Bush v. Kerry: The Official Elections 2004 Thread

I'm from PA, and I can pretty much guarantee that unless he really turns people off here, the dems will carry the state in november.

Philadelphia has the lion's share of the state's population and the city's democratic party apparatus has done a phenomenal job in recent years of getting out the vote. While the rural areas are strongly republican, they only contain a fraction of the population that the urban areas do and Ed Rendell is still very popular here, even in some rural areas. You can bet he will campaign hard for Kerry; in fact, philadelphians are pretty angry with Bush for trying to 'set up' Mayor Street right before the mayoral race with the discovery of a wiretap in his office and allegations of corruption, which they later conceded did not involve the Mayor, just some of his aides.

The result was an especially strong showing for Street, and the registration of 85,000 new democrats in philly this past november. The dems may be down in parts of this country, but they are certainly not "out".

Kerry's biggest problems will be in the south. Not california, not PA, certainly not New England. The deep south is where he has to sell himself. He would do well to start sincerely discussing his faith, IMHO.


Peace,

V-03

 

Poll Shows Kerry Leading Bush in Florida

MIAMI (Reuters) - Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) would defeat President Bush (news - web sites) in Florida if the presidential election were held today, according to poll results published on Sunday.

The telephone survey of 800 registered Florida voters showed 49 percent would vote for presumptive Democratic nominee Kerry, 43 percent for Republican incumbent Bush and 3 percent for independent candidate Ralph Nader (news - web sites). With eight months to go before the election, only 5 percent were undecided.

The poll suggests another photo finish could loom in the politically divided state that Bush won by just 537 votes in 2000.

"Florida is in play," said pollster Kellyanne Conway. "This poll clearly demonstrates that the state that gave us drama and nail-biting in 2000 is proving no differently in 2004."

V03 - I just saw an interview with Gov. Rendell. He is indeed impressive.

Kerry can discuss his faith, but he has to be honest. If he tries to force the issue, he'll sound disingenuous, as Dean did.

 

I don't believe that Poll, DeathStar. I would just go on about how Terry MacAullife vowed that Florida 2002 was the true repudiation of George W Bush, and Jeb Bush carried the state by over 16 points. Shouldn't I take your Party's chair at face value.

Chev said

If bush continues his current ad campaign strategy (spending millions of dollars for ads only to have them denounced by public organizations for free), I think Kerry won't have to worry.

There is never anything better than free press.

Thats very true, unfortunately. THe Press has always done that. I am sure near election time we will see exclusive network interviews with Barbra Striesand and Rosie the Hutt O'Donnell to help them push their left wing views. Yes, Katie Couric pretty much picked up the faxes from the DNC to use in her interviews this past week against the GOP ads.

Lot of time for things to happen in 8 months, to be sure. Elections are won in November, not in March.

 

I don't believe that Poll, DeathStar. I would just go on about how Terry MacAullife vowed that Florida 2002 was the true repudiation of George W Bush, and Jeb Bush carried the state by over 16 points. Shouldn't I take your Party's chair at face value.

Feel free to believe whatever polls you want.

As V03 and others have said earlier, the 2002 elections were very unique due to the proximity of 9/11.

Besides you keep mentioning MacAullife's statement over and over. He was wrong. Ya happy? Just like Newt Gingrich and several Republicans were wrong when they said that Clinton's economic plans would be a disaster. Or how Bush's tax cuts would create millions of jobs. Or how the deficit would be 14 billion this year. Or...

I saw Gov. Richardson on a morning talk show this morning. He's a bright, affable guy. He also said that he did NOT want to be VP, although he was supportive of Kerry. I'd guess that he would accept the nom if offered. Does anyone know of a situation where someone turned down the VP slot? Just curious.

There was also an interesting flashback on Meet the Press. It was an interview with John Kennedy when he was a candidate. He talked about how the VP slot had never been known to make a difference. I guess until his election.

 

Terry McAullife isn't clean, either.

He made 13 million dollars off 100,000 dollars of a now defunct company.

The excesses and irrational exuberance of the 1990's have taken their toll, not to mention 9/11. With those companies that went bust, along with the hit that the tourism and travel industry took in 9/11, it's a wonder we're not worse off than we are now.

A Wall Street reporter yesterday stated that the average unemployment rate under Bush and now (5.6%) is less than the combined average under Bill Clinton. Sure, outsourcing is a problem, but our deficits are a small percentage of GDP.

Interest rates are low, the housing market is great, the stock market has soared over the last year, and we aren't hemmorhaging jobs now. The growth in the economy is better than it has been in 20 years.

If the jobless numbers go up, then it could be a problem, but jobs are the last phase of economic recovery as the businesses gain confidence enough to hire new workers.

What is Kerry going to do?

Protectionism? That won't work.

Rescind tax cuts / a.k.a. raise taxes? That takes money out of the economy.

People are very naive, unfortunately. The American capitalist system is a private system, not one where the President is the CEO and has ultimate control over the system. The best way for businesses to grow is to keep government out of the way, unless business is infringing upon the rule of law (as was the case with World Com, etc).

 

Can anyone tell my Geroge W. Bush thinks, "I'm a war President," is a self-compliment?

 

Darth Solo: If it's an issue on who to support in the elections, consider this: Kerry may have differing opinions than yourself, but he's not proposing any laws to force you into accepting his positions, such as on capital punishment.

 

Wow, what a great way of putting it, Gonk.

I wouldn't be so proud of Ed Gillespie either, DM. He just fired off a letter to television stations in 17 battleground states warning them not to air ads next week paid for by MoveOn.org, claiming that the money used to pay for them was from "soft" donations.

The head of MoveOn released records of the fundraising used to finance the ads, which they spent $1.7 million on. They all came from $50-$60 donations, well in accordance with the soft-money limit of $5,000 dollars from individual (non-corporate) donors.

Mr. Gillespie claimed the group was unfairly raising money in a way that the RNC couldn't compete with, a statement I find utterly ludicrous given the fact that George W. Bush has almost $100 million more cash on hand (and no debt) than John Kerry, who has $7.2 million on hand with $2.7 million in debt.

Who is he kidding?

Peace,

V-03

 

Wow, Gonk I never thought of that before. That's a good way of puting it.

What I don't like is that Bush is proposing this ban on Gay marriage and it seems like a rather unecessary proposition. Why can't we just leave it up to the states, the way it's been since we can remember? It's worked out fine till now.

I supported the war in Iraq before, but now we are totally misshandling it. I think Joe Lieberman was right when he said "This was a just war, but this administration is handling it in a bad manner" or something to that effect.

What I really want in office is a man like FDR, the greatest president this country has ever known. He did what he had to do and what he felt was right, no matter if he may have crossed some lines. I can respect that.

 

FDR was a socialist.

 

What I don't like is that Bush is proposing this ban on Gay marriage and it seems like a rather unecessary proposition.

Except that Bush isn't proposing a ban.. He merely endorsed the idea of an amendment, if it becomes neccessary. Remember, the President has ZERO input in the actual process.

Like Kerry, Bush was promoting the idea as a state's rights issue, until the state's laws were being selectively ignored.

Kerry is against same sex marriage as well, if anyone has forgotten, he just isn't in office right now, so he can be more evasive with his answer.

Why can't we just leave it up to the states, the way it's been since we can remember? It's worked out fine till now.

Well, any decision would be left up to the states, just like any other potential amendment.

 

Terry McAullife isn't clean, either.

He made 13 million dollars off 100,000 dollars of a now defunct company.

And Bush has made a lot of money off of questionable business deals. And lets not forget that Gillespie has his Enron connection.

Of course I realize there is more to it than this. But to suggest that McAullife is a shady businessman is unfair. None of these three have been convicted of any business related crimes have they? IMO any wealthy businessman is going to be connected somehow to someone or something with questionable practices.

A Wall Street reporter yesterday stated that the average unemployment rate under Bush and now (5.6%) is less than the combined average under Bill Clinton. Sure, outsourcing is a problem, but our deficits are a small percentage of GDP.

Bush has the worst job creation record in many, many years. When Clinton took office, the unemployment rate was around 7.5 percent. It was 4.2 when Bush took office.

And I for one mind paying a few hundred billion dollars on interest on the debt each year...and its getting worse.

What is Kerry going to do?

As I've said, focus on targeted tax cuts. I'll discuss this in broad terms below.

Rescind tax cuts / a.k.a. raise taxes? That takes money out of the economy.

So should we rescind all taxes? Otherwise we are taking money out of the economy.

As I've often said, I enjoy paying taxes as much as the next guy, which is not much. But you gotta pay to play. Even Reagan signed off on tax increases once it became clear that deficits were becoming a problem.

Mark Shields said it best. The whole 'you can spend money better than the government' is just an appeal to my greed and vanity. I can't personally pay for our military, or for education, for homeland security, for Medicare, etc.

What I really want in office is a man like FDR, the greatest president this country has ever known.

I concur.

Mr44

Except that Bush isn't proposing a ban.. He merely endorsed the idea of an amendment, if it becomes neccessary. Remember, the President has ZERO input in the actual process.

C'mon Mr44. He isn't 'merely endorsing an idea' here. Making changes to the constitution should not be treated so lightly.

And the President always has input. He's the President for goshs sakes.

Like Kerry, Bush was promoting the idea as a state's rights issue, until the state's laws were being selectively ignored.

If the state's laws were being ignored, those who were doing so should be arrested and held responsible according to those laws. I am not sure a constitutional amendement would be necessary.


Well, any decision would be left up to the states, just like any other potential amendment.

Are you sure? I thought the amendment would be a federal law. In other words, the states would be required to follow it.

Regarding the economy. IMO there is always a lot of talk about Republican v. Democrat proposals, who is right, etc. A lot of rhetoric is involved, I am certainly guilty of this probably even in this post, and there are always 'outside' factors that can influence an economy.

Here's how I see the different approach. Remember this is in broad terms and open to variables and interpretations. The info is from an article about JFK's tax cuts in the 1960s that I posted a while back:

Democrats usually support demand-side tax cuts, which are based on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. Republicans support supply-side tax cuts, which sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans.

Of course there are side arguments (Why should the wealthy have to pay more in income taxes? Why not cut payroll taxes?, etc.) . But I thought I'd try to present a concise overview of what is certainly a more

 

Are you sure? I thought the amendment would be a federal law. In other words, the states would be required to follow it

Since the amendment has not been drafted, I would assume that mr44 is referring to the 34 or so states that are required to ratify a constitutional amendment.

 

FDR was a socialist.

BS.

Sure, he came up with a lot of welfare and created a lot of jobs for people while he was in office, but he did what he needed to do to help get this country back on it's feet. Either post proof of this or retract. Welfare and some social programs to help people out is not always a bad thing, which is why I consider myself a very moderate republican. If we didn't help anyone in need, who would look after the children who are living in poverty or all the people who were out of a job after 9/11? There is a balance in there, and I think sometimes people don't want to recognize that.

 

Something else I should say to Cheveyo

If bush continues his current ad campaign strategy (spending millions of dollars for ads only to have them denounced by public organizations for free), I think Kerry won't have to worry.

There is never anything better than free press.

By posting that, you realize you are conceeding that the left wing media is protecting Kerry, trying to offset his weak fundraising by giving him free press. A true moderate media would give both sides time to present their case but instead a lot of the media have presented it from Kerry's standpoint, not even bothering that all these people seem to be talking form the same talking points memo's.

 

A true moderate media would give both sides time to present their case...

but they have given both sides. don't you watch the news? If they didn't give both sides, how would you know that many families weren't bothered by this campaign ad startegy?

Hmmm?

Are ya psychic?

 

By posting that, you realize you are conceeding that the left wing media is protecting Kerry, trying to offset his weak fundraising by giving him free press.

Actually, I think what Chev meant, and correct me if I'm wrong here, is that the groups are giving him free air time with their own commercials, not the media giving him free air-time.




Cruelty lies within kindness.

 

While that much is true, JFT, I was also referring to those groups (speaking out against the ad) receiving [news] media time.

Do you think we'd still be talking about it if no one objected to them? Nope. No story there.

 

Did you all see how Katie Couric tried to steer the debate on Thursday? No, I don't believe that there was anything else but a deliberate attempt by her to steer this the way she wanted it, not to give an informed opinion and let the public decide for themselves.

 

It always seems silly to ask the question "if the election was held today, who would you vote for?"

Especially given you accept the option "undecided". Since when was there an undecided box* on a ballot?

The more accurate question would be "who are you planning on voting for in November?" Not only would it yield a much more accurate percent of undecideds, but it would put the election in it's proper context instead of moving it forward 7 months.

 

That Katie Couric thing was so stupid. This is why I do not like to watch network news anymore.

 

"There's threads on abortion, marriage, and guns, but not one on tax policy, and old education and health care threads are buried in page 10 or beyond. (I plan on introducing a fiscal/public welfare thread very soon, so those of you who might want to do so, please don't!)
Thus, the solution to me seems simple: For FDR's sake, focus on fiscal and public issues! Quit wasting time and breath on red herrings like LBGT marriage and talk about issues that really matter. Fiscal and public welfare policies really matter to the whole of the country; social issues are interesting to discuss but in the long run don't really have the same broad impact."


It seems that maybe you don't know the passion that is involved in some of the social issues. For instance, I would NOT vote for anyone, like Senator Kerry who has a record of voting for gun control laws. I would not. No matter what party. If it was my own brother running, I would not. I feel that strongly about the issue that "doesn't really matter". So I would decide my vote on gun control alone.

 

Are you sure? I thought the amendment would be a federal law. In other words, the states would be required to follow it.

well, Gonk seems to have hit on this, as that was what I meant, sorry if I wasn't clear..

As far as the procedure, that's all the power any President has..The ability to say "yep, I agree with it.."

The actual amendment still has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states..

 

As far as the procedure, that's all the power any President has..The ability to say "yep, I agree with it.."

Yes, but he is the one who proposed it correct? Also, the President obviously weilds a large amount of influence, especially on his own party, which can often dictate the outcome of various proposals.

 

Yes, but he is the one who proposed it correct?

No, the original proposal that was being discussed was authored by Marilyn Musgrave,(from Colorado)

However, her proposal seems to have been discarded in favor of Orrin Hatch's compromise, which has more support across party lines.

In any case, neither bill originated with the President.