Who will the next US President be?

Funny thing is, the economy seems to be bouncing back fine - it's the stock market that's suffering.

I know what you're saying - I was just referring to voter perception. People who've lost most of their 401K's and only have 5-10 years before retirement to make it back don't care how the economy is doing outside their own problems, you know? And they will refer to it as "the economy", not distinguishing stock markets from GDP's and property values, and all those other things that aren't especially helping them right now.

Also... and no one flame me, please... but if I were a Demo strategist, I'd have my candidate bring up that Bush recommended stock investments in lieu of Social Security knowing how Big Business manipulates the market, because he'd done it himself! Mind you, *I* am not asserting that as a truth because I don't think all the facts are in. But it spins very nicely in the realm of effective political mud-slinging, and that is (like it or not) what counts when people go into their little voting booths.

And yeah, if people's ecnomic fortunes take a turn for the better between now and 2004, Bush has a much better chance. But no amount of spin, and no amount of other accomplishment will help him if people have bad or no jobs, little or no money, etc. People will consider their own problems, not the big picture.

 

VERY good point. One which I'd stupidly forgotten about .

The only other trump card would be the 'crisis'... which Bush could play if he goes to war with Iraq at that point. But that's not going to happen as he will lose public support if he doesn't strike much sooner then that. So he'll have to rely on executing the war perfectly AND keeping the economy up at the same time.

This could be a very interesting election ... almost as good as the first round .

 

Will Hillary Clinton ever run for President?

Is there a way you can keep that lunatic out of politics? Of course she'll run. She'll lose miserably because even her own political party hates her. The frontrunner will be Gore vs. Bush the next election.

Other prominents: Tom Daschle, Lieberman, (By then former Michigan governor) Engler I hope will make a run, though AFTER Bush is out of office.

 

Republican Chances:

First of all, none of the people in Bush's Cabinet will run against him and Bush himself will definitely run next election.

Possible contenders could be J.C. Watts, John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and a few others in public office that have the possibility of beating Bush if he pisses them off enough.


Democratic Chances:

First off, eliminate Al Gore. The biggest argument he had over Bush was that Bush was not up to the job. If we look at Bush's approval rating, even giving him war popularity, I think we can still draw the conclusion that most people think he can do the job.

Lieberman won't run again. Just a feeling. Clinton won't try until 2008, in my opinion. I think it will be Daschle. He seems to have the majority of Democrats behind him.


In the end, I think Bush will win.

Future elections possible contenders: H. Clinton, Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, Cheney, Hagel, McCain, Daschle, Watts, Guiliai (?), Rumsfeld and Powell (? if America becomes more foreign oriented).

 

Bush's approval ratings could be in anywhere by 2004. That will make a big effect, and it's not predicatble, as we don't know what he'll do, or what will happen for him to cope with.

One Democrat I think no one has mentioned is Gray Davis. California has put a governor in the White House before, and we can do it again. Remember, CA invented the whole PR aspect of politicking (Reagan was the first to really put it to use), and we're the 4th, 5th or 6th largest economy in the world (yawn) depending who you listen to. Plus, we have built-in mouthpieces in the form of Hollywood, where Bush has virtually no support, even for 9/11.

And CA's political machine may have a grudge this time....

Remember the energy crisis in CA? The perception among most Californians was that Bush told them basically, "You didn't vote for me, so bite me." Davis attacked him then, and he's biding his time now, keeping a fairly low profile as investigations unfold and 9/11-generated pro-Bush sentiment dies down - but Enron was the main force behind the whole farcical energy crisis, which cost Californians a ton (making a nice profit for TX and Bush's good buddy Ken Lay at Enron).

If Al Gore doesn't run, the candidate who does will be Davis. I think the rest of the nation isn't hearing so much of what CA local news is reporting about the energy crisis, state reps and Senators demanding more investigation and so on. In fact, we're only hearing about it now and then, as a significant development comes along - it's like they don't want to tick off those who like Bush, but they are emphasizing the things they will later turn around and attack him with. It just feels like a big setup to me, to put Davis into the White House.

Whether Davis can beat Bush or not depends on what happens between now and then. If the stocks rebound hugely, Bush may be hailed a god. If not, the popularity he enjoyed after 9/11 will wane and be quite mediocre by November 2004. If there's another attack, and he handles it well or badly, he'll soar or plummet accordingly.

The one thing I WILL speculate will NOT hurt him is scandal - that tactic hasn't worked on presidents since 1973. Reagan probably legally could have been charged with something for Iran Contra, but the voters didn't want that. And no one minded his rather noticeable senility during the last couple of years (no fault of his own, of course), which could have caused an international scandal, as he really wasn't mentally fit to be running the free world. Clinton's approval ratings right in the midst of all his lies coming out was in the 70's, after slipping from the low 80's. Scandal hasn't hurt anyone who's already IN office since Nixon and Agnew - it only hurts candidates.

EDIT - When I say, "CA" in here, I generally mean the political machine of the state. Bush has some fans, particularly among agriculturalists out here, so I don't mean to imply that all Californians dislike him or anything.

 

I think that there won't be a Democrat in the office next election, or the one after. Though it's hard to see that far down the line.

My reasons? The GOP has some up-and-coming guys, the Democrats are bickering with each other and don't have a clear fore-runner. This has hurt them before. Also the fact that none are extremely popular, except for Al Gore (I have no idea why, though ), and MAYBE Daschle. But Daschle has made people angry before, and he's a little too...well, in my terms "wacky" for most people.

However, I will give Daschle credit that of late he's been pretty level headed.

Bush in 2004 and Engler in 2008 (I hope, not even sure if he'll run).

I'd love to see Powell in office, but he already has run once (if I recall correctly), then decided he didn't want to be President.

Though if a black or a woman get in, I do hope they're not the leftist extremists. They seem to do the worst to things.

 

Glad we Texans could be of service. Also realize that the prominent liberal Californians pushed for extreme use of alternative energy sources, namely wind and solar power. Of course, these drove out all chances of other sources having a business there. Well, what happens when you realize that your alternative energy sources just can't work yet, because of the technology, and you have no tried-and-true sources? You're forced to buy from someone who does. The only real source of power in the Southwestern States is the Hoover Dam. So, of course, the best supplier after that is Texas, because of its size, location, and extremely effective ability to produce power. Well, obviously, not all Texans are as humble and righteous as the cowboys of old, and, well, you see what happens when you give one of them (Lay) the opportunity to get pervertedly rich. It's not Bush's fault that California destroyed their ability to make power. Look to your mouthpiece in Hollywood.

 

Uuta-Shetai, I don't know where you heard that explanation, as it sounds like none of the stories I've heard, but this is not the forum to debate the event itself. Again, we are discussing political perceptions, because it's perception that determines how people vote.

The perceptions I've outlined are the ones the Californian political machine is pushing. Even if you were right, truth and fact have no place in an election, as the voters have shown time and again.

 

"I know what you're saying - I was just referring to voter perception. "

I know, I was just making an observation. I agree that most voters won't make the distinction.

 

Ah, so we understand each other, comrade.... er, I mean, I hear ya, Bubba.

 

Why is Jeb Bush having trouble in Florida?

 

I know I said this wasn't the forum for a debate, but I'll just post one rebuttal and leave it at that, because this is very erroneous.

Also realize that the prominent liberal Californians pushed for extreme use of alternative energy sources, namely wind and solar power.

This never happened. CA is as woefully slow to study or adopt alternative fuel sources as most other states - there's no special push for alternatives here. What actually happened was that a mostly Republican state assembly under Republican governor Pete Wilson wrote a very bad utility deregulated bill (in 1997, I think) that went into effect at the end of their terms. De-regulation is a good idea, generally, but not the way they did it.

By the time the law took effect, we had Democrat Gray Davis as governor, and a nearly all-freshman, all-Democrat assembly (as de-regulation wasn't the only thing the Republicans did to irritate voters), and the voters expected them to fix the problem. The new assembly didn't know what it was doing, but I'm not sure there was anything they could have done.

Of course, these drove out all chances of other sources having a business there.

No, because this never happened. After the crisis began, there was some talk about "See, this is why we need alternative fuel!" This is all I can think of that you could be referring to. But this was a result - side-effect, really - not a cause, as you indicated.

And by the way, the technology IS possible, and since this happened (not before), many CA counties started offering to buy excess power from people who own solar panels on their homes and generate more electricity than they need. It now costs between $2-5000 to get these put on your home, and your power bill basically goes away. But again, there was no real push for this until 2000, by which time the the whole crisis had begun.

But back to what really happened. As soon as the badly-written deregulation made it possible, Enron and a couple of other corps bought nearly all the power plants in CA, then immediately shut them tons of them down "indefinitely, for repairs", and sold much of the power from the rest as "excess energy" to their other subsidiary corps in Wyoming and other neighboring states. So there never really was a lack of energy production in CA, except for what Enron & Friends manipulated into happening.

Then you can imagine the next step: Enron-related corps in Wyoming and the other states sold their CA-bought power BACK to CA at exhorbitant rates.

Then as the internal CA power companies began to collapse, some were bought by Enron and others pulling the same scam - and in the case of PG&E, they artificially inflated their stock prices, made $5 billion for the stockholders, then went bankrupt. Sound familiar?

As further proof that this is what happened: other parts of CA that had their own municipal power sources had a lot less trouble - what blackouts and rate increases they did suffer were due to sharing some of their power with neighboring areas in a state of total catastrophe. By maintaining municipal facilities, these guys essentially bypassed the bad deregulation law and the exploitation by Enron & Friends that it allowed. So this gives a good example of exactly what happened, and why.

So who's to blame?

1) A nearly all-Republican California state assembly that can't write a good deregulation law.
2) Greedy companies like Enron who took advantage of a technicality in that law.

California is normally about 50/50 Democrat and Republican (don't forget, we are entirely responsible for the political career of Reagan, who is even loved by some people who generally hate the Republican party). SF is more liberal, LA is 50/50, and the agricultural areas are more Republican or conservative. So it normally balances out.

But as you can see by CA's dumping so many of its Republicans - Wilson and much of the state assembly - a couple of years ago, we're trending Democrat right now.

Anyway,

 

2004-George Bush will probably win again.
2008- Colin Powell becomes the 1st black
president.

 

I would be perfectly happy to serve under President Bush again. He has been a great leader to those of us in the military, much better than Clinton ever was. I know I and many others in the military will be voting for him.

 

I think that Hillary will not run. She knows she hasn't a chance.

I'd say Dick Gephart, Tom Daschle, and Gray Davis are candidates for the Democrats.

Bush will run without much opposition.

I'd say that unless something happens(Like he breaks a promise) that he will probably win reelection.

In 2008, I would say that Hillary will run for president 2 years into her second term as Senator. She'll be up against Daschle early on.

I can't say whom would win.

 

Well, I'll just say Bush will most likely be our next President. And please, call him Bush, Mr. Bush, or George W. Bush. Calling him Dubya is very disrepectful.

 

I say call him what you want. It's just as much a term of endearment as an insult...just like Yankee.

'Sides, I can't complain when I constantly referred to Clinton as Slick Willy, Billary, and countless others.

 

At this point I'm hoping Vaderize-03 and SidiousDragon take it in 2004.

All the best,
JediLeiaSolo

 

"Dubya" and "Slick Willy" are a little different. There is no implied insult in "Dubya" (it's his middle initial, and I thought a term of endearment the TX press used to distinguish him from his father), but there is an implied insult in "Slick Willy".

I have always noticed conservatives hurl insult-implying names around a lot more than liberals. I'm not even aware of any snitty little nicknames for Bush, his father or Reagan - do any of you recall any? Clinton and Hillary, OTOH, have tons of nasty nicknames. And conservatives have all these nasty names for liberals, like "bleeding heart". I don't know of any nasty nicknames for conservatives.

 

"Dumbass"? ?

 

I don't think that's specific to conservatives. I've certainly never heard it that way, at least.

I use that word as an adjective, not a noun most of the time, anyway. "That dumbass cell phone driver..." for example.

See, I don't think of people in big categorized groups. I don't think of everyone who disagrees with me on the boards as "conservative" or anything else. Most of those who consider themselves conservative don't agree with each other half the time, and that's as it should be - everyone thinking for him or herself.

 

Ahhhhh...

 

Ooooooohhhhhh.......

 

I would say that most liberals feel that the term 'conservative' in and of itself as an insult. I've heard Conservatives called 'backward', 'imbecilic', and more. Insults need not be specific to sting.

I think that Clinton was more of a target than any other president because of all the scandals he was a part of. Whether or not you agree that was really guilty of any of the things that he was involves in, you have to admit that he was involved in more.

Also, Conservatives have been attacked in more subtle ways by the media for nearly twenty years now. I think that, right or wrong, the little nicknames that were created for Clinton and liberals in general were a way of biting back. Also, most of it was meant in a humorous tone, but it got picked up by the media and Democrats who would turn it around and make it more an insult than it was intended to be. After all, who does America root for more than the pressed-upon underdog?

 

Since there is a poll on this, it would be simpler to keep conversation in there.