Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Election will be a landslide

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Kerry's campaign is shaping up just like Dole's and Mondale's from years gone by. You must admit, the similarities are haunting.

1. Keeps talking about the past
2. Supposed to electrify party loyalists, but actually drives away independants.
3. Expected to win by carrying "target groups" (vets, unions, teachers) rather than by winning over individual voters.

I predict that the election will not even be close. Bush will win by a much wider margin than in 2000, and the real story will be in the West and northeast. States the dems think they own will slide out of their grasp once the polls open.

What say you?




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:28 AM
link   
I say...

Both parties are pretty much the same nowadays. The Dems arent really 'left', just not as far right.

So i feel it will be close (and i hope for the lesser of two evils, Kerry, to win) i know it will be a landslide for one of the two worst people i could think for the top job... they are Kerry or Bush...

Kerry would be better for you guys though coz people around the world havent had a chance to hate him...



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Some days I agree with you.

Some days I'm not sure. But in the end I really do think Bush will win. Something will happen, or some tricked pulled out of the bag. Bush I'm sure knows that a Bush/McCain ticket would be a huge boost to him, and might be just soon enough to keep the bloodhounds away before the election.

But that's one possible happenstance.

I'll not vote for him though. I don't need to aid the distruction of this country, by means of the Republicans or by the Democrats.

I'm out of that game. I just wish others would too.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:49 AM
link   
Not that far left? How far would one have to go to the left before you considered him far-left? Kerry's voting record is so far left (liberal) that no other senator could keep up with him. That is far left, no matter who's yardstick you are using.

Bush, on the other hand, is not a conservative in action, other than the tax cut, unless you were to admit that today's liberals are different from the old school and are too cowardly to defend the nation, at which time you may also credit Bush with the War on Terror. After that, Bush is no conservative, but he is still a right-winger.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Not that far left? How far would one have to go to the left before you considered him far-left? Kerry's voting record is so far left (liberal) that no other senator could keep up with him. That is far left, no matter who's yardstick you are using.

Bush, on the other hand, is not a conservative in action, other than the tax cut, unless you were to admit that today's liberals are different from the old school and are too cowardly to defend the nation, at which time you may also credit Bush with the War on Terror. After that, Bush is no conservative, but he is still a right-winger.



Well, I think both of you are right. There is no clear definition about the parties any more. They are either far right OR far left depending on the subject.

The parties are dead. A vote for them is a waste. The idea would be to slow our fall as much as possible, but the big two are all people choose. The fall will come.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 02:46 AM
link   
TC

The Dems are not really left at all compared to osme of the other parties available. The Dems and The Reps are pretty much the same thing, the problem with your election system is if you dont vote for one of the two major parties you've pretty much wasted your vote... here in Australia, our veriosn of the Dems, would be our Labour Party, once again their not too far left. Buti f i wanted to vote for a party that represented what i really believed in (say the Greens) i could vote for them coz i wouldnt be wasting my vote. The greens candidate , can then give their preferences to one of the major parties ifthey arent in the top two. So not only am i making the party i follow stronger by giving them votes, i can do so knowing that even though they dont get into power, the closest thing to what i want will get the vote untill the Greens become strong enough to not have to give preferences.

In the USA you vote for anyone other than the Dems, or the Reps, your vote was wasted. If you guys had our system and the Greens gave the Dems their preferences, Bush wouldnt be in power and there would be alot more stability in the world... that and the moderate left wouldnt be attacking the far left for stealing votes.

And Kerys voting record does not indicate how left he is, just because he votes left doesnt mean he is far left.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
ive heard the exact opposite of a bush landside on other forums which i cant name but will u2u (ats rules i follow). i dont belive either of u


waste your vote, vote 3rd party, aint like your vote going to do anyting anyways right? so why not waste in and maybe get a third head on this monster.

[edit on 2004-8-30 by NuTroll]



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I'm not telling you why one candidate is better.

I'm telling you that the demographics will favor bush.

Last night I saw Tim Russert get out the little dry-erase board of his and do the math. In 2000, Bush got like 272 electoral votes. Russert was explaining that even with no changes in which states vote rep and dem, Bush's count in November would be something like 280 votes.

What I am saying is that most people are failing to notice the support the republican party continues to pick up among hispanics and working-class districts that have always been thought of as solid democrats.

I don't think most pollsters have a good measure of America's pulse. Honestly, they unintentionally skew their numbers by polling upper/middle class whites, who tend to be bastions of democrat support.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I think the doc is right. I think the media is showing too much of the opinionated squeeky wheeels and giving everyone a false since of the way the tide is running here. Granted, Tom Brokaw and the CNN bunch are doing their best to get out the message of the lefties, but in reality, the people who have to hold down jobs and run businesses and just can't get away for a week of nude street walking get to vote too. If you're a foreigner looking at our international news cast, you get a false indication that the majority of the population hate Bush when it really represents a very small minority. Thats something they will deny because they want that perception out there to the point that Micheal Moore actually stated it on TV over the weekend. Its like when we watch the news feed from Iraq and a couple hundred protestors are out hating the US. What we don't see are the thousands for every one of them that are glad Saddam is gone and are trying to get back to work, school, worship or whatever. The biggest point I'm making is that a dozen people chanting and yelling might get the news coverage but they aren't the only people who vote.


As for Bush running with McCain as a vice candidate, I'd rather see McCain run for the office to be honest but its still head and shoulders above Cheney on the ticket. I think the time is right for a good democrat president, I just wish we'd found a better candidate than Kerry. Gephardt or Lieberman would have been a better choice. If Bush chooses McCain, I might vote that way but as it stands now, I'm going third party.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

I'm not telling you why one candidate is better.

I'm telling you that the demographics will favor bush.

Last night I saw Tim Russert get out the little dry-erase board of his and do the math. In 2000, Bush got like 272 electoral votes. Russert was explaining that even with no changes in which states vote rep and dem, Bush's count in November would be something like 280 votes.

What I am saying is that most people are failing to notice the support the republican party continues to pick up among hispanics and working-class districts that have always been thought of as solid democrats.

I don't think most pollsters have a good measure of America's pulse. Honestly, they unintentionally skew their numbers by polling upper/middle class whites, who tend to be bastions of democrat support.


I'm seeing it. I noticed months ago that with the new electorate allocations even if the exact same votes were recast from 2000 with no variations Bush gets more electorates than he did last time and Kerry gets less than Gore. Kerry could still win the popular vote by the same margin or more as Gore and lose even bigger. Accordingly, I suggest buying ammo and stocking up on dry goods in cities as people still seriously underestimate minority outrage over Florida 2000. This won't help.

And you're also spot on about Hispanics. Bush's social and handout efforts are working on them like none expected. I was a big proponent of Edwards over Richardson and that alone may cost Kerry the election, though it's nice to finally see NC in play for a change (our education system access did that though, not Edwards).

And more than just being over represented in polls, the upper/middle class white Dem base has actually been divided. Enough got loans from their children's future tax burden in the mail to aspire to be Republican.

The war support cycle is trickling back up now too. I've almost come to the conclusion that quagmire was part of the plan. Bush 41 pulled out in time to see his huge approval ratings fall when he had to focus on the economy. Shrub isn't falling for that one. War. Terror. Sacrifice. We're in a pickle and he's the tangy vinegar. America will decide it needs it's steady leadership and is willing to sacrifice the economy like good patriots.

It's genuis really, at least as far as vacant power grabs go via mass manipulation of morality, minorities, patriotism, fear and pocketbooks.

None of which are campaign issues mind you. There are none this election. It's the biggest joke election in history short of the Anti-Mason debates.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 08:56 AM
link   
Quagmire = Bush Re-election

If things start going well and the economy comes back into play, things will start blowing up.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The "quagmire in Iraq" is only a quagmire if you expected it to happen quickly in the first place. Anyone who thought that rebuilding and democratizing Iraq would happen in less than 5 years is IMHO a fool.
The economy is in trouble because of clinton serious mismanagement of the economy, the effects of Bush's economic plan wont be felt for another 6 months allthough signs that it is working are already beginning to show.
I see bush winning, not by a landslide but by enough of a margin that democrats can't attempt to steal the election again like they did last time.

The dems are scary, They don't trust the citizens to have guns, they want everyone on welfare, want to take "under god" out of the national anthem, and turn our soveriegnity over to the U.N. Whats even scarier is how many people want to to turn thier freedoms over to them.

BTW the patriot act was originally called the Anti-terror omnibus act and was created by clinton.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
The "quagmire in Iraq" is only a quagmire if you expected it to happen quickly in the first place. Anyone who thought that rebuilding and democratizing Iraq would happen in less than 5 years is IMHO a fool.


I realize you're too enamoured with the stink of your own BS to realize it, but you just called Rumsfeld and Bush fools. As Rummy's plan for winning the peace was to just walk in "and they'll throw flowers and dance in the streets" and "Mission Accomplished" Bush poo poo'ed all independent calls for more ground troops from the beginning despite being warned an occupational quagmire would result. Sounds more and more like planned failure by quagmire doesn't it in order to single source both problem and solution. Vote Bush to get us out of this mess Bush made!

But upon evaluation of the rest of your post's misconceptions of reality including thoughtful consideration of your entire "body of work" here on ATS, I've made the strategic decision to mark you down as "lost cause" in an effort to avoid future thread quagmires and wasted efforts in responses and dialogue.

PS:

The dems are scary


BOO!



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:21 AM
link   
My prediction on the popular vote:

Kerry 65%
Bush 30%
Other 5%

It'll be a landslide alright, but not in the direction some of you are hoping.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
If you think the US occupation of Iraq will end in

A. 5 years under Bush.

or

B. 6 months under Kerry

you're both sadly mistaken. The US will continue to hold control of Iraq no matter whos in office. We didn't come all this way and pay this terrible price to go home with empty pockets. The goal for Iraq is a long term goal. Its been a long time in the planning and will be a permanant US foothold in the middle east. Kerry may get in office promising to end occupation and his liberal leaning may help draw the world to support his efforts and may even help persuade the Iraqis that the evil Bush has been put down and that the US is trying to get out. In the end, we'll maintain a force and most of the control over the area. In fact, I think Kerry may be a planned move to draw international support to the US as well as get the libs to help justify staying in there. Iraq will not be allowed to slip back in the control of someone like Hussein again. Its a bargaining chip against the Saudis and the Ace in the hole with OPEC.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
y'know rant, I've always enjoyed your posts.

I know this will not be welcome, but personally, I've never been convinced that Bush failed to carry the popular vote. The recounts in Florida DO NOT support the idea that Gore would have won. The supreme court case showed that in many contested counties in Fla, republican ballots were under-counted, not the reverse. The special investigation determined that Bush actually won More of the popular vote that was originally reported, but that news has been buried like Hoffa's corpse.

Gore originally conceded on election night, something that a candidate who believed it was close would not do. Gore's ego is as large as any candidate from any party. I cannot believe he conceded out of the greatness of his character, especially since he basically cried "King's X!" the next day.

If there were so much outrage, I don't think the polls would be even as close as they are now.

Of course, none of it matters to the electoral college. But I still don't believe that 2000 was such a travesty as it has been painted by sore losers. I don't think most Americans see it that way either, or Bush wouldn't have any genuine popularity.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Dude, they don't want to take "under god" out of the national anthem. it never appears in the national anthem. I think you mean the Pledge of Alliegence(sp?).

And how is a crappy economy Clinton's fault? When he was the president we had THE LARGEST SURPLUS, EVER. Yep, looks like we can blame Clinton for that. Not Bush and his trillion+ debt he put us in. No, it couldn't be that, Bush is god. Well, at least god speaks to him according to Bush.

"The dems are scary, They don't trust the citizens to have guns, they want everyone on welfare, want to take "under god" out of the national anthem, and turn our soveriegnity over to the U.N. Whats even scarier is how many people want to to turn thier freedoms over to them."

Not all Dems want to take our guns. Hell, most don't, they just support laws and regulations to keep guns out of criminal hands. This is republican spew. And already discussed the National Anthem having no "under god" in it.

Soveriegnity to the UN? Well hell, do you think they wants us anymore? Bush has pissed the entire planet off. Bush himself is a war criminal in several 1st world nations.

Astro, no president can get us out of this, this is VietnamII. How long was it before a president had the balls to say "Hey, we screwed up, we gonna go now."



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Astro, no president can get us out of this, this is VietnamII. How long was it before a president had the balls to say "Hey, we screwed up, we gonna go now."


Ah, see. Its already started. The excuses for why Kerry will not be able to withdrawel from Iraq and the justification by his supporters. James, to a degree I think you're right in your statement. I would change one key word however. "No president wants to get us out of this". If the election of Kerry changes the perception that Iraq and the rest of the world have of the US, the banter you just recited will likely be the justification they use as well. Bush has done just enough to make himself look a little foolish and evil but has accomplished his mission..to get Iraq. Kerry will be the guy trying to make amends for it and offering Iraqis the preverbial string of pearls.

You'll accept it, I'll accept it and the rest of the world will accept it and be greatfull of it. I think it will be for the best overall. Most the world hates Bush, not America. He's been distanced by those out there doing what they were supposed to be doing. Bush is effectively separated himself from the US in reputation and most will look upon Kerry as the people rising up to stop a dicatator of whom we had no control. We'll be back in good graces and have our foothold in the mid-east to boot. Its beautiful. Truly a plan to be sure.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser

Astro, no president can get us out of this, this is VietnamII. How long was it before a president had the balls to say "Hey, we screwed up, we gonna go now."


Ah, see. Its already started. The excuses for why Kerry will not be able to withdrawel from Iraq and the justification by his supporters. James, to a degree I think you're right in your statement. I would change one key word however. "No president wants to get us out of this". If the election of Kerry changes the perception that Iraq and the rest of the world have of the US, the banter you just recited will likely be the justification they use as well. Bush has done just enough to make himself look a little foolish and evil but has accomplished his mission..to get Iraq. Kerry will be the guy trying to make amends for it and offering Iraqis the preverbial string of pearls.

You'll accept it, I'll accept it and the rest of the world will accept it and be greatfull of it. I think it will be for the best overall. Most the world hates Bush, not America. He's been distanced by those out there doing what they were supposed to be doing. Bush is effectively separated himself from the US in reputation and most will look upon Kerry as the people rising up to stop a dicatator of whom we had no control. We'll be back in good graces and have our foothold in the mid-east to boot. Its beautiful. Truly a plan to be sure.



posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 12:10 PM
link   
First of all, the only wasted vote is a vote for Kerry or Bush.

The distruction the two party system has had on America is rediculous, and the path taken by America is layed out between the narrow pass carved by the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right. The end point is the same brothers.

If you are sick and tired of the government getting bigger, more bloated, productivity being constrained by the weight of the multitude of inane laws we have, then you should do something other than bicker about Kerry and Bush.

They both being the same thing, garnishing votes with handouts we can't afford, adding more inept and incompitent agencies and departments, all while taking the rights of the states and the rights of the people.

Why have we never been able to get straight answers about 9-11? Why if Bush is such a "hawk" and a conservative has he never closed the boarder (as is obvious defensive action in a time of trouble). Kerry has a higher liberal rating to some sources than Ted Kennady, yet most make fun of Teddy, but support Kerry.

It's all a mess and we will go down from the rot and weight of our own oppulence and mental laziness.






top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join