Does Dean have a chance?

[hpk37067]

Dean is obviously gettin the nomination. Does he stand a chance against Bush? I think he does. But everyone's scared of him because he's not going to support Israel. Yay! That's good news. And he can actually balance the budget unlike Bush, who's shopping spree will kick him out of presidency. And national security? Bush's endangering it. GO DEAN!!!

[Link]

No, no he doesn't.

[IdahoMR2man]

It saddens me because I think Kerry would've been a better choice. But either way I'll vote for Dean. I truly hate Bush.

[MagsXGill29]

No

[Switzer]

I don't really care.But his name's fun to say like Bob Dole

[Link]

Originally posted by IdahoMR2man
It saddens me because I think Kerry would've been a better choice. But either way I'll vote for Dean. I truly hate Bush. Maybe Dean won't get the nomination?

...yeah he probably will.

[hpk37067]

He'll get it.

[IdahoMR2man]

VOTE AL SHARPTON, 2004!!!!

[hpk37067]

Yeah, he is really cool.

[JimmyDean]

Sharpton is a real man. He hasn't washed his hair in years.

[Brock Landers]

Dean'll get the Democratic nomination, but will he win?

Oh hell no. Bush has too many friends, too much money and also got Saddam.....he'll get re-elected.

[IdahoMR2man]

Or won any of the 10 elections he's ran in!

[Mat]

Well, if Lieberman won the nomination, I might have voted for him. But if this cat wins (and all likelyhood will) or any of those other jokers, I'm voting for Bush.

[ip_guru]

Dean will likely be the lead going into the Democratic convention. Although anything is possible in politics, and the time to election is still many months away, he is not likely to beat Bush.

As far as balancing the budget, to say that electing a left-leaning Democrat will balance the budget must be a joke. Democrats spend more than the Republicans can dream of, they just pick different items to spend on. The Democrats are trying like hell to take the economy as "their" issue, and doing pretty good at it. But, history shows the Republicans are better at economic management.

It is a bit of a long shot, but if it gets close to the convention and Dean is still in the lead, then the odds of Hillary getting the nomination increase. I will not be surprised one bit if she is the 'surprise nominee' of the Democrat party.

It will be a brilliant strategy on her part, she will be able to avoid answering all those pesky questions from reporters for months, then get the cover of every newspaper and news website in one day.

If she gets in, then it will be one hell of a wild ride, something we haven't seen in politics in our lifetimes. The sad thing is that most people know nothing about her politics. Despite her image, if you read her work, and listen to her ideas, she is clearly a Marxist. Yet, people who want to vote for her will, with no idea at all who they are actually voting for. To say that it will be an interesting election is an understatement!

[Tim37ninjageniu]

Unfortunately I think that Bush will win. His support is down but it is still high enough to win the election. Dean doesn't seem like the man that can rally enough public support. I think that mainly hard core democrats and Bush haters will vote for him but regardless Bush has a better chance. Oh well.

[hpk37067]

I don't think history is a really good point. You could point out anything like that but that doesn't change the now Bush. And don't trust any polls. They vary from network to network so don't point them out.

[Cbars]

Dean makes me nervous for one reason, he is awfully volatile. The idea of him in charge of our national security and weaponry is scary. I don't like politicians with tempers. And Hilary, I don't even know where to start with her....:eek:

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by hpk37067
I don't think history is a really good point. You could point out anything like that but that doesn't change the now Bush. And don't trust any polls. They vary from network to network so don't point them out.

There are many different administrations that prove over and over again that the economy is a Republican issue, one that conservatives manage better. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, but that doesn't change the reality of it.

BTW, if you don't think history is a good point, why quote Sun-Tzu? ;)

[Brock Landers]

Since when has the President had a say over the economy? I always hate that when people blame the economy on the president at that time......

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by Brock Landers
Since when has the President had a say over the economy? I always hate that when people blame the economy on the president at that time......

I didn't say the President had a say over the economy. I said that republicans are better at managing economics. I agree that the economic influence of the President is always misunderstood...

[Brock Landers]

Originally posted by ip_guru
I didn't say the President had a say over the economy. I said that republicans are better at managing economics. I agree that the economic influence of the President is always misunderstood...

I do agree Republicans are better at "managing" the economy, like Tom Brokaw said on the daily show the other night: "The Republicans run it more in a business fashion"

[zamphir66]

The Republican effort to keep the balanced budget is really just a ruse. it's an excuse to cut into what they call, and i quote, "middle-class entitlements," such as medicare, welfare, student loans, subsidies of any kind that help the middle class.

[slinger]

Dean has a slim chance, but Bush pretty much has this wrapped up. The Daily Show mentioned how much money Dean and Bush have raised. Bush with over $100 million and Dean can't top $40 million. For me none of the 9 or Bush are appealing presidents. But I'm Canadian.

[The_Movie_Man]

Originally posted by IdahoMR2man
It saddens me because I think Kerry would've been a better choice. But either way I'll vote for Dean. I truly hate Bush.

I agree, and If not Kerry then Clark. But then again I'm not gunna be able to vote til '08.

[hpk37067]

Originally posted by Brock Landers
Since when has the President had a say over the economy? I always hate that when people blame the economy on the president at that time......

Well, the president has the ability to try to boost the economy, which hasn't happened so far. Therefore, you can't really blame anyone else. The world has been blaming the monarch since B.C.

[Mat]

Originally posted by hpk37067
Well, the president has the ability to try to boost the economy, which hasn't happened so far. Therefore, you can't really blame anyone else. The world has been blaming the monarch since B.C.

The US economy is steadily going up, so the democrats may have to find another platform to bash Bush on.

[ip_guru]

Originally posted by hpk37067
Well, the president has the ability to try to boost the economy, which hasn't happened so far. Therefore, you can't really blame anyone else. The world has been blaming the monarch since B.C.

Every single economic indicator has been positive growth all during 2003, with the single exception being new jobs created. The NASDAQ and NYSE have reached highs not seen in several years. The third quarter of 2003 saw the single highest GDP growth in over 20 years. To say there has been no boost is incorrect.

[hpk37067]

Ok, so the economy is growing again. Is it back to where it was? No. And besides, the economy isn't the only platform that democrats go to. The war is bad, foreign policy in general is bad, domestic policies are ify, etc.

[moviegeek]

who is dean again?

[hpk37067]

Get out of here.

[evilsquishy]

I just can't respect a guy who says his favorite book of the New Testament is Job. If you're going to lie, at least be good at it.

[Lton]

I was loosing faith in any candidate mounting a decent run against Bush (w/ the Sadam "bait-n-switch/capture"), but last night one guy gave them hope again- Paul O'neil. On 60 minutes he revealed some pretty disturing things about Bush and his administration, some of which you could easily found out from a late night talk show monolouge (like fact that he's not that smart:eek: ), but this time the source is an an ex-cabinet member from the administration.
One of the things he said was that the Bush administration had Iraq in the crosshairs only weeks within his inagural year, which according to my calculations was 8 months before 9/11 (Hmm, Dean's looking a little less "crazy".) I know not many are going for any conspiracy theory, nor did many watch the interview over that amazing playoff game (I taped 60), but this story should get bigger today and hopefully wake up some of the people in this country as to what's really going on here.

[Mat]

On this whole "Bush was aiming for Saddam before 9/11" thing... so what? What's the big deal? Nobody's been able to logically explain this to me all day.

[PlayingGod]

Originally posted by Lton
(like fact that he's not that smart:eek: ),


Actually Bush is pretty smart. He just has a mild form of Apraxia or Dyslexia that hampers his speech but other then that you have to pretty smart to run a country and bring a economy out of the slump its been like ours.

:)

[evilsquishy]

Originally posted by Lton
but this story should get bigger today and hopefully wake up some of the people in this country as to what's really going on here.
Hmmm, and you're just going to blindly believe him, I presume?

[Mat]

Heh, this morning on Today, O'Neil said he wish he hadn't had said most of the things that were written in the book, and that it was more of the author's book than his... Maybe he's got a bit of a guilty conscience for not telling the whole truth, eh?