Predctions on Election 2004

[Gustaf]

Here is My
Al: BUSH
Alaska: Bush
Arizona: Toss up
AK: Toss UP
CA: Kerry
CO: Bush
CONN: Kerry
DE: Kerry
DC: Kerry
Florida: Toss UP
GA: Toss UP
HA: Kerry
Idho: Bush
liiionis: Kerry
ID: Bush
Iowa: Toss Up
Kasnas: Bush
Kentucky: Bush
LA: Toss Up
Maine: Kerry
Maryland: Kerry
Mass: Kerry
Michgan: Kerry
Minnestoa: Kerry
Missississp: Bush
Missiour: Toss Up
Montan: Bush
NAbraska: Bush
NV: Toss Up
NH: Kerry
NJ: Kerry
NM: Toss Up
NY: Kerry
NC: Bush
ND: Bush
Ohio: Toss Up
OK: Bush
OR: Kerry
PA: Kerry
Rl: Kerry
SC: Bush
SD: Bush
Tennesse: Toss Up
Texas: Bush
Utah: Bush
Vermont: Kerry
Virginia: Bush
WA: Kerry
WV: Toss Up
WI: Kerry
WY: Bush

Hard to see GA as a tossup...also ID and Idaho are the same, as are AK and Alaska. And it's HI, not HA, etc. Just a few thoughts...

[Gustaf]

Sorry But I’m going to bite…and I’ll call every state rather than give some as tossups…  


Alabama: Bush  
Alaska: Bush  
Arizona: Bush  
Arkansas: Bush  
California: Kerry  
Colorado: Bush  
Connecticut: Kerry
Delaware: Kerry  
District of Columbia: Kerry  
Florida: Bush
Georgia: Bush  
Hawaii: Kerry  
Idaho: Bush  
Illinois: Kerry  
Indiana: Bush  
Iowa: Bush  
Kansas: Bush  
Kentucky: Bush  
Louisiana: Bush
Maine: Kerry  
Maryland: Kerry  
Massachusetts: Kerry  
Michigan: Kerry  
Minnesota: Kerry  
Mississippi: Bush  
Missouri: Bush  
Montana: Bush  
Nebraska: Bush  
Nevada: Bush  
New Hampshire: Kerry  
New Jersey: Kerry  
New Mexico: Bush  
New York: Kerry  
North Carolina: Bush  
North Dakota: Bush  
Ohio: Kerry  
Oklahoma: Bush  
Oregon: Kerry  
Pennsylvania: Kerry  
Rhode Island: Kerry  
South Carolina: Bush
South Dakota: Bush
Tennessee: Bush
Texas: Bush
Utah: Bush
Vermont: Kerry  
Virginia: Bush
Washington: Kerry
West Virginia: Bush  
Wisconsin: Kerry
Wyoming: Bush

Note: States that are tossups in my view are…

New Hampshire (leads to Kerry)
Ohio (true tossup)
Florida (leans to Bush, but Nelson or Graham could change that)
Iowa (leans to Bush)
New Mexico (leans to Bush)
Nevada (leans to Bush)
Wisconsin (leans to Kerry)
Missouri (leans to Bush)      

Ev-total please?

[Gustaf]

Wait a minute

How long a minute?

To 9Iron: it COULD happen, but I agree that it's very unlikely.

[Gustaf]

Oh yes, I remember how Clinton fought terrorism. He knew about Osama Bin Laden and his exact location...nothing. Nigeria (I believe) told the CIA where they could find him....nothing. The USS Cole was bombed....nothing. Good job Clinton, I'm glad to see launching a few missles did something. Bush was only sworn in Jan of 2001, he was still building his Administration when we were attacked on 9/11. If it happened 9/11/02 or 03 I might agree with you.

So do you also think Reagan was soft on terrorism?  I mean come on, marine barracks in Lebanon get bombed ... nothing.  Heck, all he did was drop a few bombs on Tripoli.

And I would like to repeat that I do not blame the Bush administration for 9/11.  But lets consider their rhetoric during the election and the rhetoric out of Congress.  A missile shield was the biggest security concern to them.

Yes! I agree 100% Reagan was soft on terrorism! But I'll also contend that it wasnt to the extent it is now until after the fall of the Soviet Union. The US trained Osama and many of our current enemies. But that was the times and the number one priority was defeating communism. A missle shield is still a very good idea, considering North Korea and possibly Iran. Things change, a lot of things did after 9/11. What Bush did before that and after should be put into consideration. Did many common Americans think a major attack was coming?

Ehh...first you say Clinton is to blame for 9/11 b/c he didn't try to go after terrorists enough. Then you say Bush was entitled to do just that b/c 'Did many common Americans think a major attack was coming?'. Now, I kind of think that's Wakie's point. And mine as well...

[Gustaf]

Bush has proved the democrats wrong on the fact that you dont fight terrorism with police raids, arrests and trials. You take them to war, and you eliminate them before they can come here. Just like in the early part of the 19th Century fighting the pirates out of Tripoli.

It's true that we have been pre-emptive in the past.  It's a little surprising that the talking heads always say this is new.

Ehh...everyone was pre-emptive, since there were no moral demands on wars until WWI. Wars were a natural part of international politics. So it's really irrelevant, imo.

[Gustaf]

Bush has proved the democrats wrong on the fact that you dont fight terrorism with police raids, arrests and trials. You take them to war, and you eliminate them before they can come here. Just like in the early part of the 19th Century fighting the pirates out of Tripoli.

It's true that we have been pre-emptive in the past.  It's a little surprising that the talking heads always say this is new.

Ehh...everyone was pre-emptive, since there were no moral demands on wars until WWI. Wars were a natural part of international politics. So it's really irrelevant, imo.

almost on point but not quite.  almost accurate too.

Thanks...or maybe not...if you wanna refute me, you might at least hint at an argument, that kind of makes the debate more interesting.

[Gustaf]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive? Would you rather the enemy come on our soil or take the war to them and destroy them before they destroy us. Believe me Islamic Fundamentalists are never going to ever sit down have tea and discuss things.

What's wrong with being pre-emptive? It depends on your definiton of the word, but I'd say that the tiny little problem is that you will sooner or later be starting wars that were really unecessary, like WWI, the reason why we stopped doing foreign policy like that, and you will have a much more unstable world. You also accept the rules of rouge states and refuse to rise above lesser countries.

[Gustaf]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive? Would you rather the enemy come on our soil or take the war to them and destroy them before they destroy us. Believe me Islamic Fundamentalists are never going to ever sit down have tea and discuss things.

What's wrong with being pre-emptive? It depends on your definiton of the word, but I'd say that the tiny little problem is that you will sooner or later be starting wars that were really unecessary, like WWI, the reason why we stopped doing foreign policy like that, and you will have a much more unstable world. You also accept the rules of rouge states and refuse to rise above lesser countries.

I'd rather destroy all the tyrants of the world then have one come over here with a nuke and kill ten million of our people. Most Middle Eastern countries today are a threat to us. We took care of Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's had many positive results. Look what Libya has now done. Do you think if Bush had done very little, or nothing Libya would have just come clean about TWA and their WMDs'? The WMD is Iraq was Saddam like it or not. I believe his weapons were there when we went in, and I believe they are still there waiting for us to uncover them.

You're not actaully responding to any of my points. Your question was what's wrong with being pre-emptive. If you wanted what was good with being pre-emptive I could ahve given you that answer.

[Gustaf]

I believe being pre-emptive is wrong if the ultimate goal is to create a colony out of the vanquished nation. But the U.S. goes in to countries with the goal of freeing the peoples or destroying a tyrant.

That's at the very best dubious in general. The US, like most countries, usually have some sort of self-interest in the wars you fight. There seem to be some sincerity in Afghanistan and Iraq though, I'll give you that. I am not saying that pre-emptive wars are always wrong, but I don't think they're always right wither. I'm in the middle, as usual.

[Gustaf]

but why we went to these countries in the first place was because of a good heart.

Yes.  Americans hearts are in the right place.  Unfortunately, people with good hearts can sometimes be manipulated.  We  should be careful with our future.  We are now engaged in two wars.  The President and the congress have their hands full.  Don't buy into that horseshít about WWI being the first 'moral war.'  All wars ever fought, in the history of our species, were fought over gold.

WW 1 wasnt a moral war. I actually think Austria had a right to defend itself after their Archduke was killed.

WWI was the last war of old imperialism. Austria wanted to subdue Serbia, that's why they went to war, but that's beside the point. THere would have been a war for whatever reason, it wasn't really b/c of the murder, that was just a timely trigger.

[Gustaf]

I think the majority of the wars we have fought have been sincere. World War 1 is questionable to begin with, WW2 to free the oppressed peoples of Europe and Asia. Korea, to stop the spread of a repressives Communist Govt. Vietnam, can be looked at the same as Korea, although us getting involved in a Civil War was a failure. First Iraq war to liberate Kuwait. The Balkan mess, to give the people of that region peace. I agree that some other motives may have been in some of these wars, but why we went to these countries in the first place was because of a good heart.

I'll now quote myself: 'The US, like most countries, usually have some sort of self-interest in the wars you fight'. I maintain that this goes for all or most of the above mentioned wars. I am not saying that there weren't good intentions involved also. but the obvious question to whoever claims that that was the only reason is why you involved yourself in those speicifc wars and not in a whole bunch of others? And the answer is national interest, I'd say.

[Gustaf]

but why we went to these countries in the first place was because of a good heart.

Yes.  Americans hearts are in the right place.  Unfortunately, people with good hearts can sometimes be manipulated.  We  should be careful with our future.  We are now engaged in two wars.  The President and the congress have their hands full.  Don't buy into that horseshít about WWI being the first 'moral war.'  All wars ever fought, in the history of our species, were fought over gold.

WW 1 wasnt a moral war. I actually think Austria had a right to defend itself after their Archduke was killed.

They certainly did, and I mourn the loss of that wonderful old Empire - it certainly kept the people of the Balkans from slaughtering each other, as they've done whenever unsubjugated.

It was unsustainable. It didn't keep people from killing each other, it just pissed them of. Large units create hatred and eventual war.