2004 Political Prediction

adios · #1 03-08-2003, 09:03 AM

The Democrats are going to lose and they are going to lose big time. Basically because the list of Democratic presidential candidates is abysmal to this point and I'm predicting that the Republicans will make significant gains in both houses of Congress because they'll get skonked so bad in the presidential election. Immediately eliminate the Washington insiders that the press is hyping i.e. Kerry, Lieberman, and Gephardt. Don't get me wrong, one of these three may be nominated and I'm sure the Republicans would love it if one of these three did, but I don't see any of these three mounting a serious campaign to challenge Bush. Some lesser known congressional members running:

Joe Biden - some are mentioning his name but he couldn't beat Dukaukis in 88 so I don't see him as having much chance of even getting the nomination.

Carol Moseley Braun - get real.

John Edwards - I suppose he has some chance of getting the nomination as he doesn't have a lot of political baggage and he hasn't been in Washington that long. He's a dark horse and actually might be electable. We'll see how the press treats his candidacy.

Bob Grahm - Yeah he's another guy that could get elected against Bush I feel. He's been a Senator since 86 I believe but doesn't have a lot of political baggage IMO. He's had some serious health problems and his age is somewhat of a factor. He does have a chance to win the nomination and is more electable probably than any of the other candidates coming from Congress IMO.

Dennis Kucinich - Who's he? Actually since I grew up in Cleveland I'm very familiar with Mr. Kucinich, a long time Cleveland city counciler and thorn in the side of Carl Stokes during his tenure as mayor of Cleveland. I just don't see Mr. Kucinich as a viable national candidate.

Some Washinton Outsiders

Garry Hart - Well a former insider and ah well no.

Wesley Clark - No I don't see the leap from Army General to President of the USA ala Eisenhauer.

Howard Dean - I don't think so based on some of the legislation he signed as Governor of Vermont regarding "civil unions." I respect him immensly for having the political courage to do so. Unfortunately methinks it's too much baggage although it shouldn't be. Maybe I'll be surprised.

Al Sharpton - Come on now. [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/blush.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/grin.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/crazy.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/confused.gif[/img]

Feel free to insert your favorite Dem candidate that I overlooked.

IrishHand · #2 03-08-2003, 09:56 AM

I disagre with you - I think it'll be a good race. For the most part, the Dems have refrained from bashing Bush's post-9/11 policies (and certainly his foreign policies). I think that'll come to a quick close with both world opinion and increasingly domestic opinion opposed to Bush's administration's handling of the Iraq issue. Of course, the Dems ability to lay into his domestic issues goes without saying. Unless Bush can generate a positive outcome with Iraq, I'm not sure what track record he'll have to campaign on. A year ago, I would have agreed with you completely, but not any more.

Of course, I do agree that the apparent lack of candidates presents a severe problem. Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

Ray Zee · #3 03-08-2003, 12:06 PM

lieberman has a shot especially if bush screws up in iraq.

but dont count out the winner of the last presidential election from doing it again. he may see that bush is in trouble and may want to contest this time, instead of waiting four additional years.

i think he bowed out so that he wouldnt be labeled as a two time loser, but with bush fading in the polls he may do the political turnaround.

adios · #4 03-08-2003, 03:27 PM

Yeah Gore is an obvious omission. Since I'm sticking my neck out I'll really stick it out. I think that if Hussein doesn't abdicate (I know it seems like a remote possibility but it could happen and holding his feet to the fire is the only way it will ever happen) the USA will still win a decisive, easy victory in Iraq. At that point the uncertainty regarding Iraq will be dissipated and I think his, Bush's, popularity will start to rise. If the Democrats in Congress continue to stone wall his economic initiatives and the economy remains soft I do think there is a decent chance that a lot of voters will be turned off by the stone walling. If he runs against a liberal, he wins on all the other issues except maybe the abortion issue. If he runs against a centrast Democrat like Grahm he may have his hands full. However, Grahm does have a few weaknesses as I mentioned. The last person that ran and won as a member of Congress was JFK. Even though many would consider daddy Bush, LBJ, and Nixon Washington insiders; the voters IMO generally reject pols running for president from this ilk. Daddy Bush more or less rode Reagan's coattails to victory and had served for quite some time as an appointed official in various administrations. Nixon had been away from Washington for 8 years. LBJ was probably the last clear cut Washington insider that won a presidential election. Gore and Gerald Ford almost pulled out victories but not quite. We'll see what happens.

Clarkmeister · #5 03-08-2003, 03:41 PM

Well, Tom, the beauty of the internet is you can put your money where your mouth is. The republicans are currently at -181 to win the 2004 presidential election. So just throw down $18,100 and walk away with a cool $10,000 profit.

Personally, I think its way too early to tell. Bush the First looked unbeatable about this time in his term also. Things can change in a hurry.

John Ho · #6 03-08-2003, 04:31 PM

I think General Clark would be a good alternative to Bush. His military credentials would be popular at a time like this. Especially if the war goes poorly or new threats pop up.

I think Kerry could beat Bush as well. Don't agree with Ray that Lieberman could win. I doubt the country is ready for a Jewish president especially considering what ramifications that might have with regards to terrorism.

Dynasty · #7 03-08-2003, 04:45 PM

Howard Dean - I don't think so based on some of the legislation he signed as Governor of Vermont regarding "civil unions." I respect him immensly for having the political courage to do so. Unfortunately methinks it's too much baggage although it shouldn't be. Maybe I'll be surprised.

I'm starting to change my initial opinion of Dean. He may become the "unknown" candidate who beats out all the established Washington Democrats. Dean may be the best bet among Democrats now.

scalf · #8 03-09-2003, 11:56 AM

[img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] i know, too soon, but in these internet years..one year is like seven old years...you laff now...hillary in 2004..gl [img]/forums/images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

andyfox · #9 03-10-2003, 01:00 AM

I agree: way too early to tell. Clinton was running a poor 3rd in the polls behind Bush and Perot just before the Democratic convention in 1992. And there are plenty of other examples of guys coming from nowhere to win, and guys pulling out a defeat from the jaws of victory.

Parmenides · #10 03-15-2003, 10:48 AM

Bush will cheat again. The Republican party will permit only Christian faith based initiatives. Praying to Jesus or Moses will be allowed in public schools, but only if a child signs an affidavit declaring that the Koran was writen by Satan. Abortion will be outlawed. Corporate graft will be legal, but only if you steal over 100 million dollars (otherwise, you are a proletarian crook, and an obvious commie). Term limits for the President will be repealed. Prisons will be privatized completely. Speaking out against the President will be made a crime.