Bush's Reelection

[andyfox]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/elec04.poll.bush/index.html

While I've generally agreed with the consensus here, that Bush will probably win reelection because there seems to be no Democratic candidate worth his salt, this poll is interesting. There's a general dissatisfaction with Bush, yet no Democratic candidate has pulled clear from the field. And although 50% would prefer that Bush were not reelected, Bush still beats any of the likely Democratic nominees. But not by a wide margin.

Still makes me think anything can happen.

[elwoodblues]

I think Bush will probably be re-elected. The worst thing going for the Dems right now is that they have so many candidates. The large number of candidates will lead to a long primary season which can only hurt an individual candidates chances (as the mud begins to fly).

[lil']

I agree with the article as well, although things can change in a hurry.

Kerry fired his campaign manager today. Somebody from that campaign deserves to get fired, that's for sure. How he went from mid 20% in polls to 7% is horrible.

[Dynasty]

It's not the campaign managers' fault. It's Kerry's fault. I've said for about a year on this forum that Kerry is a big stiff and always will be. He's got Al Gore-like charisma and appeal. I've watched him in Massachusetts since the mid 80's and he's always been this way.

[Clarkmeister]

Dynasty,

It should be noted that you gave us all Howard Dean when he was about +450 offshore to win the Democratic Nomination. He is currently sitting at -140. Nice pick. Not as nice as John Cole giving me Polanski at 12-1 for best director, but a damn fine pick.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Clarkmeister,

Are you saying that one can actually place legal bets on Presidential elections in Las Vegas?

~ Rick

[Clarkmeister]

Offshore. But yes, they take and payoff on wagers. The current line on the presidential election next year is Republicans -163/Democrats +153.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty,

It should be noted that you gave us all Howard Dean when he was about +450 offshore to win the Democratic Nomination. He is currently sitting at -140. Nice pick. Not as nice as John Cole giving me Polanski at 12-1 for best director, but a damn fine pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

The democrats have not had what they really want in the White House in a long time. They thought they had it in Clinton but the '94 congressional elections and Clinton's subsequent move the the right for survival gave them a wishy washy democratic president. They tolerated Clinton in later years simply because he was the main line of defense against the ongoing conservative movement in the U.S.

Al Gore surprised me in 2000 when he campaigned rather far to the left and got great responses from democratic loyalists. Gore seemed to understand what the base of the democratic party wanted. First, they want a fighter. They want somebody who is going to throw non-stop punches at the conservative movement which took the congress away from them and now the White House too. More importantly, they want somebody who's not going to do what Clinton did- sellout his beliefs for political survival.

They also want that energetic liberal, almost LBJ-like (domestic issues only), style of governing. They want a presidential candidate who's going to use the power of government to create programs, usually large, to benefit those in society who have the least. The democratic party's base doesn't care that a significant majority of the country has rejected that style of goverment. They want it anyway and are really passionate about electing their ideological preference rather than someobody who can fare well in November.

The democatic base sees the potential of all this in Dean. All the Senators and congressmen running are just the failed established party leaders.

[Cyrus]

"The current line on the presidential election next year is
Republicans -163/Democrats +153."

Where's the smart money on?