← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Juan Raymondo Cortez
Thread ID: 5657 | Posts: 21 | Started: 2003-03-20
2003-03-20 04:26 | User Profile
Here is a link to the electoral map of the 2000 election.
[url=http://www.multied.com/elections/2000map.html]http://www.multied.com/elections/2000map.html[/url]
Assuming Bush retains control over all the red states, given demographic changes and Democrat-voting minorities in the blue states and Florida, it doesn't seem possible Bush can win the next election. This seems to have been a lock for Democrats from before the Supreme Court decided the 2000 elections. Is my analysis wrong or am I missing something?? Will Pennsylvania go back to the GOP? Will Florida?? Any analysis and/or correction necessary.
In any event I'll vote again for Howard Phillips.
2003-03-20 05:14 | User Profile
Originally posted by Juan Raymondo Cortez@Mar 19 2003, 23:26 ** .....it doesn't seem possible Bush can win the next election. **
Bush win another election?!?! I'd vote for Al Sharpton before I'd ever twist another voting lever with the name "Bush" under it.
2003-03-20 06:04 | User Profile
** MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, Matt Dowd, the presidentââ¬â¢s pollster, it was reported, wrote the president a memo and said that if he received the same percentage of black, Hispanic and white votes in 2004 that he received in 2000, heââ¬â¢d lose the election for re-election by three million votes because of the changing demographics of our society, our country. With that in mind, what do the Republicans do about issues like affirmative action, like judicial appointments?
url: [url=http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/850953.asp]http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/850953.asp[/url] **
Related threads:
GOP pins its future (demise) on minorities [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=5079&hl=bush,and,election,and,2004]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ection,and,2004[/url]
Author Predicts Democratic Majority by 2008 [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=4561&hl=bush,and,election,and,2004]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...ection,and,2004[/url]
ââ¬ËThe Emerging Democratic Majority' [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=25&t=3144&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...f=25&t=3144&hl=[/url]
SWEPT AWAY - Unfettered immigration [url=http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php?act=ST&f=22&t=671&hl=]http://forum.originaldissent.com/index.php...&f=22&t=671&hl=[/url]
2003-03-20 06:09 | User Profile
Also the 1992 anti-Gun Law will sunset in 2004 right before the election. I can not Bushie letting it die. This will kill his chances. Gun owers will stay home or vote for small parties.
2003-03-20 13:48 | User Profile
Matt Dowd, the presidentââ¬â¢s pollster, it was reported, wrote the president a memo and said that if he received the same percentage of black, Hispanic and white votes in 2004 that he received in 2000, heââ¬â¢d lose the election for re-election by three million votes because of the changing demographics of our society, our country.
I see poetic justice is alive and well. It would be incredibly entertaining to see W lose his reelection by the hand of the very latrinos he was so eager to bring in. Of course, on a larger scale it won't be entertaining at all unless the Stupid Party does a 180 on immigration policy, but if anything will make them do it, it will be this.
2003-03-20 19:14 | User Profile
Messieurs et Madames, There is not going to be a 2004 election because an election would be considered a "national security threat" under the "Patriot" Act because we are at war to "defend freedom" and therefore Bush and his shadowy minions must and will stay in power indefinitely. Or infinitely. Your vote will not be needed.
2003-03-20 20:40 | User Profile
I just thought of another nail in the 2004 GOP coffin. In the last election votes were drawn off by Ralph Nadar. If Nadar doesn't run again, the GOP has less than no chance. I'm still registered as a Republican (I've been planning to get out but haven't gotten to it yet). Save for the Presidential election (I voted for Phillips), I voted straight Republican in the 2000 & 2002 elections. Never again.
xmetalhead's comment made me laugh. I too have thought that I'd vote for Al Sharpton over Bush. :-)
2003-03-20 22:11 | User Profile
Juan Raymondo Cortez,
A good point.
** I just thought of another nail in the 2004 GOP coffin. In the last election votes were drawn off by Ralph Nadar. If Nadar doesn't run again, the GOP has less than no chance. **
Sadly Bush could win if the Democrat do every wrong and Nadar runs. Gore would have won in 2000 without Nadar. As I said before if Bush puts in a new Gun Control Law, he will lose millions of votes. A Rightist running might be able to spoil things for Bush.
2003-03-21 08:34 | User Profile
Well ... we need things to get worse before they get better ... and while I doubt Bush could win an honest election next year (due to demographics, and the vote early, vote often habits of the illegal mexicans bussed from polling place to polling place by the dems here in CA), I am also of the mind that no matter who does win, things will continue their downward slide - at an even faster pace. Worse is better, as the saying goes. No doubt about it.
I also think that there is some validity in jesuisfier's remarks as well. Something like that would not surprise me. It probably won't happen, but there is no way I'd be surprised if it did.
2003-03-22 03:06 | User Profile
Roy Batty,
Sadly you are Right.
** I also think that there is some validity in jesuisfier's remarks as well. Something like that would not surprise me. It probably won't happen, but there is no way I'd be surprised if it did.
There is not going to be a 2004 election because an election would be considered a "national security threat" under the "Patriot" Act because we are at war to "defend freedom" and therefore Bush and his shadowy minions must and will stay in power indefinitely. Or infinitely. Your vote will not be needed.-jesuisfier
**
2003-03-22 04:57 | User Profile
PA? Hell, Bush is probably going to win CALIFORNIA after this sweep of the Mideast. And he wont win based on minority votes--we will win based on white votes.
After all the guns we used in the Mideast, people will probably look more kindly upon them. And Bush will have more power to satisfy his base of conservative, white, male voters. Given Democratic hemming and hawing about the war, Bush will probably not see much need to purse 'unity' through bipartisanship. He will take his case for cutting taxes and promoting 'family values' directly to the American people.
I am not sure if immigration will be an issue, but if there are act of terrorism in the US, it will be.
2003-03-22 06:09 | User Profile
Anyone who votes for GeorgieBoy after the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq War is a goddamned asshole -- squared.
Gimme a f*ckin' break...
2003-03-22 06:33 | User Profile
The son will share his fatherââ¬â¢s political fate.
I only hope that Hillary does not disappoint by failing to show up. She must know that her window will close for another eight years. It would be sad not to have her temperament in the oval office for what promises to be a very interesting time.
2003-03-22 14:26 | User Profile
The most disturbing thing is that Hillary would probably spend less than Bush. :P
2003-03-22 14:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by darkeddy@Mar 21 2003, 23:57 ** PA? Hell, Bush is probably going to win CALIFORNIA after this sweep of the Mideast. And he wont win based on minority votes--we will win based on white votes.
After all the guns we used in the Mideast, people will probably look more kindly upon them. And Bush will have more power to satisfy his base of conservative, white, male voters. Given Democratic hemming and hawing about the war, Bush will probably not see much need to purse 'unity' through bipartisanship. He will take his case for cutting taxes and promoting 'family values' directly to the American people.
I am not sure if immigration will be an issue, but if there are act of terrorism in the US, it will be. **
Dark Eddy, with all respect, this scenario might be likely if the election were held next week. The swift and overwhelming victory in Iraq, along with the propaganda onslaught right now might even fool Gore Vidal into thinking Bush and his minions did a glorious, wonderful, decisive thing in liberating Iraq. Are we all cynical doomsdayers? No, not at all I think. If we all have eyes to see, we know that the war in the Middle East has just begun. Iraq is only a pimple on the donkey's ass. This administration has made that clear.
As for jesuisfier's post, about suspended elections. You know, after 9/11, there was alot of talk of letting Mayor Rudolph Guiliani keep his office for another 4 years. It went so far as a vote in NY State Senate. Now, if come September 2004, this country is embroiled in massive regional wars in the Middle East with a terrorist attack or two and our economy is sucking wind, and massive unrest in our streets......well, an election just might have to be put on hold. We are all just guessing, as unlikey as it may be....you never know.
2003-03-22 17:45 | User Profile
Well, of course Bush might embark on new wars that go badly. But pinning one's campaign hopes on un-known catastrophe is probably not the best way to proceed. It is just as likely that if Bush attacks further nations, his ratings will go even higher.
2003-04-08 17:48 | User Profile
Originally posted by jesuisfier@Mar 20 2003, 14:14 Messieurs et Madames, There is not going to be a 2004 election because an election would be considered a "national security threat" under the "Patriot" Act because we are at war to "defend freedom" and therefore Bush and his shadowy minions must and will stay in power indefinitely. Or infinitely. Your vote will not be needed.
Senator Kerry is under attack for his comments about "regime change" for America. I've already decided that if Kerry is on the ballot, he's got my vote (if Tancredo or Paul are not on the ballot). I WANT A REGIME CHANGE TOO, Sen Kerry!! I think the GOP/ZOG party already knows Sen Kerry is a formidable threat to Jorge and the smearing is under way. Here's Kerry's latest comments(I quoted jesuifier's comments above because Sen Kerry hints at that possibility). I also dig Kerry's quip at the military no-shows on the Republican side!!
[SIZE=3]Kerry: Democracy Means He Can Criticize Senator Has Come Under Attack For Suggesting 'Regime Change'[/SIZE]
POSTED: 6:50 a.m. EDT April 8, 2003 UPDATED: 6:58 a.m. EDT April 8, 2003
CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa -- Presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that democracy affords rival Democrats the right to criticize President George Bush, even with the nation at war.
The Massachusetts senator has come under a withering attack from Republicans for suggesting that the United States, like Iraq, needs a regime change.
Traveling through Iowa, Kerry rejected what he called "phony arguments" from the GOP that political candidates should mute their criticism of the commander in chief.
"This is a democracy," Kerry said. "We could be at war a year from now. Would we put the election on hold?"
Kerry voted last fall for a congressional resolution granting Bush the authority to use military force to oust Saddam Hussein and disarm Iraq, but he has been sharply critical of the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts to assemble a coalition of allies. Last week, Kerry's regime change comment drew fire from top congressional Republicans who said the remarks were highly inappropriate with U.S. troops fighting overseas.
[color=blue]Since then, Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, has defended himself, arguing that unlike his Republican critics, he fought for his right to speak freely. At an elementary school in Iowa, he reminded his listeners of that past conflict and the political dynamic. [/color]
"We had an election in the middle of the Vietnam War," Kerry said. "It was the center of that election."
The lawmaker argued that the disparate views of Democrats should be central to the 2004 election, including where the candidates' stand on how the war is being conducted.
"Let's not have a lot of phony arguments here about what we can and can't talk about," Kerry said. "We need to talk in America about the things that make us strong as a country."
Republicans countered that Kerry himself, last month, said he would not criticize Bush while troops were in action, citing his own experience in the Vietnam War where news of war protests disheartened troops.
"By Sen. Kerry's own standards, set by Kerry himself, those statements would be inappropriate," said Jim Byke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
Despite his attempt to focus on education, Kerry repeatedly was asked about the U.S.-led war against Iraq and his recent comments. Besides the school visit, Kerry has been meeting with small groups of activists during his three-day trip to the site of the leadoff presidential caucuses.
Kerry impressed some listeners, including Susan Lagos, an elementary school principal who has a son in the Army. Lagos wasn't ready to endorse a candidate, but she pointed out, "we teach nonviolence here." She added, however, "I understand there are times when you have to confront the bully." [url=http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2097076/detail.html]http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/2...076/detail.html[/url]
2003-04-08 18:32 | User Profile
The Chimp-n-Chief still has a shot in 2004 cause the war has turned everything topsy turvy. The Republicunts after the next election will be finished on the national stage and all we will have are Democrats in the Oval Office. Only a new party trying to rally the still white majority by appealing directly to their racial interest will be able to win a national election.
2003-05-22 04:13 | User Profile
Colin Powell vs. Hillary Clinton in 2008?
Oy vey!
2003-05-22 05:24 | User Profile
If there is a presidental election in 2004, it will not make much difference who wins the White House. The real rulers in Washington, the shadow government, are invisible to the public, and exercise power from behind the scenes. JFK might well have been the last patriot to sit in the White House.
-Z-
2003-05-22 05:53 | User Profile
That's why Kennedy was killed. He truly believed he was, or should, be in charge. Having the Treasury print $4 billion in Treasury Notes rather than Federal Reserve Notes probably didn't help his chances.