Talk Elections

There are thus no invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything else stays the same. You pcik the VPs. Discuss, with maps.

Haven't you done this before?

I did, but I forgot to mention that there was no Iraq War.

Look this is wishful democrat thinking. Gore was way off the hinges after the Florida recount and would've done about as well as Dukakis did in 1988. The guy was no longer electable.

Bush/Cheney                330
Gore/Gephardt              208

()

lol. Proof?

Even with Gephardt as VP, I think MI would have went Dem before MO.

Proof that Gore was unelectable at that point?

Yes.

There can't be any proof of that. That's like saying prove how much snow we'll get next winter based on how hott today's temperature is. He was a crazy after the 2000 election.

()

Hmm why Colorado may I ask?

http://()

I just realized after all my comments about this topic that I hadn't posted a map.

No. Gore wasn't crazy after 2000 because none of his views changed.

No but his outward and awkward behavior did.

()

Gore/Graham-316 EV
Bush/Cheney-222 EV

Even though the economy is recovering in 2004, high and rising fuel prices undermine many people's confidence in the economic recovery. Also, many voters don't feel better off than they were four years ago. Finally, Bush's Presidency is very uneventful, and Democrats attack Bush for shrinking/squandering our surplus. Thus, Gore is able to pull off a narrow victory over Bush. Graham helps deliver Florida for Gore, despite Jeb's populairty in the state.

Again, if you're not going to provide any examples, I'm not going to believe you. I sure didn't see Gore acting any differently between 2001-2004 than he did as VP.

The economy may have been booming again by that point without 9/11 though. Think about all the spending on the wars that could've been sacrificed to more tax cuts which would've created jobs.

Remember when he grew a beard and gained about 60 pounds in the 6 months following the 2000 election. That's not a sign of a healthy individual. His reaction to Abu-Grahib or whatever the democrats call it was completely off the hinges in tone when he said "he dragged the name of the U.S." regarding torture. His environmental policies would've been portrayed as over the top. I can see the ads right now of people driving down the highway in golf carts under a Gore Administration. Are those examples or are you just going to change the subject now?

Tax cuts don't necessarily create jobs. For instance, Clinton didn't cut taxes, yet job creation skyrocketed under his watch. And if Bush would have been successful in passing more tax cuts, that would have meant that our surplus would have either disappeared completely or shrank a lot, and that is another thing the Democrats could have hammered Bush for in 2004.

Gore shaved that beard before 2004 anyway, and thus it wasn't a big deal. If he gained some weight, he could just lose it later on and that wasn't a big deal either. Abu Ghraib was torture. And his environnmental policies were the same as they were in 2000 and the same as Clinton's, Kerry's, and Obama's. Thus, they wouldn't be considered extreme.

No that's completely false. Clinton raised taxes and it killed the economy for another 2 years until the GOP took both houses and restored confidence in investments again. Computers and the dot come boom helped the economy, it was not the result of a government planned program written by bureaucrats and funded by tax dollars. Tax cuts do always create jobs and Bush's tax cuts led to 56 months of job growth. What you're referring to is a great economy that resulted from people inventing and selling without the help from big brother. Bill Gates and Microsoft are largely to thank. Remember too that by March of 2000 we had another recession starting that Bush can't be blamed for. That was from over investments and an overly extended boom in the 90's. So, it wasn't necessarily a great economy you're thinking of but one that only appeared to be great at that time.

Actually, job growth was higher in 1993 and 1994 than in 1995, when the GOP regained control of Congress.

Uh-huh and what about 1996, 1997, and 1998. The only reason it was higher in 1993 and 1994 was because it had nowhere to go but up. Look at wealth creation though which is the real indicator of the economy.

()

Gore/Edwards-331

Bush/Cheney-207

If the economy was the main issue, No wars or 9/11, Bush would have loosed in 2004.

How? and if he couldn't win his homestate in 2000 what makes you think he could in 2004 when Bush got 57% there?

You just contradicted yourself. You said Clinton killed the economy in 1993 and 1994, when those years had very high job creation. In fact, the economy had higher job creation in 1994 than it had for any other year of Clinton's Presidency. And Reagan cut taxes in 1981, after which the economy spiraled further into a recession. Reagan raised taxes in 1982, after which the economy began to recover. Ford and Obama cut taxes, immediately after which the economy became worse. Clinton raised taxes in 1993, and immediately afterwards the economy began to improve. FDR raised taxes, after which the economy began to improve. Thus, cutting taxes does not necessarily improve the economy and raising taxes does not necessarily hurt the economy. And by "wealth creation", if you mean real GDP growth, then GDP actually grew more in 1994 than it did in 1995 and 1996.

The economy went downhill after FDR raised taxes and it took us longer to make it out of the depression than the European countries because of it. When exactly did the economy start to rebound after the tax increase? It wasn't until 1941 that there was a demand for the jobs that were created and that was a result of Pearle Harbor. Cutting taxes does help the economy. Look at when Bush cut taxes in 2003. The 3rd quarter of that year we saw a 7.2% GDP rate. What kind of jobs were added as well in 1994? Government jobs? Look at the surplus/deficit before and after the GOP took over too. It wasn't until 1995. The GDP rate isn't going to change overnight from one party taking control of congress either and I don't know a single person who would seriously believe so. I'm not seeing anything suggesting that the GDP rate was higher in 1994 than in 1995 but I'll take your word for it. Either way common sense demonstrates that cutting taxes allows people to spend more money in the private sector which grows the economy and produces wealth. Tax hikes do the opposite.