Poll - What Do Your Guts Say About the 2004 Election?

[bobd]

Poll question: Poll - What Do Your Guts Say About the 2004 Election?

I'm really curious where DUers heads and emotions are with regards to the Dems chances in 2004. I myself am quite pessimistic about those chances. At this point in time I don't think the average Joe and Jane on the street have been personally affected enough yet by the onerous policies of the maladministration to actively consider throwing him out. I also don't put much weight to the drip, drip, drip point of view some folks here have proffered. It seems like so much wishful thinking.

So ... with the ways things stand right now, early August 2003, What do your guts say about the 2004 election?

[bobd]

1. Please help keep this kicked for a while

n/t

[tedoll78]

2. Yep..

I'm going with squeaker. 270 to 280EVs for the Dem.

[bobd]

3. kick

n/t

[izzie]

4. Going to be tight, and GOP will drag some war thing out just in time,

I think it will be like last time. Bush will drop some of the not so sure but the war lovers and bible people, and rich will be with him. Zelots are scary as hell and he has them.Flag wrappers are pretty nuts as we know from Germany and heck they were the same in WW1 in Eng, Die for the Empire and all that.

[rock]

5. Dems should win

not even close

[Dulcinea]

6. Dems in a squeaker.

People vote with their wallets, & I think that they'll do that in 2004.

The mantra should be, "Are you better off then you were 4 years ago?" Yes, it's been done before, but it worked!

[joeybee12]

7. Bush in a squeaker, but I hope I'm wrong

The election in 2004 will be stolen again, this time with more finesse since the Nazis will have had more practice. I don't see the Dem leadership waking up to the realization of what the Nazis are plotting.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

8. I hope you are wrong too!

.

[paulsbc]

9. at this point..

I voted Bush winning in a squeaker, and here is why I believe this *today*

-> Bush has returned to his pre-9/11 ratings, meaning we, as a nation, are as divided as every w.r.t. Dem/Rep, so any race held today would be close

-> The Democrats don't have a solid candidate, which, today, is to be expected given the timeframe we are in. Given the wide open nature of the field, it is hard to determine where the party/nom will be in Nov 2004

-> The economy is beginning to show signs of life, and we all know (well, I think we all know), that the economy will be the big issue in 04'

-> The Iraq conflict is still seen favorably by a majority of Americans, and my guess as to why given all the BS about it is that, to the core, Americans love when we take out dictators and free a people, that is the only way I can figure it on that one.

So, today, I voted Bush in a squeaker, as that is what it appears to me the most likely outcome.

However, there are a number of things I believe can tip the balance back to our side

1) The economy stalls or retreats. This will kill Bush in the 04 general. The economy is the #1 issue, IMO.

2) Another 9/11 attack. Depending on when it occurs, it will either boost Bush or really hurt him. Hurt him in that he will be shown to not be protecting America, and we can use that to our advantage in the election

3) A STRONG Democrat candidate. And, I'm sorry, I don't see one just yet. The only one of the 9 that I think could beat Bush if 1 or 2 happens is Dean. However, if 1 AND 2 do not happen, then Dean is the worst candidate. Tough call here...

My big hope, and I guess this is too early and too hopeful, is that a strong minority Democrat would declare and run, one that had a good past and strong leadership and oratory skills, one with a long track record of Democrat ideals, but in a progressive way, and one that could unify the party. Sharpton just isn't it, given his history, IMO, and I'm not clued into national politics enough to know if such a minority candidate exists that we could draft...

[DedEye]

10. It really depends on the Dems

If they finally get into the fight (like Dean has been doing), then perhaps Bush will finally be put to pasture. If only Dean is left attacking and the media keeps ignoring the democrats, Bush could get by simply by letting others handle his reeelection and pointing to 9/11.

[sandnsea]

27. Agree

We'll know more by how they handle California I think. If they don't come out fighting over this, I have to say they probably won't next year either.

[jfkennedy]

11. Clark

If Clark runs the Democrats win by a huge margin. If Dean runs Bush wins

Bush 25% Clark 75%
Bush 55% to Dean 45%
Bush 75% Kerry 25%,
Bush 85%, Edwards 15%
Bush 65% Lieberman 35%

All poll results have plus or minus error of 2% points.

http://antiwarmonger.com

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. Enough With Your Own Polls

[VermontDem2004]

18. Here is mine

Clark 50 Bush 50
Dean 60 Bush 40
Kerry 60 Bush 40
Bush 55 Edwards 65
Graham 51 Bush 49
Bush 75 Lieberman 25
Bush 90 Sharpton 10

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. I think You Have To Go Back Forty Years To Find A Dem

who got 60% of the vote

Hell, you have to go back nearly thirty years to find a Dem getting 50% of the vote.

Anybody who underestimates a war time president with nearly a quarter of a billion dollars to spend does so at his or her peril.

People forget that Nixon won reelection with 62% of the vote with a unpopular war and a mediocre economy.

[Alexander]

50. That is the most ridiculous "poll" I've ever seen.

Clark wins by 75%? Unless he is Jesus Christ himself, he will never win 75%. It is impossible. No candidate has ever done it, and no candidate ever will, unless the other fellow is being impeached or is filmed gunning down a bunch of children.

[leftofthedial]

12. corrupt "election"

2000 redux.

[janx]

34. Not exactly the same--

but it's certainly going to be an ugly one.

[LEW]

13. Dems in a squeeker

Rove is not done yet. Problem is I don't know if I can handle another year of all this. At least when the repubs were bitching about Clinton, they were doing it in their new car or home. We are doing all our bitching from the unemployment line!!!!!!

[maha]

14. kick n/t

[VermontDem2004]

15. 14 people think Bush is going to win?

shakes his head

I am very confident Bush will lose and not by a squeeker.

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

37. You have your head in the sand

The Democratic Party is in turmoil.

[Cheswick2.0]

53. maybe if you keep saying it we will give up, huh?

Democrats LIKE turmoil..,BRING IT ON BABY

[SharonAnn]

17. Election Fraud using new touch screen voting machines

I absolutely think will be done unless we get the voter verified paper ballot AND state and federal laws changed to require aappropriate random audits and then recounts (using the paper ballots) whenever appropriate questions are raised.

Maybe this is not a glamorous fight but it is by far the most serious one because if this isn't done, it won't matter if people vote for Dems, their vote won't be accurately counted.

[KeepItReal]

51. That would be my choice in this poll, also!

<EOM>

[Kenneth ken]

52. and a 3rd vote for election fraud carrying the day n/t

[yankeeinlouisiana]

19. I think the Dems

will win in a squeaker. The only reason I think it will be a squeaker is because of electronic voting tampering. I don't trust these people at all. But there is still time before the election takes place and counties/states are starting to questions to security of Diebold. I don't think electronic voting will go away but hopefully they will become more secure and more open to scrutiny. And a paper trail is a must.

EDIT: We really can't say the Dems don't have a strong candidate. We have nine very intelligent candidates, any one of them are much better than Bush. We don't have "a" candidate yet. We have nine. We're still 17 months out of the election. Seventeen months is a very long time. Don't be so harsh on the candidates now. The election is a very long way away, so I think doing any kind of poll is purely speculation at this point. A lot can change. Be patient.

[Woodstock]

32. MUST have a candidate toget the vote out to counteract their cheating

We have to build up a margin of error, because they WILL cheat again.

Therefore, Dean would be a great choice - he will motivate people to care again and get their arses to the polling places.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Too much time, too many "ifs"

You left out the "beats the hell out me" option.

I think the fratboy can be beat. I also think that the "drip, drip, drip" is what's going to do him in. The one thing that has kept him "popular" is the "war on terror", the "war" in Iraq, and his endless flag waving and crotch grabbing machoism. The problem is that it's all falling apart.

1. The "war on terrorism" is a flop. The bombs are still going off and will probably increase.

2. The "war" in Iraq drags on at great expense and with a steady stream of casualties.

3. The flag-waving is starting to be seen for what it is: a prop holding the boy up.

Virtually all of his other policies are looked upon, at best, with mistrust by the American people. From the economy to health care to the environment to education.

The problem for the Democrats is that, even though a few of them are openly opposed to war now, none of them are offering solutions to it or to most of the other problems that BushCorp has foisted on us.

Where is the "If elected I will.." part of the campaign?

Bush can be beat. But, the candidate is going to have to beat him, and they can't do it by muttering "me too" every time he waves the flag and grabs his crotch.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Political Scientists Have

a theory called retrospective voting. People will ask themselves if they are better off than they were four years ago and vote accordingly.

Things are alot worse now they were when Son of A Bush was inaugurated. We will have to see how things are on election day.

The economy is weak but it's not as bad as it was in some previous recessions. Part of that can be attributed to the fact that unemployment was at 3.9%* when this recession began so if it went up by two or three points the headline number was not as shocking. For instance when Reagan was elected the unemployment level was around 7%. It shot up to 10.8% at the height of the recession. 10.8% is a shocking headline unemployment number. It was coming down by election time or he would have never been reelected.

In any case, this election will turn on the economy and national security.


* how did we lose the White House with that smoking economy?

[FoxNewsIsTheDevil]

39. How do you explain '84 then?

A recession was in full blast then, and Reagan won in a landslide. This was without a popular war going on like there is now.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. Nah

Reagan inherited a crappy econmomy from Jimmy Carter and proceded to make it worse. That's why the Republicans lost 26 seats in the mid term elections. By the time the election came around the economy was recovering and Reagan ran on a "Morning In America" theme.

[diplomats]

41. No it wasn't

the GDP in '84 was around 6 percent. The recovery from the recession was very quick.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. That's Because Of Ronnie's Tax Cuts And Paul Volcker's Interest Rate Cuts

Ronny was the beneficiary of good timing.

I hope history doesn't repeat itself for Son of a Bush

[bobd]

23. kick

n/t

[roberthall10]

24. Cancellation

That the administration might use a phony terror threat to postpone an election that was not looking too good is something I have worried about for a long time. I guess the fact that we know how the Supremes would vote on any court challenge is not encouraging, either.

I think the Dem landslide folks are probably indulging in wishful thinking, but if it comes to pass it means the country will have been plunged by Bush into deep, deep, you know what.

[blm]

25. Dems in a LANDSLIDE!!!

Absolutely.

[Nay]

26. Bush wins in a squeaker, because

there is still a whole lot of hatred of "libruls" out there that we hate to think about. It'll be like the Harry and Louise health insurance ads -- the drumbeat against the liberal Dem will be all that is needed for millions to vote completely against their own best interests.

[bobd]

28. kick

n/t

[JackRiddler]

29. Options you left out...

And they are the likeliest

1) Bush is not even president anymore, having resigned in disgrace following further WMD and 9/11 revelations.

2) Bush consolidates his rule within the elites, gaining legitimation as an emperor. The election is entirely fixed, you can throw away the ballot (touch screen).

I consider 1 far likelier.

In a fair election, I have little doubt: Bush loses in a landslide. Note I say "Bush loses." This will be about Bush Co., not "Dems."

It's next to irrelevant whether the nominee is Dean or Kerry. People will accept or reject the last four years, which for most people obviously are THE most memorable in memory.

[Snellius]

30. Unless conditions completely fall apart. Bush wins big.

Almost everyone who knows what's going on, right or left, realizes at this point that George W. Bush is undoubtedly the worst president in the history of the United States. "Dumb" really doesn't plumb the depths of his ignorance. "Liar" is too kind to describe the level of ruthless cynicism with which he has deceived the American public. But he connects with the kind of mindless materialism and semi-civilized hubris that came out of the SUV generation of the ninties. He may likely fall. And probably fall fast and hard. But, somehow, my foggy crystal ball shows a picture of tragedy not from the majority of people but from those within his own party who see where things are going and don't want to be dragged with him over the edge.

[camero]

31. Gore's speech changed everything

If Dems can run with it. It will be a choice between fascism and democracy.

Remember that Gore stopped fighting the election count out of respect for the rule of law, which obviously Bush does not.

A no-brainer in my opinion but some are still scared of terrorists to which my reply is that I will NOT walk around scared of ghosts for the rest of my life. Why should we?

[VOX]

33. Democrats in a nail-biting, razor-thin squeaker...

I think that the 2000 electoral map still indicates pretty much where things stand today. Many of the so-called "battleground" states could go either way.

But the Dems have to fight hard, fang and claw. The right wing has the money, the media, and the means to tilt the election.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, but I think that, in the end, truth will overcome the RW propaganda, and substance will beat out image.

[burr]

35. Get ready for the 10/11 attacks...

It starts when the Democrats are all killed when meeting in Boston. And then...terror strikes again when in September the Democrats struggle to find a candidate to replace the nominee, Gore steps foward but is destroyed in the mass slaughter. Finally on 10/11 a nuclear bomb goes off in Washington taking out the House, Senate, the Supreme Court, Alan Greenspan, and last but not least..all surrounding residents.

But thank god..shrub is resting peacefully in Crawford, Texas. He cancels the elections, and annouces the invasion of Iran and Syria. "Politics cannot be put before unity and security" he states in his televised war speech!

[Booberdawg]

36. Dems in a squeaker

I voted Dems in a squeaker, but I fear Pubs in a squeaker. I'm just not sure it will be a fair election. I wouldn't put anything past the bush crime family.

For sure, if the 2004 goes into overtime like the last one did, I afraid I'll implode!

:nuke:

[Jack Rabbit]

38. I can't vote on this one

The answer seems to depend on which side I get out of bed in the morning.

Of course, I assume all but the last option assume an honest election.

[jfkennedy]

44. The Republicans will win because....

They have a huge war chest. They will bribe (I mean have more money for public relations).They will use the bribe money to influence the democrats and the media, and university liberals like Nader, to be anti-progressive. The only one that can win is General Clark.

Read the two following articles about the 2000 election about a week before elction 2000 and the day of the election.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39860,00.html

So what's a Nader-loving, Bush-bashing voter to do? How can one support Nader, who needs 5 percent of the popular vote to qualify for federal matching funds during the next election, while ensuring a Gore White House?

Swap it.

That's the advice of people who have put up a host of websites encouraging Nader voters and Gore voters to "trade" votes with each other -- allowing Gore to win swing states like Wisconsin, Oregon and Pennsylvania, while letting Nader win votes in Bush-secure states such as Texas.

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39860,00.html

http://www.bushwatch.com/october2000.htm


BUSH BACKERS BUY ADS FOR NADER IN SWING STATES

Ralph Nader's goal to get George W. Bush elected got a push from a pro-Bush committee yesterday, the Republican Leadership Council. According to a 10/27/00 AP story, the RLC has made an ad consisting of footage of Nader attacking Gore and is buying $10,000 worth of ad time to be used to keep the Bush lead in Oregon and to move Bush ahead in Washington and Wisconsin, two states that are up for grabs.

The AP also noted that the RLC ad buy for Nader comes at a very good time for the Green Party candidate, since he doesn't have the money to afford the cost of the ad campaign the Republicans are launching for him: "Nader, running a low-budget campaign, is not currently airing any television commercials of his own and it's possible that the RLC will end up spending more on pro-Nader media than Nader himself.


http://www.bushwatch.com/october2000.htm

[Iris]

43. I hate to say it

but deep down, I really believe Bush will win. I just don't have that much faith in the average American anymore.

I was at a baby shower today where a 26 yr. old man (who looked about 37 - little beer gut, flat ass) thought it was appropriate for an 81 yr. olds to be working 8 hour shifts at Wal-mart. He says they "want to do it'. When some mentioned maybe they had to do it to eat, he said they should have saved better for retirement.

[scottxyz]

45. Two options:

(1) If Bev Harris gets rid of the rigged voting machines, Dems win in a landslide.

(2) Otherwise, vote-tampering lets Bush win in a "squeaker".

[Terwilliger]

46. Don't you just LOVE dogma!?

:eyes:

[bearfan454]

47. You forgot to add

Bush wins because none of the Dems running did anything about the electronic voting cheating going on with the GEMS program.

[wellstone_democrat]

48. Bush---by criminal fraud

you didn't have that obvious option.

[Iverson]

58. thank you!

Given that the most recent example included electoral fraud, failing to include it among the possibilities was a painful omission.

[mlawson]

49. It depends, it depends, etc etc....

Having watched prez election since about 1960, I will say this:

----- IF nothing substantial has changed by 11/04; OR,
----- IF WMD are found in Iraq (regardless of whether they are planted; OR,
----- if the Dem nominee is dull, wimpy and uninspiring (or has no teflon); OR,
----- The US economy is *thought* to have improved substantially by 11/04; OR,
----- IF AH-nuld wins in October, and helps swing CA for bush next year,

bush wins BIG.... :argh:

[redeye]

54. My guts say I'm hungry...

...and I'm not speaking metaphorically. I think with my brain, not with my gut.

I'm not voting in this poll because frankly it's still too early to make informed judgments. For every reason there is for Bush to lose I can find another for him to win, and vice versa. Moreover, the result depends on the Democratic candidate. Three Dems have a reasonable chance to win, IMO, excluding the possibility of a second Great Depression or terrorist attack: Dean, Clark, and Edwards. Kerry and Graham will be tossups; the others will simply not win.

My gut feeling is still that I'm hungry and not that Bush will win or lose, though.

[TheBigGuy]

55. Curses! (tin)foiled again!

....look at how many folks voted that the election will be cancelled!

[sduncang]

56. Bush Landslide.....sadly

Anything can happen, but it's very unlikely Bush could lose. The media senses a big Bush win and even us Democrats see it coming. You can thank 9-11 and the best political machine money can buy. It'll be one of the worse elections, ever. But, it will mark the high water mark of the right wing wackos. After 2004, the tide will turn.

[SharonAnn]

57. I don't think so. Bush can only win by fraud. The moderates and

swing voters have seem through him and they'll see more by the time the election rolls around.

Right-wing court appointees alone are enough to scare off moderates and swing voters. The ecohnomy is a disaster and people expect more form a president than Bush has delivered.

Nope, he's a LOSER! Big time!

[jfkennedy]

59. Try 2075

For most of the next 75 years we will be under Republican control. My guess is we will never see a democrat voted into the office of the president again until 2075.

Most of the democrats you see on TV are probably thinking, the exact opposite we may expect on DU. They are saying, Should I switch to the Republicans? Should I accept that bribe to let run in the election someone that will not win it goes on on.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

60. I would say that the

Dems win in a squeaker of an election. This country is still very divided between the Red and Blue. My electoral college prediction would be something like Dems: 290 EVs, and Bush: 248 EVs.

[fortyfeetunder]

61. Bush will win if many Murkans remain clueless

The more people I talk, with the more I am convinced there is a large popuulation who is clueless about the Chimp and the wrath we are suffering on his watch. Like there are few people I can talk about current events because most of them are clueless about it. And these are the same people who go out and allegedly vote.

I heard some woman say on the Fred Ebert show on KIRO-AM in Seattle last night say that the Chimp was like talking with a next door neighbor. Oh really I think....did she live next to the effin zoo? Where is a clue-o-meter so I an tell how much of a clue she needs. These kinds of people think Bush is all that and worth voting again next time.

[diamondsoul]

62. 3 hours ago

I'd have said something dismal. I voted the Dems win with an LBJ/Goldwater style landslide. :bounce:

[peabody71]

63. Forgot Bush steals election!!!!!!!!

[iangb]

64. Election? What election?

Bush has already invoked a 'State of Emergency'. His powers are now effectively limitless.......and you expect an election?

Read http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20020607.html

<snip> One need only look at the haste and thoughtlessness with which we have adopted the potentially dangerous USA PATRIOT Act, most of which Republicans and Democrats alike had earlier rejected, to understand why legislating in the aftershock of terrorism should be avoided if possible.

Our present emergency laws and regulations are a hodgepodge, a patchwork quilt. They respond to precedents from past great crises, and that is wise, but unfortunately these precedents do not contemplate a protracted war on terrorism, or an enemy unlike any we have ever confronted.

more...

[laruemtt]

65. well, with PNAC underway

and a flatliner media, sorry to say, but the die is cast, folks. the cabal has no intention of letting their power go now - or ever. we can't them get away with it - whatever it takes :mad:

[klyon]

66. We must not let them cheat

I am sure more people will vote or try to vote for whoever the dems nominate

I fear just enough vote fraud and rigged ballot boxes whether they be punch card or electronic paperless ballots could end our democracy.

They will try to cheat us again.
We can’t let them get away with it.

KL
May you be well, live well, work well; have courage, patience, and compassion.

[tomp]

67. you need an "other" category

bush obviously steals another one through a variety of voting fraud and related tricks and loses but "takes" office again.

i voted for "terrorist" attack on that basis.

[Suspicious]

68. I voted for the last option -

another terrorist attack...the bottom line is, my belief is that the electoral system will be subverted somehow - whether it be through the use of touch-screen voting machines and tampered-with results, blatant thievery (see 2000 Presidential Election for example) or any other various and sundry treacheries.

I am, for the most part, a positive person; however, the question is framed, "What do your guts say..." My gut instincts tell me that the Bush Administration is composed of some of the most greedy, evil, underhanded and dangerous individuals any of us are likely to see in our lifetimes, and I don't have a doubt in my mind that they will stop short of nothing to make sure their man sits at least another four at the helm.

:scared: