Do the Dems have any chance in hell of winning in 04 now that saddam is captured?

Do the Dems have any chance in hell of winning in 04 now that saddam is captured?

part of me hopes so...but I can't STAND any of the people running.

Maybe something great will happen....a total unknown conservative, running independantly will appear and take Bush out and keep the Democrates out again.

That'd be my political wet dream

sure they have a chance! a snowballs chance in hell!

personally no not after this, not after they all said he was a miserable failure in iraq and wasnt getting rhe job done. everyone bought into that and now we have saddam so now they have to back pedal and make it look as if they supported this the entire time.

even those who vote FOR the war in iraq have since been acting as if they are against. daschle...kerry...you know who they are. now they're are going to waffle AGAIN and act as if they were behind bush the entire time.

but hopefully people will their propaganda for what it is. meaningless and empty, just like they are.

It's not a popular opinion, but I think the Dem's only chance is if things get much, much better abroad. War and strife is good for Bush.

Look at his Dad's wartime popularity versus abject disgust when he had to deal with domestic issues.

Frankly, W doesn't have a domestic plank to stand on.

Getting Saddam NOW rather than much, much sooner makes it seem like more of an accomplishment. I would be very surprised though if we got Osama anytime soon, and voters still thought they needed Bush 2004.

The War on Terror needs bad guys to remain an inspiring tool of the RNC.

the democrats will never win after this, especially with the people running

sad thing, i was behind bush in 2000..i was young and naive...then the whole 2000 election happened and i curse this nation to hell

Originally posted by RANT
It's not a popular opinion, but I think the Dem's only chance is if things get much, much better abroad. War and strife is good for Bush.

Look at his Dad's wartime popularity versus abject disgust when he had to deal with domestic issues.

Frankly, W doesn't have a domestic plank to stand on.

Getting Saddam NOW rather than much, much sooner makes it seem like more of an accomplishment. I would be very surprised though if we got Osama anytime soon, and voters still thought they needed Bush 2004.

The War on Terror needs bad guys to remain an inspiring tool of the RNC.

and the DNC needs americas failures to bring bush down. the better the economy gets, the less ground they have to stand on. the more bad guys we get, the less ground they have to stand on. with every new job created they have less ground to stand on. they basically are relying on our failures to boost their popularity and get more votes. america's gain is their loss. they chose a poor line of logic to follow with their recents campaigns.

but they're just politicians, nothing new here, they look out for themselves (even lieberman earlier mentioned his party BEFORE mentioning the country as the things he wants to strengthen, shows where his heart truly lies.)

they really arent that different from each other. i can at least give credit to the RNC for using all gains and positives our country has insteads of its negatives. at least they see the brighter side of things. i'll give them that much.

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
....
they chose a poor line of logic to follow with their recents campaigns.

I totally agree with that part. Dean is poison to the Dems. Clinton didn't campaign on Bush 41 "war crimes". He presented ideas that made Bush 41 seem irrelevant post war. IMO

[Edited on 14-12-2003 by RANT]

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by ThePrankMonkey
....
and the DNC needs americas failures to bring bush down. the better the economy gets, the less ground they have to stand on. the more bad guys we get, the less ground they have to stand on. with every new job created they have less ground to stand on. they basically are relying on our failures to boost their popularity and get more votes. america's gain is their loss. they chose a poor line of logic to follow with their recents campaigns.

I totally agree with that. Dean is poison to the Dems. Clinton didn't campaign on Bush 41 "war crimes". He presented ideas that made Bush 41 seem irrelevant post war. IMO

i agree, he seemed very idealistic and people LOVE an idealistic candidate, not fully realizing that promising to have healthcare for everyone in his first 100 days in office was more than unrealistic to say the least.

its what you say people seem to care about, whether you can back it up seems to take a backseat to feel good political moves.

and bush 41 not keeping up with it lost to it, not a surprise. but thats how clinton got reelected even though his popularity was waining, acting idealistic yet wiser for the experiences he had in his first term. perfect combo for a reelection. that and dole really wasnt the right candidate! people felt he was too old to connect to. he seemed too steadfast in his positions and seemed uncompromising.

Honestly, they do. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing right now. The election is too far away to get a shock vote out of people. People get time to think about if this really needed to be done. Instead of the debate of whether it is worth changing the guards now at "this crucial moment in foreign affairs."

I think they might be saving Osama for closer to election time. They will have his head on a stick sometime in September. I have Ranger friends whose had Osama in their scopes. Can't take a shot. They need to take out a certain percentage of the people who run Al Qaeda whenever they take him out. If not, the next guy moves up and a retaliation attack. If they take out enough of the higher-ups, the system collapse due to a sudden disorganization.

Peop0le forget history very quickly. Bush 1 had high approval ratings after the Gulf War and he thought he could coast into winning a secodn term in the 92 election. Then, after the celebrations died down, Americans looked domestically, were disgusted at the high unemployment, and kicked him out.

Just like they're gonna do to his son.

Who care's wether or not Saddam is caught? Where are the real causes for the war: WMD's. The only thing I've heard about those is that the gov found trucks that's only logical purpose would be to make WMD's, but where are the actual weapons? And...Where is Osama? Finding Saddam is one out of a million things that Bush would have to do to ever get my vote.

No that Bush's administration is even closer to finishing their job in Iraq the Dems have no chance. The Iraqi people will support the US troops now that their fear is captured. Hell it even regained my faith in Bush. The Dems have no big push that they need to win it. Its going to be four more years of Bush .

anybody who runs against bush will win if he doesnt cheat again.which is likely.hopefully he'll get caught cheating this time.he just spent 1oo billion dollars to capture an old man who was no threat to the u.s.i really dont see the victory.

Originally posted by Colonel
Peop0le forget history very quickly. Bush 1 had high approval ratings after the Gulf War and he thought he could coast into winning a secodn term in the 92 election. Then, after the celebrations died down, Americans looked domestically, were disgusted at the high unemployment, and kicked him out.

Just like they're gonna do to his son.

HA HA HA HA HA!you have no #ing clue whats going to happen in 04

I haven't been following politics as closely as I should be lately (darn school!). However, I'm not sure that it will really count for all that much. Bush just screwed West Virginia over with the whole steel tariffs thing, and they'll be looking at that, not that he caught Saddam. If he does win another election, I have my citizenship papers and application to McGill in hand.

It would be instructive to hear what Republicans would be saying now if the roles were reversed....I really find it amusing and a bit sad that the Dem action plan for America is to point out all the ills of a Bush administration. No Iraq, no tax cut, no Medicare reform. I fail to see a action plan that the voters will latch onto?

This is all we hear from the 9 dwarfs.

Dean has formulated the most cogent plan calling for withdrawl from Iraq, repealing tax cuts and God knows what other spurious dreams he has conjured on the ski slopes of Vermont....

Gore's premature ejaculation over Dean will fade by the summer as Republican grass root orgs are at this moment rallying for Nov. Resentment will swell amoungst the Dem protaganists now that will challenge Dean's control on the party mantle.

He has some real enemies now-Gore haters and the Clintons...hehe...

If the economy continues at even steady growth, Bush will return for another tour.

Do the Dems have any chance in hell of winning in 04 now that saddam is captured?

Nope...especially if they stick with this Dean anti-war rhetoric...as that ship just left the dock.....

I'll still vote against Bush..but man, I'm really not liking my choices...

Nice avatar Gazrok!

It's said elsewhere by me, often enough, so here again for perspective.

Dems vs Repubs has nothing to do with any 2004 election. Candidate quality is immaterial.

The Bush admin (Bush specifically, and therefore the admin) will be gone before the scheduled date for the Election. What happens with the presidency then may test new ground.

the dems don't have a platform to stand on at all. The economy is getting better, unemployment is going down, the war on terrorism is going great. Its all going to roses for bush and the dems are furious and frustrated! Its so #ing cool

MA. Still holding forth in your campaign to unseat Bush with some fantastic prosecution???

You are still dreaming the days and nights away I see my friend.....

This is my point.

This is all the Dems ( expatriate and otherwise) have. Promises of doom and gloom and " ....bush will go to jail"

Har!! Har!!

Even your hated Blair will get traction from this development, much to your chagrin I realize.