Who do you think is going to win? (Educated Guesses)

We just had a heated debate in my History class about the up-coming election. I want to know what you guys think about the election, while doing that consider these questions.

1. What are strengths and weakness of each candidate?

2. What stratergy will the two sides use to win the election?

3. Who is going to win and why?

My answers were

1. Bush - Already President, did some good things such as War on Terrorism, catch Saddam, set plan for new space program, succesfully land two rovers (not as important) etc.

Weak - War on Terrorism, waste money and resources on name of terrorism, let 9/11 happen, haven't caught (so they say) OBL, found not WMD yet, economy in ruins. Many of U.S. allies find little cause to support Bush because of the false information he had give for Iraq.

Kerry - Fresh candidate, Vietnam war vet, at the same time anti-war.

Weak - Takes strong stands on issues, but those stands don't last every long. Voted for Bush programs, but against them now.

2. Bush - Use Terrorism as the major campaigning tool, escepially catching Saddam, undermining future terrorist attacks in U.S. soil.

Kerry - Pick on Bush's failure to stop 9/11, not capturing Bin Laden, not findind WMD, and letting the economy be in ruins.

3. Bush because he has stopped terrorists from attacking in U.S. soil again, captured Saddam etc.

What do you think?

[Edited on 3/20/2004 by surfup]

Bumping.

No one interested in politics?

Bush is going to win because most of the country believes him, the same ones that depend on mainstream media to inform them. I hope Kerry wins, but only because he is the lesser of two evils.

You want educated? Out of a few piles of crap, you choose the one that smells the least aweful, but sometimes the stinkiest one wins because the smell is so bad, no one can get close enough to see the undigested corn.

Bush has everyone fooled into believing we are more secure, when in fact it is temporary due to us now having many times more enemies than before.

Kerry will definately help our dept to other countries, which is good, and will win back some of the friendships that we have lost, but he seems to change his mind often. Although, a fence jumping leader may mean he goes by what the people are saying.

It doesn't really matter who gets it now because the country is too broken to fix now.

Bush is going to win because it's better to vote for the devil you know than to vote for the devil you don't know.

Plus, America is no longer a democracy and Clinton was the last elected President ever. Bush will be president for a very long time and it's my belief in his second term he will install Martial Law and get rid of the two term law and become president forever.

Bush is going to win because most of the country believes him, the same ones that depend on mainstream media to inform them. I hope Kerry wins, but only because he is the lesser of two evils.

I don't know if he is the lesser of two evils. Kerry voted for many controversial Republican sponsored bills, and now he seems to oppose them.

well even though I don't want it to happen, I do believe that Bush will be re-elected. Kerry is too much like Bush and voting for another party will not help in the changing the administration, because too many are blinded by Bush.

I heard someone explain Kerry's voting record the other day and it made sense to me. I will try to re-hash the concept.

Basically sometimes Kerry might vote for a bill that he knew would never pass, and in fact he would not have wanted it to pass.

The reason he would do this is because a senator sponsoring or supporting the bill would be someone he needed support from on another bill. Since he knew the "suspect" bill had no chance of passing but it would gain him that support, he voted in favor/or against.

Okay lot's of double talk but I was considering how many times in business I took this stance as well. It is part of building alliances and as long as the risk are not too high (like you become the swing vote on the issue) I am not sure there is anything wrong with it.

Also if someone is scrutinizing your record these items look worse than they are. They were also quick to mention this is a common and accepted practice within both the Senate and the House.

Now is this true? I guess each of us will have to decide that for ourselves.

[Edited on 3/21/2004 by nativeokie]

They are both Skull and Bones, we are not voting on democratically appointed candidates, otherwise the Media wouldn't have destroyed Dean when he wanted to break them up. Does noone else see that we have an election of 2 candidates from the same 5 year period at Yale, that were both Skull and Bones members, which only has 1000 living members, 400 of which are in politics? Is that not coincidental/?

I'm from Texas and wouldn't vote for Bush if
they paid me. It comes down to the economy.
None of the other stuff matters.

Just as it did in his father's term...it's the economy.

Kerry will win if the whole election boils down to
peoples vote.

If Florida throws us back into bedlam and the Supreme
Court....then it's Bush. I hate to think of 4 more years of this.

Bush because he has not had another attack on US soil, He got Saddam, the economy is getting better, Kerry is a B****.

Bush will win if for no other reason then kerry is so unlikable. He is a slime ball who tells people what they want to hear, and this will come out. Also, as a personall grievence, Kerry is a freakin' gold digger!!!!

Originally posted by slugfast
They are both Skull and Bones, we are not voting on democratically appointed candidates, otherwise the Media wouldn't have destroyed Dean when he wanted to break them up. Does noone else see that we have an election of 2 candidates from the same 5 year period at Yale, that were both Skull and Bones members, which only has 1000 living members, 400 of which are in politics? Is that not coincidental/?

____________________________

slugfast

Look at this Skull and Bones thing in a different way:

Most of our military leaders are graduates of West Point, Annapolis, AFA, etc. Is this conspiracy? No, it just happens to be that those institutes breed military leaders. The same thing can be said of Yale, as far as training and grooming political leaders.

So, is it coincidental? No, I would say that it was a statistical likeliness for it to be this way.

The media did not destroy Howard Dean. In fact, the media had practically anointed Dean as the official candidate of the democratic party. Who destroyed Dean? The democrats themselves, especially Richard Gephardt. Ask yourself: why did Gephardt, who had such strong support from labor, drop out so early? Gephardt committed a political murder-suicide; he "murdered" Dean through the ads he (with help from Kerry, BTW) paid for in Iowa portraying Dean as a wacko. Gephardt did this at his own political expense in return for a sweet position in a Kerry administration.


surfup

Your initial post on the plus and minus of the candidates is pretty good, except for the part about Bush "let 9/11 happen". Please tell me that this is not what is being taught in our colleges these days...

john