Republican Revolution.....

[opebo]

Bush Boom? Republicans have been predicting a bush boom every quarter since mid 2002.  They run around and say we will have 300,000 new jobs next month and GDP will increase at a 8% annual rate ... it's funny to think of dissapearing dick running around. Can't you see Cheney running around screaming about job gains. Republicans should scream more, a good scream can do a body good.

Seriously, you need Deadlock if you want a boom, because deadlock = stability , stability = big spending .  I personally won't invest a cent of my pitiful life savings into stock markets, or go on a spending spree unless we have some deadlock in Washington. '94 to '99 was pure Gingrich on Clinton deadlock it was a beautiful time for the economy. Obviously this rule is not a cardinal one or anything, but on the whole in a pro-business climate like we have now deadlock is a beautiful thing.

So yes there will be a "bush boom" if Kerry is elected but that's because he won't be able do more than cosmetic changes to anything.  If Bush is reelected and the senate and House become prohibitively Republican we won't have deadlock and the economy will not reach its full potential.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2004 is going to have 4-5% growth, and 2005-2008 will have at least 3.5% and above.  Its all just part of the normal economic cycle in our highly productive capitalist economy.  As for Job Growth that happens late in the cycle, just like it did in the 1990's (only more so due to productivity growth) - the unemployment rate will not change much in 04,05, and 06, but will get very low in 07 and 08.  

If Bush is elected its all on track, if Kerry is elected only one thing could mess it up - if he manages to increase taxes.  I suspect he could by vetoing a Republican attempt to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent.  But even if he does such a horrible thing, 2004-2008 are still good growth years, possibly just a little less than under Bush.

[Gustaf]

Not to mention that lower class people who vote Democrat are generally social conservatives.

Wrong.

Actually, your an idiot if you think most poor democrats arent social conservatives. Yeah the welfare queens and drug addicts are liberal. But Native Americans, Mexicans, and Blacks tend to be socially conservative.

This is very true.

Oh, come on, yo're debating with Bandit? Seriously...

[classical liberal]

I think that its funny that Bush is saying tax cuts that take effect in 2014-2018 will boost sales and profits this year or next year.  They may inspire some large projects but by that same token they may render some projects unnecessary.  Really the only thing they might actually accomplish is to extend contract expirey by about 4 years or caues lawyers to add a 4 year option to extend to contracts.

[Gustaf]

I see a Dukakis-Bush type election for Bush.

Kerry will almost certainly do better than Dukakis did. Especially electorally.

[Kghadial]

I see a Dukakis-Bush type election for Bush.

Kerry will almost certainly do better than Dukakis did. Especially electorally.

I think he meant that Bush would get EVs like Dukakis and Kerry will get Bush '88 like EVs  

Bush is such a polarizing figure, its hard to see him picking up more than 5 Gore states, and he won't be getting CA or NY or IL or MI so he can't really get a huge # like his father.

[Gustaf]

I see a Dukakis-Bush type election for Bush.

Kerry will almost certainly do better than Dukakis did. Especially electorally.

I think he meant that Bush would get EVs like Dukakis and Kerry will get Bush '88 like EVs  

Bush is such a polarizing figure, its hard to see him picking up more than 5 Gore states, and he won't be getting CA or NY or IL or MI so he can't really get a huge # like his father.

Exactly my point.

[Kghadial]

I see a Dukakis-Bush type election for Bush.

Kerry will almost certainly do better than Dukakis did. Especially electorally.

I think he meant that Bush would get EVs like Dukakis and Kerry will get Bush '88 like EVs  

Bush is such a polarizing figure, its hard to see him picking up more than 5 Gore states, and he won't be getting CA or NY or IL or MI so he can't really get a huge # like his father.

Exactly my point.

I know i just wanted to say that 'he thinks bush will get Dukakis like numbers' .

[Gustaf]

I see a Dukakis-Bush type election for Bush.

Kerry will almost certainly do better than Dukakis did. Especially electorally.

I think he meant that Bush would get EVs like Dukakis and Kerry will get Bush '88 like EVs  

Bush is such a polarizing figure, its hard to see him picking up more than 5 Gore states, and he won't be getting CA or NY or IL or MI so he can't really get a huge # like his father.

Exactly my point.

I know i just wanted to say that 'he thinks bush will get Dukakis like numbers' .

Lol, you have my support in that!

[Nation]

I'd love to see that, but I think we can conclude it's just wishful thinking.

I think we'll probably see something like a 290 or 295 EV victory for one of the candidates. Someone picks up a big state, and even if it's extremely close overall, gets a boost in the EC.

[zachman]

We got real lucky that the 1960 electoral vote total wasn't reversed. Remember the dems. need to win by more than .5% so there is a high chance we will have a backwards election.

[© tweed]

Kerry will do better than Dukakis.  why?

1. BushII is an incumbent, BushI was not
2. BushI was running on Reagan's coattails
3. Bush is the most polarizing leader in the history of Earth as we know it

[CollectiveInterest]

I think you're right if Bush wins.. if he loses I see Dems for a bit.  If he loses the next Dem can take credit for the boom Bush will leave him - just like Clinton did with the Bush senior/Reagan boom of the 1990's.

You really don't believe the Bush deficits are going to be a problem, do you?

[Kghadial]

Kerry will do better than Dukakis.  why?

1. BushII is an incumbent, BushI was not
2. BushI was running on Reagan's coattails
3. Bush is the most polarizing leader in the history of Earth as we know it

He might be the most polarizing figure in history.  Hitler was extremely popular is gemany for a time. the grand majority of people living under dictators and communists were united in their common hate for their leaders.

But Bush ...  40% hate him, 35% love him, 10% go along because he is a republican, 5% go against because he's a republican ... the other ten are swing voters: 1/3 biased against him 1/3 biased for him and 1/3 true swingers

But i might be wrong, maybe he does something A-fricking-mazing

[angus]

Kerry will do better than Dukakis.  why?

1. BushII is an incumbent, BushI was not
2. BushI was running on Reagan's coattails
3. Bush is the most polarizing leader in the history of Earth as we know it

ah, that's a fair (if harsh) synopsis

[angus]

The Hitler comparison is rare.  That's why Republicans get pissed off, you see?

[Kghadial]

The Hitler comparison is rare.  That's why Republicans get pissed off, you see?

I was just stating that hitler wasn't polarazing.  Bush is polarazing, I am CONTRASTING the two.

I'll constrast in other ways that are positive for King George.

Hitler took Germany into a ride into oblivion, George hasn't.  Hitler killed millions, George hasn't come close.  Hitler inspired a worldwide alliance against him, George has only pissed people off worldwide. etc.

I'll state it now:

Hitler was infinitely many times worse than Bush, even if he was better for the economy (can't resist a dig here and there).

Republicans say a vote against Bush is letting the terrorists win, so evidently all is fair in politics.

[angus]

Now I know you're janking my chain.  Yeah, the thing is, back in the 90s I used to work with a group of raging Clinton-haters.  This was back when I voted for him.  Twice.  The thing is, from either side, that kind of insensitivity just pisses everyone off.  I agree, in general, with Miami's summation. These things are obvious.   Said just for clarification.  But I've been thinking for a while about negativity and polarization  (I suppose we're all brainwashed by the press) and it seems that it is has become worse than ever before any anyone's memory.  Dare I ask, until the Clintons and Bushes go away, will both sides will moan.  (there are more in both flavors, over on aisle seven ma'am)  Time for Reagan?  No.  He's nearly deceased.  Time for Kerry?  Big Question Mark.  It's up to you.  From other threads we have seen that those who are hedging are honest about it.  Latey, and in particular since visiting this excellent forum, I have seen the case for re-election of the president much more clearly.  It goes deeper than a simple three-point bulletin about Kerry's advantages over Michael Dukakis.

[Kghadial]

The Clintons will go away, Bill had only one kid and Chelsea won't be having any children with the last name Clinton.

The Bushes however ....  The tribe of Prescott has many sons, many tentacles.  Jeb is next up to be King Bush III, and George P. (Jeb's son) is up to be King George III - Bush IV   .    Who knows the progeny of Neil, or the George P's children .... the Bushs will be with us for a long time

Did you know that the tribe of Andrew Jackson is coming to a close.  Andrew Jackson the seventh or something had only daughters so thats all there is.  I dare say the progeny of George P could have tentacles that long, popping up in politics.

But that's not the point , is it?

Both sides will moan for years, even after that. Maybe it is the progeny of Al Gore , or Birch Bayh, or Chafee etc.

  The moaning may never end, but who knows perhaps a moderate president that doesn't piss people of will come along.  Both parties will have to stop running away from the center to pick a candidate. McCain might have been that moan stopper, Lieberman or Edwards maybe too.  If they had picked King George I in 1980 perhaps, or someone other than McGovern in '72 ....

moderates die, be they Al Gore, or Clinton, or King George I or Carter, or Nixon.  The moaning will never cease until  a moderate can survive

We all yank chains, some of us are just more blatant than others.

[angus]

I was talking about his old lady, right?

no, I'm not saying that.  I'm saying it's specifically Clinton and Bush.  'People who support Bush are just confused', Right?  (Except for the evil filthy rich bastards manipulating the fools)  Is that what you think?

"You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow"
    --John Lennon, Revolution

[© tweed]

I quoted the beatles yesterday too!  With the Ashcroft Story:

"Although the News was rather sad....
....I just had to laugh"

-A Day in the Life

[angus]

I quoted the beatles yesterday too!  With the Ashcroft Story:

"Although the News was rather sad....
....I just had to laugh"

-A Day in the Life

This forum is like heroin.

I just knew, even as I typed Ashcroft is Sick on the other thread, that it'd become a set-up.  My girlfriend just bought me The Classic Rock Book because she wants me to learn all these oldies and play them for her.  I guess that's why that was in my head.  Normally I play modern rock and stuff I make up.  Anyway, you're right about Bush, no doubt.  This is exactly why he needs my support.  Lady Madonna will learn how to use birth control before democrats will learn how to open their minds, unfortunately.

[nclib]

Not to mention that lower class people who vote Democrat are generally social conservatives.

Wrong.

Actually, your an idiot if you think most poor democrats arent social conservatives. Yeah the welfare queens and drug addicts are liberal. But Native Americans, Mexicans, and Blacks tend to be socially conservative.

I would agree that most poor Democrats do tend to be social conservatives. As far as races go, I would guess that blacks are much more socially liberal than whites when education level is controlled for.

[classical liberal]

I would say that when education is weighted in, urban/suburban blacks and whites are tied and rural blacks and whites are tied for conservatism/liberalism.

[Siege40]

The Republican revolution of the 1860s-1930s ended due to a crushing Depression, how will the next revolution end? That is if it starts.

Siege40

[agcatter]

war and economic upheaval tend to create realignment.