisfy some.

 

@ Slith

Fortunately, as much as it has been trampled on currently in the US, we have a little something called Separation of Church and State.

Eat your heart out, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed.

 

While there won't be an amendment to the Constitution (even if an unprecedented federal referendum was held, the Constitution would still need to be amended, and so even if you had a majority, you wouldn't get 3/4 of the states to ratify it), there is some truth to Tal's assertions.

Generally speaking, Kerry was at best a mediocre canidate. Hindsight always being 20/20, the Democrats would have been far better picking someone who was either more middle of the road (someone more Clintonesque), or really far to the left, like Howard Dean.

If Bush fixes things up in Iraq, and if the economy improves in the next four years, the Republicans will indeed be very difficult to unseat in 2008. THe other thing that this poll shows is that the Democrats are fresh out of strong canidates to run. There's really no one there to draw national support. One canidate who I'd like to see run (although 2008 is way to early) is current Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley. He is very likely Maryland's next governor (that election is in 2006 and already he's far more popular than the incumbent), and being only 41 years old currently, there's still plenty of time for him to move to the national level. Given his age, and the fact that he would want to serve at least one full term as governor though, I really see 2012 as the earliest possible election for him to run. Even then, he'd only by 49, still pretty young by presidential standards.

 

@Ankiseth

If Conservative America are such bigots...why do you sound so remarkably like one?

Are you secretly Conservative?

If one just steps back and takes a look at the sum feel of all the posts made since the election results were known...it has been Liberals over and over again espousing hatred, bigotry and prejudice.

It is comforting to know that you all consider yourselves "Liberal" before you consider yourselves "American"

Except for Tal...he can get away with that...

Many of you are an embarassement to the acceptance and enlightenment that is the foundation of American Liberalism. You should stay silent until you get over your tantrums, then bring something constructive to the table when you're done holding your breaths.