Who will win?

I don't see Bush winning the election Kerry wins Florida. It seems that Republicans have decided that they must stop many Democrats from voting in order to win Florida.

Watch for three hour long lines to Vote in Jacksonville. A replaceable worker can not be two hours late for work because they wanted to vote.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think the media is responsible for the majority of public opinion.

Because there are tax cuts, the powerful like George W. a lot, so they change their policy to pro-bush and diss-Kerry, thereby the average unthinking Joe thinks George Bush is Lord TM.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

my advice is just get drunk and pass out until january... 2009

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm more afraid of Ohio then Florida, Pen. is basically in Kerry's column imo.

 

It seems that way looking at sciforums.
If sciforums was responsible for the decision kerry would piss it in.
Sciforums isn't an accurate microcosm of america though.
Sciforums is to kerry what a stadium packed with evangelists is to bush.

 

It's worth pointing out that you're wrong. Nobody has to sign a loyalty oath to Kerry in order to attend Sciforums, and nobody is being arrested for supporting Bush.

The devil's in the detail.

Dionne Jr., E. J. "The Intensity Gap". Washington Post, October 26, 2004; page A25. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62794-2004Oct25.html

Campbell, Lynn. "Campaign event security spurs arrests, removals". Des Moines Register, October 16, 2004. See http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2004410160329
​

 

No, but obviously the percentage of sciforum citizens who are liberals is far greater than the percentage of american citizens who are liberals.
Sciforums attracts a certain type of person and not the diverse variation of types one will find in a country. Just like a disproportionately large percentage of male fashion designers are effeminate.
For example, I don't think there is one evangelist in the thousands of posters here, obviously more than 0% of americans are evangelists.

 

I think Bush will win, unfortunately.

 

You do realize that Kerry is a concession for most of Sciforums' leftists?

We don't have that starry-eyed devotion to our candidate that sycophantic evangelical Republicans do. We aren't naîve enough to think our candidate is all that. We aren't willing to elect our man at all costs, including our integrity.

Kerry, coming into Sciforums, would get ripped by our leftists. That is, so long as the conservative simpletons just sat back and enjoyed the show and didn't make a point out of mucking up the discussion with hyperbole and lies.

I mean, think about it:

• Mr. Kerry, why do you not oppose the war?
• Mr. Kerry, why do you and your vice-president--both lawyers--not make a stand on behalf of the Fourteenth Amendment?
• Mr. Kerry, why have the Democrats conceded to the cutthroats on fundamental economic issues?
• Mr. Kerry, how long do you expect the economy to bear the burdens of our unaccounted obligations exceeding fifty-trillion dollars?​

And it goes on, and on, and on ....

 

Oh I know you guys are settling for kerry, I'm just saying as unlikely as bush winning might seem to some people who have been inundated with sciforums opinion, it's not out of the question.
I remember thinking there is no way bush would beat gore, everything I saw about the topic was joking about how dumb george bush was and I envisioned an america laughing at bush in unison.
Then he just won anyway. Even though it seemed like everyone knew he was a moron. My sources were comedy shows like conan o'brien, the whole crowd would laugh at the bush jokes, no one would boo, so I just assumed it was unanimous.
But conan is (or certainly was) only really popular with liberals so i wasn't getting an accurate reading of public opinion.

 

(Insert Title Here)

One of the curious things about this election is the number of Democrats and Democratic supporters who expect their candidate to lose.

Although I believe I do see the problem you're describing. Maybe we ought to take a poll of how many people use Sciforums for their news.

Note on Edit: Conan will have better appeal among conservatives in the 2012 election; he will be older, wiser, and three seasons at the helm of the Tonight show.

 

Like me, fairly confident Bush will win, despite the fact I’m voting for Kerry

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I can only fathom of two reasons why anybody would vote for Bush: you're either very rich or very religious.

 

Please, have some respect for your opponents. Bush is way too liberal on domestic issues (mainly, spending) for my liking. It's just that he's running against the most liberal member of the Senate. Also, he is a more likeable person.

By that criteria, Kerry should vote for Bush. He's spent a lot of time at church lately, and as far as rich goes......

Anyway, got to hit the sack so I can get up bright and early to cast my vote for BUSH!

 

Ugh!

. . .

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. . . Fine.

 

Well, the first quote you noted applies specifically to the analogy made by Dr. Lou to a roomful of evangelicals.

And I do think they're starry-eyed. Grumblings about being slighted at the convention are by the wayside. The evils of war are a price worth paying. Bush is the man on abortion, the Pledge, and gay-bashing.

As to the second, I suppose I could split the hair of why you include yourself with the GOP simpletons, but let's just stop and think about this for a moment: Is it insulting? I find insulting the GOP's contempt for the voter, their willingness to escalate political hostility and to lower the bar for integrity in pursuit of power. Part of that contempt is manifest in the party line. Now, in theory, being able to line up the rank-and-file like that should be a plus. However, the whole of society loses when such a stunted thought process wins the day. The conservative agenda relies on a troika of fear, greed, and superstition. Jingoistic slogans, escalated political vice, and a new standard in lies represent a simple platform:

• There's nothing wrong
• (Even if there is, Bush isn't to blame)
• Osama is bad
• That's why we need to win Iraq
• John Kerry is Evil
• John Kerry will let the terrorists murder your children
• That's why we need to win in Iraq
• John Kerry is Bad
• There's nothing wrong
• (Even if there is, don't blame Bush)
• John Kerry thinks too much
• Always stick to your principles, even if your principles are wrong
• (But this is George Bush so his principles are right)​

It really is simplistic. And it's set a tone. While the pundits have noticed that Bush has been "on message", so, do they now recognize, has Kerry. As was pointed out of the first debate, and to paraphrase, "This may be the first time being on message has hurt a candidate".

The reasons Bush has seemed so "on message", and Kerry has eluded the press until recently requires some attention throughout the campaign, but is relatively simple in itself: As I've said many times, and as Bill Clinton noted on The Daily Show, liberalism requires more thought than conservatism: the press has finally figured out that Kerry's message is broader than Bush's, and thus can't be recycled several times in ninety minutes.

The GOP, in my opinion, has long come down on the narrow side of issues; this is a necessary symptom of their strategy.

History becomes unimportant; many conservatives I've encountered during the post-9/11 phase seem incapable of understanding the idea of an historical cycle or process. Irony abounds, and actually bookends the most immediate prologue to the Iraqi Bush Adventure. From Schwarzkopf to Schwarzkopf. Trying to explain to conservatives that the policies and principles we claim to be defending are actually what got us into this mess is a bit difficult. In fact, it requires absurd analogy. I'm sure, for instance, that it's probably possible to "shit a brick", but I, for one, ain't going to try. Sometimes people wonder what's up when liberals shit bricks. Well, it's easier than getting conservatives to see the obvious, and a generally more satisfying than persuading conservatives to stop being demeaning of what they're incapable of seeing.

Seriously: start with Mossadegh and try to explain to a conservative how our meddling for petroleum brought us this cycle of violence and duplicity. Hell, there's even a slightly-less-than-apocryphal quote from the aftermath of World War II in which the Americans and British reached an agreement between themselves: The Saud to the US, Iraq to Britain, and they'll work together on Iran. (All to stop the commies, to boot ....)

By the time you get to Khomeni, you've lost them. It becomes especially difficult to explain to them how Iraq ties into the situation.

And all of it symptomatic of the Cold War.

This way of doing things is running out of gas. The problem with Kerry is that he's still a continuation of the American imperium of old. That continuation, however, gives our American society better breathing room than becoming paranoid, belligerent, and ready to invade for no real reason. It's still a better option for the country and the world than the Bush Doctrine.

To the conservative platform, these things don't matter because they're too complex. All that matters is the bank balance, perpetuating violence, and the moral authority to oppress one's neighbors.

What? Tax cuts, war doctrine, gay-bashing. Or we could try another slant: Cronyism, abuse of the Second Amendment, the Pledge of Allegiance. Either way, greed, fear, superstition.

So perhaps the word "simpleton" might seem offensive. But there's not enough dope in the world right now to kill enough brain cells to make the conservative way seem anything other than brutish, exploitative, and spiteful. So, frankly, I feel I'm being rather quite nice about it in merely addressing the simplifications required, the lowering of the intellectual bar demanded, in order to accommodate conservatism.

Right, but Kerry is smarter than that, which is a good thing.

Besides, our friend Tano may have missed one reason: Irrational fear.

 

My Prediction:
I predict Kerry will be the winner by much more than other people are predicting.
I think he will take the Electoral votes by 10 - 20 points at least.

There is a HUGE amount of newly registered Democratic voters.
Although there are more Democrats in the country, Republicans traditionally are reliable voters. Democrats are generally less likely to vote.
The one positive result of Bush's presidency was that he pissed off so many people that do not vote, they have decided to put aside their objections to voting. They have decided that maybe they ARE disenfranchised, and maybe their vote will NOT count, but it is worth the effort - JUST IN CASE.

So the Republicans can't get more people to the polss, because there simply aren't enough of them.
The more people who vote, the more likely Kerry will win.
Both sides know that.
Republicans only hoipe is to keep people out of the polls, or make their votes not count.
Doesn't look like that is going to happen this time around.
People are going to make their voices heard.
There are also a lot of Nader voters that gave Bush New Hampshire, for example, to Bush last time around, and realize that not only was Nader wrong about there being no difference between the parties, but getting Bush out is more important than making a point by sticking their tongues out at the machine.
(Not to mention the plethora of Republicans that are voting for Kerry this time around)

The completely unreliable polls have been putting them a a dead heat, and that also will get people out to try and tip the scales.

I think Kerry will win by a fairly wide marguin, and Bush's Administration, of course, will try to protest and take it to the courts, but it will be so obviously hopeless he will not even garner the support of his party.
Democrats AND Republicans are going to turn their backs and finally wash their hands of him.

That's what I think will happen.

Or maybe it's all just wishful thinking.

We'll see.

 

The modern republican party is a parity of itself, it now immulates all the things that democrats used to stand for. Internationalist American ethics, and big spending. The GOP of today resembles nothing of the GOP of yesterday, I don't understand personally how "paleo-conservatives" can still support the neo-con Bush, neo-con is really a bunch of American liberals (predominently Zionist), who mascarade around as conservatives. The modern GOP is a mix of the worst of both liberalism, and conservativism. Deficit spending, Jingoism, anti-intellectual collective nationalism, scapegoating, villianization, dumbing down the political process (as Tiassa showed in his post), and by making America in the long run fundamentally so weak that she can only hope she will have an economy. If you so called "conservatives" want to see what your "conservative" president did to your country look at this:

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42069

Why do we expect 4 more years of Bush will be any different? About Kerry, I would vote for a republican should he be liberal on social, and international issues, and conservative on fiscal issues...sounds like Kerry don't it? If anything liberals have a great reason to be angry at the DNC, and Kerry. They sold out the priniciples of the party to counter the weight of the elephant. Kerry should he be elected will imo have to stop the rightward shift of America, and then moderate it back to the middle or even a little left (should he have 2 terms). If Bush is re-elected I fear that America will make that irreversable trip to the proto-fascist right. So to all you schzoid Bush voters, why vote for a man who doesn't embody the ethics of your party? I find it sad that ppl like Mad vote for Bush not based on policy but because beside Bush's name is a (R).

 

Wow, I didn't actually believe this.
This time might have been even more shocking than the first time.
I mean I love it, but I also love car crashes and torture chambers.
I have to wonder how many who voted for bush voted for that reason, not many I would think. More importantly one has to wonder what goes on inside the heads of those who voted bush for any other reason.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I want to laugh but it feels like that would be cruel.

You know what I think happened, all this "vote or die" and kerry the war hero documentaries scared the millions of bush backers hidden away in the ozarks(and wherever), who previously wouldn't have bothered voting, into thinking kerry might actually win.
Everyone that seriously cared about getting bush out of office would have been voting anyway, P. Diddy and co just alerted the dorment bush supporters.
Well done, haha.
*eagerly rubbing hands in anticipation of carnage*

 

It's a sad day for America if Bush wins....and it looks like it's going to be a sad day for America. Bush if he wins, will have to be held accountable for his stupidy when Iraq really turns into 'shit' and it will!

Atta Boy