Predict the results of the 2004 US Presidential Election

So Bush.

However, Bush has a lot on his side now, with his 9/11 leadership (I actually think he did a good job with handling the traumatic period shortly thereafter and even in some respects Afghanistan...some, not all). However, he fucked up the war and spread our resources too thin and alienated some of our allies and he's (unintentionally, but still) all but endorsing the stigma that same sex coupling has in our society.

Kerry doesn't seem like a "let's rally around him!" kind of candidate, and maybe he's peaked early. It's tough to say what could occur. It's a long ways until November. I'm going to say that the results will be very very close and that it will be.....fuck I really don't know.

i really don't agree with the "clinton hurt gore in 2000" argument, if anything gore's attempts to DISTANCE himself from clinton throughout the campaign were what hurt him.

Johnson ('64) - 73% - Won with 61%
Eisenhower ('56) - 72% - Won with 57%
Reagan ('84) - 56% - Won with 59%
Clinton ('96) - 56% - Won with 49% (10% third-party)
Nixon ('72) - 56% - Won with 61%
Ford ('76) - 49% - Lost with 48%
Truman ('48) - 48% - Won with 49.5% (5% third-party incl Thurmond)
Bush ('92) - 41% - Lost with 37.5%
Carter ('80) - 38% - Lost with 41%

Average of nearly 30 recorded 2004 Bush Approval ratings thus far - 50.9%. The trend is down.

Kerry 1, Bush 0

When the first pres. Bush got in a scandal involving the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) an investigation was called for. Eventually there was one by a sub-committee of the Senate Foreign Relations headed up by none other than Kerry. The investigation floundered and nothing came of it.

Source: Rule By Secrecy by Jim Marrs, great book that traces and links various conspiracies back to the beginning of human existence (I won't spoil the end for you).

Well, for one calling the book non-fiction is a strech.

I'lll just tell you all, if you haven't already read Sitchin, human beings were created by reptile aliens called the Anunnaki. They spliced their DNA w/simple ape-like people so that we might beter mine the gold they so desperately needed to protect them from their severly damaged ozone layer.

The elections being computed = Bush 130,000,000, Kerry 0

I refuse to accept the results of any computer voting states regardless of outcome, due to all the backdoor shit going on with that. If you want to read up about REAL conspiracies, just get more informed about that whole situation. It just makes my blood boil.

Is this the end of the republic, as Gore Vidal has asserted for so many years now?

But anyway, sticking to this thread's topic, I predict that whoever the winner of the 2004 race is, they will secretly be an Illuminati/Mason/Reptilian Alien, or perhaps even a member of the dreaded Sembellonati. Dear lord, I fear I have said too much...*choking noises*

Ha. Your quality predictions are based on up-to-the-minute information! It's Attorney General Ken Salazar who is going to win in CO for the Democrats; Udall has withdrawn.

To address the Dole comparison, even though it's facially ridiculous - Dole didn't lose because he was a bore, he lost because the country approved of Clinton's performance, and Dole was too old. Today, the public feels the country is moving in the wrong direction, and there is no age gap between the candidates. In '96, Bob Dole was 73 years old. Clinton was 50 - a gap of 23 years. Bush is 58, and Kerry is 61. And age isn't really the issue - it's connection to young, or younger, people. Kerry pretty plainly gets youth culture better than Bush does. And he's favored by the slightly older investor class.

and i hope they tell kerry there is no such thing as a social security trust fund

They don't have to. Kerry presumably knows that the "Social Security Crisis" is a myth.

I'm going to be pessimistic and say Bush.
I don't like it, but I've grown to accept it.

In the meantime, lemme deal with this point:
Dole didn't lose because he was a bore, he lost because the country approved of Clinton's performance, and Dole was too old.
Dole actually lost for the same reason Gore lost*; He's arrogant, joyless and stiff**; Dole and Gore gave people the creeps.

* = Lets overlook the whole Florida thing for a sec, and just focus on why people that disliked Gore didn't vote for Gore.
** = No viagra jokes, please.

Which is another are where Kerry hurts - no one's excited about him. There's nothing to get excited about.

xpost - Popular vote totals remain fun to discuss but irrelevant. A Democrat can't coast on the extra half-million Californians who like him, just like Bush can't coast on the extra 10% of Texans who'll vote for him.

xpost hahaha blount you still crack me up.

...aside from the great one-sentence definition of human beatboxing! Way to go Alex Ross!

I didn't miss any part. I provided a link and one word. With every post I make, does your response have to include something you made up?

Huh?

I think Kerry should be doing as much as he can to sow doubt about that accomplishment. He should play up the fact that we let Mullah Omar and Osama get away (by being too reluctant to use ground troops in Tora Bora), that Al Qaeda is still active, that Afghanistan is still not in very good shape, and that we haven't done as much as we could be doing to fight terrorism and protect our own country.

I also think that Kerry needs to find something in his resume besides Vietnam that shows why he would be better than Bush at fighting the terrorists. Perhaps he could play up his success investigating BCCI in the Senate. I think that people are bound to think there's something fishy about a guy whose greatest accomplishment is that he got some buckshot in his ass (pardon the expression) in Vietnam 25 years ago. He needs to find something more recent to point to.

And while Kerry's positions are a lot more explicit than most people around here understand them to be or characterize them as, I agree that he has left a lot of play in them, both politically and policy-wise (this is in part a reflection of his real fiscal conservatism - he's not going to do stuff he can't pay for). And I think this again is something we'll hear more from him on soon. Once Bush has stated his 'second-term agenda', Kerry has maximum opportunity to refine his for contrast.

he's not going to do stuff he can't pay for

well, that's debatable on many levels but I have to give him partial credit for at least paying lip service to the concept.

Kerry has also gone on record as saying that Bush has won every political debate he's been in in the last twenty years. He won against Ann Richards, and he went 3-0 against Gore.

Who knows if Bush's record will be 3-0 after November, tho'.

I will admit that Gabbneb's unrelenting ground campaign--endles, spintastic poll posting--has given me pause, but it has never been overly convincing.

It's because Bush is allegedly going after the Third Rail of politics tonight: Social Security. I am shocked he has the audacity to do this at the convention.

Even though Social Security (and more importantly, Medicare) is in dire need of reform, Kerryco has the brains to avoid discussing it in a forum such as this. Bush is set to open up a huge can of worms, and the Kerry campaign is going to be given a time-tested issue to hammer away with in the next two months. I am shocked Bush is going to hand over an issue that Kerry will be able to demogogue so easily with seniors, given the ramifications in states like Florida.

Facts Are Lost in Bush, Kerry Campaigns

Thu Sep 16, 5:14 PM ET

By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Whether a distortion on jobs, hairsplitting on health care or a half-told story about Iraq (news - web sites), facts are getting lost as President Bush (news - web sites) and Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) reach full-throated roar in the campaign...

fun little fact-checking thing on the AP today, talking about how both sides are selectively interpreting the facts.

the crucial bits are the ones the article leaves out, in regards that one side has does this a LITTLE more than the other, or the fact that it's the MEDIA'S job to actively gauge and/or discredit what things are reported to the populace, as a opposed to just be stenographic reportage of whatever some guy said on one day, and whatever the other guy said in response.

© 2004 Associated Press

Yeah, right, high-growth areas like Philadelphia where there are lots of opportunities for the Republicans to pick up new votes.

WASHINGTON — In an election where most voters have already chosen sides, the presidency could be decided by a small slice of America in the mushy middle -- wavering voters who are more likely than others to question President Bush's honesty and think the war in Iraq was a mistake.

An Associated Press study of 1,329 "persuadable" voters, conducted by Knowledge Networks in advance of the presidential debates, suggests these people are deeply conflicted about change in the White House. While they have problems with Bush, they also have doubts about Democratic Sen. John Kerry's leadership skills and believe Bush is best suited to protect the nation.

One in every five voters is persuadable -- including about 5 percent who tell pollsters they don't know who will get their vote and about 15 percent who say they are leaning toward one candidate but could switch to another. In past elections, as much as a third fit that description, but most of the nation was quick to pick sides this year in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 election.

It's possible many persuadable voters will stay home Nov. 2 out of frustration with their choices, but there are enough of them floating in the political center to alter the race for the White House.

"I don't want to see Bush get in, but I don't want to vote Kerry just to keep Bush out," said Grace Elliott, a 70-year-old retiree from Portland, Ore. She opposes the president's conduct of the war but says of Kerry: "He just makes me feel uneasy."

Bush and Kerry are pitching their campaign rhetoric to voters like Elliott, with the Republican incumbent calling his challenger a vacillator who can't be trusted to lead the nation at war while Kerry accuses Bush of misleading the people on Iraq and other issues.

In the AP study, 1,329 people were first interviewed Aug. 31 to Sept. 2 and then re-interviewed Sept. 21-27.

In the initial screening, 18 percent said they didn't know who would get their vote, with the rest evenly split between leaning Kerry or leaning Bush. The followup interviews found that 13 percent of the 1,329 had become committed to Bush and 11 percent to Kerry.

Of the 937 persuadable voters remaining, 58 percent said it was a mistake to go to war against Iraq. By contrast, polls of all likely voters show that less than half think the war was a mistake.

Many persuadable voters echoed Kerry's accusation that Bush let Iraq distract from the global war on terror. "It seems Osama crawled away and nothing was said about it," said Joy Phillips, 52, of Jacksonville, Fla.

But they favored Bush over Kerry on the question of who would best handle the situation in Iraq, 52 percent to 41 percent, roughly the same as all likely voters.

"The more Kerry talks, the more I get turned off by Kerry. After Thursday, I'll know for sure, but for now it's Bush," said Marcia Vinick, a retiree from Scotia, N.Y., who voted for Al Gore in 2000 and opposes the war.

Kerry holds a 2-to-1 advantage among persuadables on who would best create jobs, though the Democrat has lost his advantage on the jobs issue in polls of all likely voters.

On personality traits, only 32 percent of persuadable voters consider Kerry decisive while 79 percent attribute that quality to Bush. That tracks with polls of all likely voters.

Paula Larson, an undecided voter who used to lean toward Kerry, said electing Kerry as commander in chief "would send a signal of weakness."

Some 42 percent of persuadable voters say Bush is honest, considerably lower than he rates among all likely voters.

Persuadable voters leaning toward either Kerry or Bush say the main reason they might eventually vote for the incumbent is they have doubt about Kerry's ability to lead. Or they don't know enough about him.

On the other hand, they said the main reason they might vote for Kerry is they disagree with Bush's positions, especially on Iraq.

Among voters who moved from the persuadable column to firmly behind Bush, most cited personal qualities such as leadership.

heh. shenanigans.

This thread wasn't as pollyannish as I remember it being.

Not after the conventions, at any rate.

lolololol

I got the Bush biography ($1 thrift store score) and looked up Skull & Bones in the index and it was actually there! However, when I turned to the page it said something like "At this period I joined the organization known as Skull & Bones. I really shouldn't go into too much detail so I'll leave it at that." Just a few sentences, mentioning it, but not saying anything at all about it. It's kind of strange....

i meant autobiography (much like his autopresidency), A Charge to Keep

I do not believe I forecasted the results that I would be in bed crying for three days.

And there is always someone thinking everything is going to hell. Especially old dudes like Gore Vidal.
― christhamrin (christhamrin), Sunday, March 14, 2004

This year, even CNN realizes everything is going to hell.