Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Gdubya poll

  1. Bush will remain president without a doubt

    13 vote(s)
    41.9%
  2. Bush has stiff competition from the Democrats but still has a chance

    9 vote(s)
    29.0%
  3. Bush will be crushed and doesn't have a chance

    5 vote(s)
    16.1%
  4. Bush will lose the popular vote and somehow remain in office

    4 vote(s)
    12.9%
  1. Feb 27, 2004 #1

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    From your perspective here in America, what do you think will honestly happen come election time? Don't vote what you want to happen, but what you think will result due to the current events in our country.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2004 #2

    kat

    User Avatar

    I think Bush will take it. I think the Clinton sector will work hard to undermine any Democratic nominee...although it will all be behind the curtains.
    I don't think Kerry can do it. He's to...oh, I can't think of the word. Anyway, I've never been able to stand him since he attended a major fundraiser I had put on years ago in Massachusetts. Just something rubbed me the wrong way.
    Couldn't stand Dean...glad to see the raging maniac go
    I like Edwards, a lot actually...but I don't think he'd neccesarily have the strength to get the presidency or lead the country.
    As for the others...I guess they aren't really in the picture anymore anyway...
    As to Nader...thanks man!...
     
  4. Feb 27, 2004 #3
    What, no option for "Bush will lose the popular vote and somehow remain in office?"
     
  5. Feb 27, 2004 #4
    my thoughts exactly Havoc
     
  6. Feb 27, 2004 #5

    Kerrie

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    i shall edit the poll :)
     
  7. Feb 27, 2004 #6

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Kerry has a decent chance. He is a hot and cold campaigner. He seems to spend most of his time like a zombie, but he can turn it on. I don't see how these guys can keep it turned on all the time, like Clinto did. I'd go nuts. I spend most of my day not caring what most people think of me. To be in a constant state of impressing people would drive me nuts. It's like living your entire life on a first date with a stranger.

    Njorl
     
  8. Feb 27, 2004 #7

    Njorl

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    By the way...

    Who thinks Cheney will not be Bush's running mate. I used to think that it was a sure thing he wouldn't be on the re-election ticket, but I'm not so sure now. I'm not making any judgements about his being a liability or asset, it is a "party" thing. I think the party would like Bush to pick his successor as VP. I don't think the GOP will run Cheney in 08.

    I was much more convinced of this 2 years ago. Now that the election looks to be tight, I think the republicans are more concerned with winning than party unity in 08. Still, Cheney could become a liability (Halliburton, Closed-door energy policy meetings etc). He also has an easy way out. He could always retire due to health reasons and spare George from tarnishing his "loyal to subordinates" schtick.

    Njorl
     
  9. Feb 27, 2004 #8

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Past results from 1980-2000 popular votes are (in Percent):

    1980 - Reagan vs. Carter + other - - - 50.7, 41.0, 8.3
    1984 - Reagan vs. Mondale + other - - 58.0, 40.6, 0.6
    1988 - Bush Vs. Dukakis + other - - - - 53.4, 45.6, 1.0
    1992 - Bush vs. Clinton + Perot - - - - 37.7, 43.3, 19.0
    1996 - Dole vs. Clinton + Perot - - - - 42.0, 50.0, 8.0
    2000 – Bush vs. Gore + Nader - - - - - 47.9, 48.4, 2.7

    Since 1980 when a very liberal candidate has run against a conservative candidate, the liberal has been slaughtered, 1984, 1988. Clinton won due to his shifting the Democratic Party to the right as with his promise to “end welfare as we know it”, and dancing around his liberal history as governor. Clinton never got as many popular votes as did Bush in 2000. In fact without Perot being in the race, Bush 1 probably would have won. Gore may have won sans Nader.

    The Democrats seem to have a death wish in the likely nomination of the vacuous, ever shifting positions, and far left Kerry. In 2003, Kerry voted on the leftist side more so than Kennedy, over 96% of the time. Senators do poorly in elections; governors usually do better if not extremists. Kerry has a lot of Senate voting history to defend. Nader is likely to get about 1% of the vote.

    McAuliffe’s strategy of pushing forward the primaries to allow the democratic candidate to be choosen early is probably a stupid tactic. First it diminishes the excitement of the convention which will generate less interest, secondly it allows Bush to commit his vast resources much earlier.
     
  10. Feb 27, 2004 #9

    GENIERE

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Njori - Your right, a politician must live and breathe politics 24/7. The only politician holding high elective office that I speak to a few times a year is constantly working and addressing audiences several times a week. It’s never ending. For those that enjoy it, it’s the most rewarding of all human endeavors.

    I kind of agree with you re: the VP, but he will be missed. For those of my political persuasion, The Bush “team” is about as good as it gets.
     
  11. Feb 27, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Do we really need another thread on the purpose and operation of the electoral college? Let it go, guys.
    Ever see the Saturday Night Live sketch with Al Gore leaning into the frame of a Clinton speach and saying "Hi, I'm Al Gore"? That's what I think of Cheney: Cheney who?

    I don't know how the party machine works though: is it really possible to dump your vp (how 'bout your sec state?) for your second term.

    In any case, it appears that despite all the rhetoric, the Democrats in this forum see the writing on the wall. Good: now go fix your party. Whether or not I ever vote for a Democratic candidate, we need two strong parties and right now we only have one.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2004
  12. Feb 28, 2004 #11

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Need NO strong parties --- the polarized approach to politics has long since ceased to be productive, workable, or representative.

    Ralph Nader could easily be the worst possible man for any job, but I'd certainly prefer him to dems or reps.
     
  13. Feb 28, 2004 #12
    I know this is a bit off topic but after looking at the results Geniere gave (thanks!!!), it really dumfounds me that in many cases, the less popular candidate won the presidency. Now, if my understanding of democracy is right, the winner is SUPPOSED to be the most popular candidate.

    However, I do know (after the Florida debacle which, FYI, really undermined the worlds perception of democracry in America - but that point has already been argued to death in the preceding years...) that the presidency works on winning states (correct me if I'm wrong.)

    Isn't this system, thus, really flawed???? [?]

    Oh, and Bush will probably win (though I don't want him too - but I live in South Africa, what do I know!!)
     
  14. Feb 28, 2004 #13

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Flawed? Sure, what isn't? It's a balance of urban/rural representation that keeps everyone unhappy --- therefore, the framers of The U. S. Constitution got things just about right. Consider the ages of the various established governments around the world before getting too carried away with "Florida," and recall that the Constitutional machinery worked, again to no one's complete satisfaction --- dimpled chad, hanging chad --- questions about a precinct? Pitch the precinct --- the voters will take care of the idiots who screwed up ballot design, watched polls, served as election judges --- and do better next time.

    Florida Supreme Court and U. S. Supreme Court? The lawyers wanted to take over the election process and got told to take a hike --- nobody is going to stand for four generations of lawyers making million dollar a year livings from arguing who did or did not win an election in a previous century --- that's about how long it takes for "due process" to actually place something in the public record as a court decision --- then you've got another hundred years actually enforcing such a decision.

    Edit: Stated another way, the process provides the opportunity to state your choice clearly on the day of an election --- you screw up on your selection of precinct election officials, that's your fault. There is NO after the fact adjustment, repolling of irregular precincts, or any other disenfranchisement of the rest of the country allowed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2004
  15. Feb 28, 2004 #14

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Another thing I don't understand: where are the Republican candidates??? Why can there only be Democrat challengers? And why the distinction??
     
  16. Feb 28, 2004 #15

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Incumbents eligible for another term in a particular office are usually accorded the courtesy of running --- not always --- Johnson in '68 is an example ( "...not seek .... nor accept ..." was a bulls**t stunt he was pulling for the public) --- he thought he had the "fix" in to be "drafted" as a candidate by the convention.

    Party "unity" counts for a lot in the minds of the parties --- Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Clark, and whoever the rest of the clowns are put on something the Marx Bros. or Three Stooges couldn't have topped --- and go into kissyface mode after the various dropouts from the race --- showing "real" courage in their individual convictions.
     
  17. Feb 28, 2004 #16
    Since most people believe all sorts of lies about politics, there is no way to really predict what will happen. Will the "liberal media lie" hold the #1 spot this year, or will the "far left Kerry" nonsense trump it? Will Bush's lies about nearly everything carry the day, or will he be taken down a couple of notches by the true-but-95%-irrelevant AWOL story?
     
  18. Feb 28, 2004 #17

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I think that the plus opinion that the public gave Bush after 9/11 has finally worn off. "It's the economy, stupid".

    Notice that there has been a big swing in opinions about job protectionism vs. free trade. People making as much as $100,000 a year, only a year ago were strongly in favor of free trade, but now they are against it. Conservatives are repeating the mantra that "protectionism will just hurt the US, free trade is best for the US economy", and when it is pointed out that that "best" affects only the coupon clippers while everyone else suffers, they say "You are demonizing the rich".

    This is a bad scene, and Bush, just because he's president, is going to take the fall for it.
     
  19. Feb 28, 2004 #18

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I was always pretty certain the Republican party would take this ellection, unnemployement is down, taxes are down, national security is on the minds of most voters, all these things are in the Reps' favor. But Nader's announcement that he plans to run has really sinched it, IMO. Of course, the final nail in the Dems' coffin would be if Dean announces that he plans to run as an independant. As far as I can recall, Dean only said he was dropping out of the race for the Dem nomination. I don't remember him ever doing the usual speach that party faithfulls usually give about, "I'm not running, so I encourage you to vote for the Dem that does run". But my memory ain't so good; did anyone else hear him say that?
     
  20. Feb 28, 2004 #19
    ??????????Your numbers are wrong...
     
  21. Feb 28, 2004 #20

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Please elaborate (I checked my post, and there are no numbers I can detect).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Gdubya poll
  1. Draft poll . (Replies: 23)

  2. Exit Polling (Replies: 3)

  3. Polling Fiascos (Replies: 16)

  4. Wisconsin Election Poll (Replies: 12)

Loading...