Predctions on Election 2004

[© tweed]

Sorry Gustaf forget to post the total…Doh!... here your are…

Kerry/?(Dem) 272 Electoral votes.
Bush/ Cheney (Rep) 266 Electoral votes.  

That a Good Number

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Sorry Gustaf forget to post the total…Doh!... here your are…

Kerry/?(Dem) 272 Electoral votes.
Bush/ Cheney (Rep) 266 Electoral votes.  

That a Good Number

Kerry = 299
Bush = 239

Kerry is going to win all of the Gore states, and pick up Ohio, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Arizona.  

Because we still have a LONG time till the election, I'll include some tossups, who they lean for and why.

TOSSUPS:

NEW HAMPSHIRE- Leans Kerry because of bordering Massachusetts and a very energized Democratic party in the state.  

WEST VIRGINIA- Leans Kerry.  Traditionally Democratic, but went Bush because Al Gore scared alot of them off with his gun policies and the lack of a decent turnout last time.  This time, job losses and better Dem turnout results in a Kerry victory.  

NORTH CAROLINA- (if Edwards is VP)  The results will be close, but I doubt the large number of conservative voters will be convinced to vote for a liberal by another liberal as VP, even is he is from the south and more moderate.  

FLORIDA- Close as always, but will be won by Bush because of the mess in the Florida democratic party and Jeb Bush.  

TENNESSEE- The Appalachia area in the state suffered job losses, but these guys didn't even vote for their own guy.  Bush will win here.  

OHIO- Hit hard by manufactuing losses and the bad economy.  There are just too many people here mad at Bush.  Kerry will win.  

IOWA- A state with a decent sized Democratic base that seems energized by all the excitment around the primary.  Kerry wins.  

MINNESOTA- Surprisingly close last time, but traditionally Dem and will stay that way.  

NEW MEXICO- A growing hispanic population and a popular dem governor will swing the state for Kerry.  

ARIZONA- (see NM)

OREGON- very close, but with low turnout and a high Nader vote.  Kerry shouldn't have a problem here.  

[© tweed]

61% of registered voters in West Virginia are Democrats...

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

61% of registered voters in West Virginia are Democrats...

Same with Oklahoma : P

[© tweed]

61% of registered voters in West Virginia are Democrats...

Same with Oklahoma : P

no only 53% there

[classical liberal]

But WV Dems are like OH Dems whereas OK Dems are like MS and AL Dems

[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...

[zachman]

Clinton worked on fighting Al-Qaeda particularly after the USS Cole was attacked. Bush ignored Al-Qaeda until after 9/11. I will not blame Bush for  9/11, but it is pathetic how he plays the blame game with Clinton, while he has been the beneficiary of 9/11, and as he did not focus his security advisors on Al-Qaeda threats before 9/11.

[??????????]

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.

[angus]

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.

[??????????]

The War of 1812 was preemptive as well and we almost lost our arses to the British.

[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.

[??????????]

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.

[Dave from Michigan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

where do you find this information

[angus]

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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

where do you find this information

WV Sec. of State

[angus]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive?

statesrights, that's really at the heart of the debate, I think.  This year's election is largely a referendum on the President.  Of course it involves more important political issues (where is my next meal coming from?, or, you want to take how much out of my check?!) and less important political issues (get a load of those two fags, and all in public like that!).  But for a major portion of those swing voters, the Bush Doctrine is on trial.  Some are warming up to it, but we have reservations.  At the moment, my reservations are being trumped by the fact that the Bush Doctrine does seem to be working.  Bush is NOT a cheap date, and he does like to spend my money, but he makes me feel good about myself.  Hell, maybe in a hundred years he'll be on the ten-dollar bill.

[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.

[© tweed]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

where do you find this information

Almanac of American Politics 2004

[??????????]

What is wrong with being pre-emptive?

statesrights, that's really at the heart of the debate, I think.  This year's election is largely a referendum on the President.  Of course it involves more important political issues (where is my next meal coming from?, or, you want to take how much out of my check?!) and less important political issues (get a load of those two fags, and all in public like that!).  But for a major portion of those swing voters, the Bush Doctrine is on trial.  Some are warming up to it, but we have reservations.  At the moment, my reservations are being trumped by the fact that the Bush Doctrine does seem to be working.  Bush is NOT a cheap date, and he does like to spend my money, but he makes me feel good about myself.  Hell, maybe in a hundred years he'll be on the ten-dollar bill.

Spend away, they print the money in the first place. lol

[??????????]

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.

[John]

Like i Said
The People will chose who they Want in the White House in November
I am not going to chose Unti november 2nd Then i will chose bush over kerry

[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.

[??????????]

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.