Bush Re-Election Probability

[96B]

I know its early to tell, but I was curious as to how you guys felt about the chances of Bush winning another election. I have heard liberals use the example that his dads approval ratings were sky high but because the economy was bad that is why he lost and that might happen to Dubya. What do you think would be the criteria that would give him a high chance of staying our president?

[Mal3]

Do you know what candidates will oppose him?

[Duke]

For the Democrats to win the White House they must do several things. First they must divorce Bush from his military victories. The NY Times and Philly Examiner (Liberal papers) have both written articles on this. Both articles have two major points: that the current military is actually the brainchild of Bill Clinton (They actually wrote that) and the second is to say that it is the DoD not the White House who should be seen as the victors. The articles stress that the White House screwed up the troop numbers by lowering the amount for deployment and thereby jepordized its success.
The second they must do is "its the economy, stupid" and hope for no upturn in the economy.
Lastly slam the White House for its ties to big business.
Tip O'Neil the former Speaker of the House dad had this saying "All politics is local". Its true. when elections occur basically people say what has this guy done for me lately and will the other guy do a better job. In 2004 the electorate will ask what has Bush done for me, as in security, social services and the economy.

[Seiyuuki]

Well the Democrat got their hand full...how many candidates do they got trying to run? 9-10? If Bush can translate his success in foreign affairs to domestic affairs...no one is likely to win against him.

[96B]

Well when it comes to the military, I think the liberals really have no grounds against conservatives.

The current military is Clintons brainchild? That makes me kinda mad because its not like he is responsible for their training and expertise. Technology has greatly advanced and our troops are becoming better and better trained and equiped. Clinton shrunk the military and its manpower throughout his time as president so I hardly think that he deserves ANY credit for the militaries success. Bush has given much more money to the militarys budget and has given them much responsibility in decision making and planning with Operation Iraqi Freedom. Democrats seem to attempt micro managing the military and basically have politicians run the war.

I think the biggest grounds they have for criticism is on the economy but I think that also Americans want a strong leader who will not bend over backwards (like most liberals do) to our enemies. What has happened economically was a predicted recession and I think once the war is completely over it will naturally come back. Maybe also the fact that we dont have World Trade Towers anymore might have a little bit to do with it as well.

I understand you were quoting and referring to liberal papers so my anger goes out to them and not you :lol:

[hood]

The biggest problem with the Democrats right now is that as a party, they have no solutions. They spend all their time bashing the current "regime" and don't offer any solutions to those problems in its place. Until they do, they're all just hot air.

[FallenAngel]

also, if their Mid-Term campaigns were any indication....the Democrats need to get their sh!t together as far as that's concerned.

'Course, I am a republican myself so I dont mind seeing Democrats flounder like dead fish :)

[warchild1/27scout]

president bush is just like reagan.he has made us proud to be americans again.we have been listening to the blame america first democrats for so long some us actually believe it was our fault(like clinton said)they attacked us on 9/11.i think this last election told democrats we're not going to be ashamed of our country no more.we do not(like clinton said)loathe the military.we real americans need to take back our country. :fork:

[hood]

It's been said, that no president can survive to be re-elected in a down economy. The same thing happened to Bush Sr. He was coming down from the victory in Desert Storm, but the economy was in the toilet so he wasn't re-elected. Bush Jr. is now in roughly the exact same situation. How well he recovers will decide if he'll win.

[Knave]

It's been said, that no president can survive to be re-elected in a down economy. The same thing happened to Bush Sr. He was coming down from the victory in Desert Storm, but the economy was in the toilet so he wasn't re-elected. Bush Jr. is now in roughly the exact same situation. How well he recovers will decide if he'll win.

Well, the economy seems to be turning around, at least in some parts of the country. Bush, at least in his State of the Union addresses, has outlined some solutions to the problems facing the economy; he's willing to take risks in order for the chance to get more Americans jobs and money to spend.

[JohnJohn]

the Dems are too busy fighting each other, too many Dem candidates, they will kill their chances of winning the 04' election before they even face Bush after the primaries :lol:

Bush is gonna get re-elected, and I am gonna vote for him :lol:

[trmst]

I dont see Gen. Brooks as a likely candidate or President. Seems like he is riding on Gen. Franks' coat tail. Does anyone else notice he talks almost identical to Franks too?

[SHOOTERB]

Could it be because they are both edu-ma-cated?

[Apogee]

I'm sure you guys haven't seen this, but heres a little thing about Generals Leo and Vince Brooks. http://www.centerstall.com/issue%2060.jpg

[Smintjes]

president bush is just like reagan.he has made us proud to be americans again.

I can't believe you just said that.

[hood]

hah I remember posting that missile picture a while back.. it was a jewish sunglasses company in israel filming a commercial.

[yellowking]

For the Democrats to win the White House they must do several things. First they must divorce Bush from his military victories.
:
The second they must do is "its the economy, stupid" and hope for no upturn in the economy.
Lastly slam the White House for its ties to big business.
All good points, but I think more than anything else they must present an acceptable alternative. I'm not really pro-Republican or anti-Democrat, but none of the Democratic candidates strike me as acceptable post-9/11 Presidents. I was unethusiastic about our choices in '00, but given Bush's response to 9/11, I have been very pleased. I think he has really stepped up to a bad situation and performed well so far. I think he'd have to screw up pretty badly for any of the Democrats to look appealing.

As to comparisons to his father's reelection, his father didn't have 9/11, and Jr. isn't facing Bill Clinton (who was very good at the political game).

[hood]

That's a good point... so far none of the Dem candidates have any significant amount of charisma.

[budanski]

BUSH 2004
BUSH 2008 (Jeb) Don't laugh, theres talk already. 41,43,44?

[Trigger]

In regards to this being Clinton's military...there were countless times when he demonstrated his loathing for the military, I believe he even put it in writing once. If I remember correctly, Clinton's staff had the fewest members with ANY military experience in U.S. history. For the pundits to attribute the current military to B. J. Bill is an insult to everyone in uniform past and present.

[yellowking]

Powell/Rice 2008!

[Zach R.]

Good idea!George's brother Jeb would make a good president.Or Rudy Guliani(spell check?).Or what about Sean hannity?or Rush Limbuagh?Bill O'Reilly?Well,maybe not Bill.

[Duke]

Here's the WashTimes version of Pelosi's statement and the Pentagon VS White House article
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030411-94012.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/05/opinion/05KELL.html?ex=1050552000&en=8958510b862da6f2&ei=5070