Why was Bush re-elected?

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
I'll break it down for you:

1: Gore was a robotic candidate who had no emotion and was incredibly boring, and ran away from the Clintons. He didn't want their support because of all of their scandals but it was still probably a mistake.

2: Kerry was also a robotic candidate who has a host of other issues for example:

a: He touted his military service constantly.
b: He protested the war he fought in.
c: He ran as an anti-war guy.
d: He showed up to his convention saying he is "reporting for duty" and touting his military record again.
e: Married a real bitch of a wife who just happened to be worth a billion dollars.
f: Generally couldn't figure out whether he was coming or going on just about any issue.


This might come across as a little racist though I don't mean for it to be, I'm just pointing some things out.

There is no way Bush should have won in 2000 but he did because Gore was weak.

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY Bush should have won in 2004, but the Dems nominated a liberal from Massachusetts who married a billion dollars worth of wife and literally could not make a decision on whether or not he supported or opposed anything including his own past.

Now 2008 is here and Republicans fucked up everything, ruined their base, nominated a robotic candidate with little to no emotion, who is despised by many within his own party, and is older than dirt so who do the Dems run........

A black dude, with a crazy wife, a crazier preacher, and little to no experience in anything.


Its like the Dems relish losing. They are the Chicago Cubs of politics.

Racist? Against robots maybe?

Western NY isn't liberal. It's conservative/moderate with liberals being in a minority, but still represented. That's where I am.

In the voting site, people were openly talking about how they hated to vote for Bush, but that the Dems brought in Kerry who was about as palatable as George McGovern to them. They tossed a coin and it came up Bush.

Others said that they hated to vote for Kerry, but they thought Bush was worst. So they tossed the coin and came up Kerry. That's what I did.

Why did Bush win? Hubris on the part of the Dems. They thought just about anyone could beat Bush. I think they were right. Nine candidates out of ten might have done it, but the party machine opted for Kerry because they couldn't lose.

I remember when Edwards and Cheney were scheduled to have a debate. The general sentiment was that Edwards would mop the floor with old Dick. I warned them not to get cocky and never ever underestimate the opposition. Well it didn't go so well for Edwards after all. Likewise, Kerry couldn't lose. Anyone could beat Bush. Well, not Kerry. Instead of Clinton, they picked someone that even the Mass people didn't care for.

Kerry couldn't make a convincing argument why he should be President, other than he wouldn't be Bush.

When push came to shove, it didn't work.

The Reps didn't win. The Dems fell all over themselves to lose.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: QuantumPion

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: quest55720
Because the democrats nominated a ultra liberal. If they nominate any sort of moderate they win 2004. I blame the dems for the 2004 loss I don't like bush but was not going to vote for kerry.

this.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Generally, when a senator ranks 100% liberal by their voting record, beating out every other democrat in congress, he is referred to as an ultra-liberal.

We (conservatives) think that liberalism is horrific, because it is anathema to the intentions of the founding fathers and the purpose of America (i.e. Freedom). I, for one, think it hilarious, yet extremely telling, that liberals hate it when other people call them liberals. It's as if they know what they are doing is wrong, want to do it anyway, but are afraid of being called out on their agenda. How elitist is that?

I imagine you are referring to those stupid congressional rankings done by the National Journal. Here's what fact check.org had to say about it.

As far as the rest of your screed against liberalism... stop being stupid.

 

[kage69]

A big frosty e:beer: to Bowfinger for answering the thread in his usual concise and eloquent manner. Pity as it seems many people are still trying to justify voting for a retarded puppet and backing it all up with baseless speculation and innuendo.

Two examples of exactly what I was talking about. First, there's the absurd belief that Kerry is somehow an "ultra liberal". Left of center? Sure. Ultra liberal? ROFLMAO!

Second, there's the underlying attitude that being "liberal" is somehow horrific, overriding all the known problems with GWB. I'm afraid I can't muster up a laugh at that lunacy. I can only sigh at the levels of base ignorance and partisan brainwashing that's destroying America.

Sweet fuggin christ, that should be worked into some kind of sticky! :thumbsup:





Bush wasn't re-elected in 2004, as he was selected in 2000 by the SC due to all the recount stuff. I'm not entirely convinced he was actually elected in 2004 either, but his opponent conceded and he's in office. How did he get there? He did everything Dick Cheney and Karl Rove told him to do, that's how.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Is that an ignorant viewpoint?

Why did people like him, and continue to like him? What has he done that is actually good? Has he left any sort of positive legacy in any regard? What did he accomplish during his first term that made people think "Hey, we should re-elect this guy!"?

As a Canadian outwardly viewing your situation down there, I fail to comprehend the answer to any of my above questions. I saw right through his invasion of Iraq before it happened (and thankfully so did our PM at the time).

I'm assuming it's die-hard Republicans that I need to hear from here.

The thing is, I view Al Gore as a more formidable opponent than Hilary or Obama. That's the incredible thing. Bush actually beat him. Is there any chance that the elections are rigged down there? Based on the previous results I can't see a Democrat winning anything in the upcoming vote.

1. The War. Incumbent presidents during wartime always win re-election. And he still barely won.

2. Kerry had the charisma of and bore a striking resemblance to Frankenstein. The Reps 527s also ran a hell of an attack campaign against him for his military service and his vocal opposition to Vietnam after he returned and the atrocities our soldiers committed there.

3. The rest of your analysis especially wrt a Democrat winning in Nov is just way off. Al Gore was in no way more formidable than either Hilary or Obama. He's become some sort of GW guru in the last 8 years but back then he was just the incumbent VP. And as VP he was the go-to guy but had zero charisma and no die-hard support from a specific demographic. And he did win the popular vote, and if one examines what really went on in Fl and with the SC decision, he technically won the election too.

So "based on the previous results" has zero to do with the upcoming election which has no incumbent in the race, a weak economy after 8 years of a republican in the WH, over 75% of the country saying we are headed in the "wrong direction", housing foreclosures, record gas prices, still in Iraq after 6 years...this is what we call a "change year" in politics. Throw in the fact that the Republican candidate is a really old Senator denied his party's nomination several times and the soft support for him among the base and you have a very strong likelihood of democratic wins across the board in November. There have been three special elections in the past few months in solidly Republican strongholds and the democrat has won. These are indications of what's going to happen in Nov. Can McCain win? Sure. Are the odds stacked against him? Very much so.

 

[kage69]

I mean 4-5K votes for bush in a town with a population of only 500? How does that work?

A valid question, but one that doesn't necessarily have the shady aspect you might immediately suspect.
In my personal experience, I've noticed that nothing motivates "christians" more than the chance to either influence fed/state/local law with their ideology, or confront opposing points of view. To both of these ends, the bus fleets of combined church organizations are put to use for transportation. Take into account too that voting stations are sometimes few and far in between.


Got a vote coming up over ****enter polarizing issue here****? No problem, everyone meet at the church, we'll get the lords werk done!

What's that? A seminar discussing natural adaptation and evolutionary biology? No problem, everyone meet at the church. We'll load up that auditorium to the gills so no one else can find a place to sit. The devil's science can't do no harm if it falls on christian ears, right?


But don't get me wrong, participating in this democracy is a good thing, I just think the motivation to do so isn't always honorable.

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Is that an ignorant viewpoint?

Why did people like him, and continue to like him? What has he done that is actually good? Has he left any sort of positive legacy in any regard? What did he accomplish during his first term that made people think "Hey, we should re-elect this guy!"?

As a Canadian outwardly viewing your situation down there, I fail to comprehend the answer to any of my above questions. I saw right through his invasion of Iraq before it happened (and thankfully so did our PM at the time).

I'm assuming it's die-hard Republicans that I need to hear from here.

The thing is, I view Al Gore as a more formidable opponent than Hilary or Obama. That's the incredible thing. Bush actually beat him. Is there any chance that the elections are rigged down there? Based on the previous results I can't see a Democrat winning anything in the upcoming vote.

Here is the reason Bush "won" - Both times:
http://www.diebold.com/

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Ask someone from Ohio. Ohio had suffered greatly under the first Bush Administration, having lost a tremendous number of jobs as a result of the nation's international trade policies and they still voted to re-elect him. If I remember correctly, the result of the election was a tie and it was decided by Ohio.

 

[JohnnyGage]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Is that an ignorant viewpoint?

Why did people like him, and continue to like him? What has he done that is actually good? Has he left any sort of positive legacy in any regard? What did he accomplish during his first term that made people think "Hey, we should re-elect this guy!"?

As a Canadian outwardly viewing your situation down there, I fail to comprehend the answer to any of my above questions. I saw right through his invasion of Iraq before it happened (and thankfully so did our PM at the time).

I'm assuming it's die-hard Republicans that I need to hear from here.

The thing is, I view Al Gore as a more formidable opponent than Hilary or Obama. That's the incredible thing. Bush actually beat him. Is there any chance that the elections are rigged down there? Based on the previous results I can't see a Democrat winning anything in the upcoming vote.

Here is the reason Bush "won" - Both times:
http://www.diebold.com/

Funny I thought it was the hanging chad and recount issue in 2000. Added to that was the argument that we needed 'electronic voting' in the 21st century. When the dems lost again in 2004 it must have been a breech in the security of the diebold machines.

Bush won for all the reasons noted throughout the thread. Also he received a bigger percentage of the hispanic vote. That helped.

 

[ChrisFromNJ]

Bush ran for re-election during war-time. War-time incumbents rarely lose.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ChrisFromNJ
Bush ran for re-election during war-time. War-time incumbents rarely lose.

Yes but war time incompetents should lose - especially when they were the one who started said war.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: MadRat
Many catholic bishops ordered their flock to vote for Bush and called a vote for Kerry a sin. Unfortunately it's true.

Tell me you are kidding ...... my sarcasm meter is broken.
If you are serious about that statement you, in my opinion, are a moron.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Skitzer

Originally posted by: MadRat
Many catholic bishops ordered their flock to vote for Bush and called a vote for Kerry a sin. Unfortunately it's true.

Tell me you are kidding ...... my sarcasm meter is broken.
If you are serious about that statement you, in my opinion, are a moron.

I too would like to see the "ordering to vote for Bush" proof.

 

[Vic]

Kerry was a lifeless candidate who ran a poor campaign.

 

[Tab]

Because, Kerry didn't really have anything else going for him besides the fact that Bush sucked, a lot.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Kerry may have lost because he dropped the issue of foreign outsourcing and should have come out as an opponent of mass legal immigration, illegal immigration, and foreign work visas (like the H-1B an L-1). Perhaps then he would have won Ohio.

If I remember correctly, on the Kerry discussion forums there was a very lively forum about foreign outsourcing and at some point the forum was deleted and anyone who wanted to discuss it had to do it in some other forum, perhaps a general economy forum.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

This.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Because too many Americans are frankly not very bright, and are easily manipulated thanks to years of vegetating in front of the idiot box.

This.

All nations have the idiot box, yet only yours managed to pull off such a political coup d'état.

I did get a good laugh out of that post but I highly doubt it's true or that Bowfinger was serious.

 

[spacejamz]

Originally posted by: glugglug

Originally posted by: SickBeast
Here is the reason Bush "won" - Both times:
http://www.diebold.com/

for being such a bumbling moron, how is he able to keep a lid on a conspiracy of this magnitude for nearly 4 years??? why hasn't any reputable news outlet confirmed these allegations? i am sure there are reporters who would give anything to backup this story with facts...

as far as I remember, the only stories confirming rigged machines are just blogs...were there other links??

i would like to hear an explanation of how someone who supposedly cannot even tie their own shoes can pull something like this off...

 

[Vic]

I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jonks
3. The rest of your analysis especially wrt a Democrat winning in Nov is just way off. Al Gore was in no way more formidable than either Hilary or Obama. He's become some sort of GW guru in the last 8 years but back then he was just the incumbent VP. And as VP he was the go-to guy but had zero charisma and no die-hard support from a specific demographic. And he did win the popular vote, and if one examines what really went on in Fl and with the SC decision, he technically won the election too.

To be blunt, Al Gore is a very intelligent, well spoken white man and Bush beat him. I really can't see the electorate as a whole voting in either a black or a woman, regardless of the relative prowess of their candidacy. If it does happen, I will be shocked as to the progress the US has made since the 50's.

McSame looks to be a political equal compared to Bush. Obama may be a better candidate than Gore or Kerry, but he's less electable barring a miracle in race relations.

So "based on the previous results" has zero to do with the upcoming election which has no incumbent in the race, a weak economy after 8 years of a republican in the WH, over 75% of the country saying we are headed in the "wrong direction", housing foreclosures, record gas prices, still in Iraq after 6 years...this is what we call a "change year" in politics. Throw in the fact that the Republican candidate is a really old Senator denied his party's nomination several times and the soft support for him among the base and you have a very strong likelihood of democratic wins across the board in November. There have been three special elections in the past few months in solidly Republican strongholds and the democrat has won. These are indications of what's going to happen in Nov. Can McCain win? Sure. Are the odds stacked against him? Very much so.

After Bush's win in 2004 I refuse to believe that the Democrats have even a fair chance of winning this election. The people voting Republican are obviously stubborn and vote based on ideology rather than who the candidate is. A couple of Republicans even came in here and stated as much. They are conservatives and vote for the more conservative candidate.

The Republicans seem to have obtained a sort of "critical mass" among the American electorate.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic
I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

I don't remember that part?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: jonks
3. The rest of your analysis especially wrt a Democrat winning in Nov is just way off. Al Gore was in no way more formidable than either Hilary or Obama. He's become some sort of GW guru in the last 8 years but back then he was just the incumbent VP. And as VP he was the go-to guy but had zero charisma and no die-hard support from a specific demographic. And he did win the popular vote, and if one examines what really went on in Fl and with the SC decision, he technically won the election too.

To be blunt, Al Gore is a very intelligent, well spoken white man and Bush beat him. I really can't see the electorate as a whole voting in either a black or a woman, regardless of the relative prowess of their candidacy. If it does happen, I will be shocked as to the progress the US has made since the 50's.

McSame looks to be a political equal compared to Bush. Obama may be a better candidate than Gore or Kerry, but he's less electable barring a miracle in race relations.

So "based on the previous results" has zero to do with the upcoming election which has no incumbent in the race, a weak economy after 8 years of a republican in the WH, over 75% of the country saying we are headed in the "wrong direction", housing foreclosures, record gas prices, still in Iraq after 6 years...this is what we call a "change year" in politics. Throw in the fact that the Republican candidate is a really old Senator denied his party's nomination several times and the soft support for him among the base and you have a very strong likelihood of democratic wins across the board in November. There have been three special elections in the past few months in solidly Republican strongholds and the democrat has won. These are indications of what's going to happen in Nov. Can McCain win? Sure. Are the odds stacked against him? Very much so.

After Bush's win in 2004 I refuse to believe that the Democrats have even a fair chance of winning this election. The people voting Republican are obviously stubborn and vote based on ideology rather than who the candidate is. A couple of Republicans even came in here and stated as much. They are conservatives and vote for the more conservative candidate.

The Republicans seem to have obtained a sort of "critical mass" among the American electorate.

You look at all the valid reasons I posted why Bush won, and then all the reasons why it's likely a democrat will win in Nov and all you can say is "After Bush v Kerry [when Bush was the incumbent war president!] I can't see how a dem can win". Care to explain how Clinton or Carter won?

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: spacejamz

Originally posted by: glugglug
Here is the reason Bush "won" - Both times:
http://www.diebold.com/

for being such a bumbling moron, how is he able to keep a lid on a conspiracy of this magnitude for nearly 4 years??? why hasn't any reputable news outlet confirmed these allegations? i am sure there are reporters who would give anything to backup this story with facts...

as far as I remember, the only stories confirming rigged machines are just blogs...were there other links??

i would like to hear an explanation of how someone who supposedly cannot even tie their own shoes can pull something like this off...

[/quote]
Did they actually use those Diebold machines during the vote? I always thought that votes were counted by hand. Whenever I vote here in Canada it's using a pencil and a piece of paper.

Do those machines basically count the votes? Why not simply count them by hand? I suppose having a fair vote in a democracy is nearly impossible.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: jonks
Care to explain how Clinton or Carter won?

I'm not informed enough to even fathom a guess. I can try for Clinton. He's oozing with charisma unlike any other modern president, perhaps even more so than Kennedy.

The thing is, that was then. Today the Republicans seem to have so firmly entrenched themselves that they cannot be dislodged.

Time will tell. This is my opinion and it's not going to change until the vote is over. If the Democrats win by a landslide, my opinion will change.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Vic
I think the real issue here is how Kerry ran such an inept campaign and yet almost won.

But meh, the Republican spin machine was in overdrive. My favorite part of the campaign was the debate when Kerry came out against gay marriage, Bush said he was okay with it, and everyone voted the exact opposite. You can't make up stupid like that.

I don't remember that part?

It happened. Maybe there's a youtube of it somewhere. Kerry was apparently under pressure from Catholics on the gay marriage issue, and was pressed to give his position, which he did in saying that he though marriage should remain a one man-one woman thing. Bush had the rebuttal, and he came back with that coy lazy cowboy style that it wasn't an issue to him, and that he was okay with it.
There's a reason why Multnomah county, OR kicked Diane Linn the fuck out of office in 2006 for setting this whole thing up. Her and that SF mayor. Damnit, don't push your controversial agendas in a Presidential election year. It just makes it easier for the Republicans to take advantage of the gullible Religious Right that much more.
And on that note, what has Bush done for his most loyal supporters these past 8 years? Did the Moses of his people get Roe v. Wade overturned? Nope. Is gay marriage illegal across the country? No again.
There are marks and then there are suckers.