Tonight's virtual Republican sweep could be a blessing in disguise.
 

With Bush being handed everything he could possibly want, maybe now we will get to see what he's really made of. In two years, assuming we are not digging out from under the ashes of a global war of mass destruction, the Democrats may actually have a chance at the White House. Hey, you never know.

Re: Tonight's virtual Republican sweep could be a blessing in disguise.
 

I think 2004 is going to be a repeat of 1992. The economy will be a major issue. And win or lose, a war with Iraq is probably going to cost another Bush the presidency. I think we are going to see a backlash in 2004 and, thus, will have a Democratic president.

Blue Star, I admire your spunk and conviction. But wishful thinking is not the stuff of seers. Suppose we blow through Iraq in a very quick fashion and Osama Bin Laden is captured/killed/found dead...2004 goes to Bush in a landslide.

The current process for the Dem's is a long one that aint done yet...give it another generation I'd say, but I digress.

Here's this, this thread needs it, from muaw:

Bush's approval numbers are continually slipping. Polls asking people whether or not the country is going in the right direction are split right down the middle. Despite the Repub majority in the House and Senate...their hold on the majority is by very little and they did not win that majority by a large margin. If Bush were to not run/not get the nomination in 2004, I would not say that a Dem would win the presindency for sure. It's not that I think the Dems are going to win, it's that I think Bush is going to lose. The last war with Iraq was considered quick and successful...and it still is one of the reasons Bush Sr. lost in 1992. I really truly do not believe that Bush can win another term (and that prediction is coming from all my years of studying/working in politics).

Also, if Bush had won the popular vote and won it by a large margin in 2000, I might not say that he doesn't have a chance in 2004. Let's not forget that in 2000, Gore won the popular vote by more than half a million votes. Bush is not a good campaigner.

the only apparent blessing is that atleast there won't be anymore accidental deaths of any democratic senators

and he still beat Gore. and, you're proving my point about just focusing on the negative with Bush.

the Dems have to hope for the worst of all sorts of things in order to think they have a chance in 2004. that's not gonna win it.

Im in my 30's, and I mention that only because over time you may get to a point where you dont get as emotionally involved in your political view and a sense of pragmatism about the system comes over you.

I believe the Dem Party is at the tale end of about a 30-35 year process. So, by my view, I dont think 2004 is enough time for this process to run its full course. They just got shallacked. Big time. I wasnt hoping for it, I just view it as it is. Im not that suprised. The pundits on the news shows continue to show their leftist leanings leading up to the elections and so Im glad the results are the way they are because the media is also in dire need of a purge, but that's another issue.

the Dem's can't bitch and moan and expect to win in 2004, but that's probably what they will do and they'll lose again.

Here's some stats that can't be spun: Im sure you know of the standard that the standing Presidents political party loses some House and Senate seats in mid-term elections. This standard goes back to FDR. 2 years after Clinton took office, the Republicans won 50-plus seats and controlled the House for the first time since FDR.

2 years after Bush took office during the mid-terms...well, that was today.

Democrats, especially the liberals, need to wake up and realize their ethical foundation puts party over country. That's why they got creamed today, and the Minnosata Wellstone "memorial" is a big reason for it.

The country is so divided right down the middle right now that it is hard to say what will happen in 2004. I'm not even going to begin to make a prediction about what will happen with the House and Senate in 2004. However, I stand by the fact that I don't think Bush can win in 2004. I'm not saying that a Republican can't win, I'm saying that Bush can't win (though I do think a Dem win is more likely than a Repub win). And the Repubs barely have a majority and they barely won that majority...thus, yesterday's elections do not signify a swing in the ideology of the American people...Repub candidates did not sweep in and overwhelmingly win back the government or anything. The Dems could have handled themselves a lot better in the House and Senate campaigns...I think they did a rather poor job...but even so, there was no LARGE margin of loss. Bush is not some great and grand president. The Dems can take the presidency in 2004. Whether or not they take the House and/or Senate and/or not lose more seats in 2004 depends on the party itself and its redefined agenda.

And now that the election is over, I think we are going to hear a lot more dissent out of Democrat Senators and Representatives.

Tell that to Max Cleland and all the other Democrats like the dude from South Dakota who are about to lose close elections in states where W. just campaigned for the Republican.

Also tell that to Ann Richards. She was a surefire two term governor in Texas until she met W. Tell that Gary Mauro who lost 90 to 10 in the 1998 gubentorial election in Texas.

Gore is the one whose campaign slacked in 2000. Bush is able to raise more money than any other politician and that is a huge part of campaining. Yeah he's an idiot. But he's a rich, loveable idiot.

I also appreciate your insight into this whole political thing and take into account the fact that you work in politics and I don't know shit. However, I've seen first-hand from having a brother who works in politics (in your hometown) that you can analyze these hypothetical situations from so many angles. A good political analyst, consultant, etc. can take any set of facts and use it to their advantage. I just sit back and watch and love it.

So, your analysis is logical and impressive and all that but I'm not at all sold on Bush going down in 2004.

But I think that has little to do with Bush himself and more to do with his 9-11 approval numbers and people not wanting to oppose a president in a time of war...so Bush says "vote for this guy" and people listen.

This is true. It is all a bunch of guesses. A whole lot of stuff can happen in two years. Nobody can really say anything for sure. And the lack of a clear ideological majority is making things even harder. But, looking at history, I just don't see Bush pulling out another win (barring, of course, a major turnaround in the economy that can be directly tied to Bush and a very poor Democratic candidate).

This possibilty is what gives me the most hope. I know they're out there. I'm just not sure who will actually run and it's possible that whoever emerges from the primaries is just not able to defeat Bush.

Yeah me too. Frank's a nice old man. And Rendell in PA! Woohoo! At least we've got our shit together around here.

bingo. and he's spent more time being a tool of his party than anything- 17 cities in 15 states in 5 days? 66 days out of the first 150 days of the year spent at campaign fundraisers? the fact that the canadite with the most money availible wins 85% of the time? Bush is saving what otherwise seemed to be a dying Republican party. I don't think he can save it for long though without them changing their views drastically, especially with minorities coming closer and closer to becoming the majority.

Im a minority. Are you saying FM that if I dont agree with Democrats im some Uncle Tom or whatever. Pulllleeeze. Here's hoping the movie Barbershop blows that tired leftist catachism from politics for good. hah. well, its a start.

and what the the heck are you on about they have to change their views dractically to save the party, THEIR VIEWS JUST WON A BUNCH OF ELECTIONS YESTERDAY!!!

Hello!!!

The Marxist class-envy indoctrination that permeates the education system in this country is readily appearent in all these sour grapes from the lib's on this board.

thank you. that is all.

Their views didn't win jack shit. Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000 in 2000; the only thing that's changed the American peoples' minds is 9/11. (It sure as hell isn't the economy, now, is it?) The fact that the races were close despite the president's popularity ratings and the equivalency most people are putting on the vast Republican presence in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks should tell you that. Last night wasn't a referendum for Bush's politics. It was simply an expression of fright and a need for security.

And if you are so dumb as to not realize the massive redistribution of wealth that's gone on in this country in the last 20 years, you are a complete idiot. Even the most conservative Republicans realize the grotesque inequalities that exist. They just adhere to the Adam Smith laissez-faire indoctrination that permeates American popular culture.

Re: Tonight's virtual Republican sweep could be a blessing in disguise.
 

i don't know if i'd go as far as saying that, Mark, since personally, i worry that this(in disguise) means that a war w/Iraq might happen(which i DO NOT WANT to see happen).

speaking of that, i'm rather shocked to see that in Massachusetts(GET THIS), a Republican candidate won the gubanarial(sp???) race(ditto w/Hawaii too, as that state usually goes Democratic)!! also, according to CNN.com, in both of these races, NO(and i mean none, nada) 3rd-party candidates swung the race into Republican favor!!

Re: Tonight's virtual Republican sweep could be a blessing in disguise.
 

i was talkin about this with my dad this morning. we think that with the republicans in control, Bush won't be able to blame his troubles on the dems anymore. ppl should begin to see what a dip shit he is and that he can't really get much worthwhile done.

Re: Re: Tonight's virtual Republican sweep could be a blessing in disguise.
 

My point was that Bush is now wholly unfettered to really fuck things up good (including a possibly messy war with Iraq). He'll have no one to blame but himself and his party when we find ourselves in disaray. Now granted, that's one hell of a way for the Dems to regain control. The expression "curing the disease by killing the patient" comes to mind.