2004 Presidential Election

[JOEBIALEK]

I received an email the other day entitled "He's done more damage than we thought" (author unknown) which is a list of failures attributed to President George W. Bush. After careful research and analysis to verify authenticity, I have come to the conclusion that the American people will fire George W. Bush on November 2, 2004 and hire John Kerry by a landslide of votes. I will summarize this list and comment where appropriate.

A. Foreign Policy

1. "Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community." While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush. I too was wrong in pushing for the removal of Hussein rather than staying focused on Bin Laden and the other terrorist organizations. Further, it is doubtful that Hussein could have developed WMD under the watchful eye of U.N.weapons inspectors and regular sorties flown by U.S. fighters throughout the no-fly zones (not to mention satellite surveillance). Kerry will need to initiate reconciliation through an international summit of European and Middle Eastern nations to begin the process of cleaning up this mess in Iraq (and worldwide). After the summit, the world will witness the slow withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq and the quick advancement of U.N. troops into Iraq.

2. "Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found." In doing so, he has compromised the war on terrorism by directing 200 billion dollars for an overt combat operation as opposed to a covert operation. The United States has lost over 1,000 soldiers and thousands more are severely maimed prompting some to ask: hey hey GWB, how many kids will it be? The wiser choice would have been to invest 50 billion dollars in covert operations and 50 billion in homeland security. Besides, using conventional troops to fight terrorists is similar to the British army using regulars to fight French guerrillas during the Revolutionary War. Consequently, volunteerism for U.S. military service has sharply declined for all branches prompting rumors of a draft. Kerry will need to redirect resources to enhance homeland security while getting many more nations to share in troop and money commitments overseas especially in Iraq. He will also need to push Saudi Arabia and China to administer sanctions against Iran and North Korea to prevent further nuclear proliferation. Most importantly, however, he will need to fight terrorists overseas through covert operations.

B. Domestic Policy

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history." Bush's tax cuts to the wealthy along with irresponsible subsidizing of the war in Iraq has taken the U.S. budget from dark black to bright red all in the span of four years. Another four years of this squandering will bankrupt the United States. The remaining 100 billion dollars (from above) could have been invested in domestic programs like health care, education and the infrastructure. Kerry will need to revoke the tax cuts for the rich and reduce the United State's financial/military commitment in Iraq. These two changes (along with others) should result in a balanced budget in four years with the possibility of a return to a budget surplus in eight years.

2. "Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History." His presidency has been the most "in-your-face" support of the wealthy whether it be tax cuts, the lack of an energy and environmental policy, failure to crack down hard on corporate corruption etc. Kerry will need to bring back former Clinton advisor Robert Ruben to turn the economy around just as was done after the failed administration of Bush Sr. Kerry will need to fast-track the operationalizing of alternative energy sources in order to reduce U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil specifically and world oil in general. As a former prosecutor, he will need to push for long-term prison sentences for those committing white-collar crimes and reduce the difficulty of prosecuting the likes of Ken Ley.

Conclusion

The failures by George W. Bush, the viable alternative of John Kerry, the massive number of newly registered voters, the amount of attention being given by the American people on this election and the mass media trying to spin this race as being close are all clear signs of a Kerry landslide. On the November 2, 2004 the people will speak loud and clear.

[Pieist]

I personally dont think Kerry would do a good job, but then again you never know.

[Nick]

Kerry may or may not be better, but one has to question the logic of keeping someone in office that has generally changed the nation for the worse. If your CEO wrecks your company, you fire him.

[Parrakarry]

We've already seen Bush in action. Kerry's an unknown. Personally, I'd take my chances with Kerry.

[The Kryptonian]

What many people do not realize is that the Democratic party is using Kerry, specifically in hopes that he will lose against Bush. They plan (as some Democrats say) to set Hillary Clinton up for the 2008 election. Kerry does not exactly have the best chances for winning this election--That is why he is running, and not Hillary.

Back on topic, why don't you all do some research and see exactly what Bush inherited from Clinton, and you will see some surprising facts, such as: Clinton's choices on intelligence cost us 3,000 American lives on 9-11.

[Super Shy Guy]

Motto of the Bush Administration: It's Clinton's Fault.

[Nick]

Originally posted by The Kryptonian:
What many people do not realize is that the Democratic party is using Kerry, specifically in hopes that he will lose against Bush. They plan (as some Democrats say) to set Hillary Clinton up for the 2008 election. Kerry does not exactly have the best chances for winning this election--That is why he is running, and not Hillary.

Back on topic, why don't you all do some research and see exactly what Bush inherited from Clinton, and you will see some surprising facts, such as: Clinton's choices on intelligence cost us 3,000 American lives on 9-11.

First part conspiracy theory, second part incorrect. Nice.

[CaptHayfever]

^^Yep. And the motto of Kerry's administration would be "It's Bush's fault."

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Koga]

As explained in Joe Bialek's first post, may of today's problems can be directly linked to Bush.

[CaptHayfever]

That's not the point. The point is that Kerry just blames everything on Bush just like Bush blames everything on Clinton. The administrative motto we should be hearing is "Let's forget about who broke it and FIX it already!"

We have an incredibly difficult choice over here between a bunch of candidates who would be terrible, horrible presidents, and the two that have most chance of winning are likely the worst of the lot. So stop lecturing us on what we already know, ok, Koga? WE'RE the ones who have to make this decision, not you, and despite your intentions, you're not helping.

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

[Koga]

I wasn't trying to lecture you, I was just pointing out that Kerry would be fair to blame the problems on Bush. I agree that they should focus on the solution rather than the problems. We've got some political parties here who point out many problems of the government but don't come with any solutions either.

[OcarinaMan]

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK:
While it is true that Congress authorized the President to invade Iraq, the fact that U.S. intelligence was so conflicting brings into question the judgment of Bush.

And who exactly was responsible for bad U.S. intelligence? Clinton and Congress during his administration.

[The Missing Link]

Originally posted by JOEBIALEK:
"Bush is the first president in US history to order a US attack AND military occupation of a sovereign nation, and did so against the will of the United Nations and the vast majority of the international community."
......................................
"Bush recklessly put U.S. soldiers in harms way by invading Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction which still have not been found."

I have to appreciate how these things are always worded. I'd have to say that over two-thirds of the time, statistics that are non sequitur but sound good are placed together in hopes of suggesting cause and effect or point and proof.

Need we forget the news over the past few months? Let's recap.
(a) All intelligence sources in the US believed that there were WoMDs in Iraq. Let's face it, sure, either this is a big screw up on our part OR Iraq hid them really well OR sent them off to somewhere else. However, given that intelligence, what are you going to do? Say you don't believe them? These people, wrong or not, have jobs to investigate this stuff; consider them the leaders of the intelligence community. Disbelieving them is probably the most stupid thing you can do.
(b) The Russians believed there were WoMDs in Iraq. Source: our good old friend Vladimir Putin. Vlad had whispered in the ear of our President that there were WoMDs in Iraq, and it wasn't just the Russians. There were other people too who were convinced of it. With our own intelligence plus the intelligence of others telling us this, just what are you going to do? Ignore them all? How much are you willing to risk?
(c) Bush could not have passed it by the U.N. because of the French. No matter how you look at it, the French would never have approved this measure, and it's not just because they didn't like the war. They didn't like the war because they were getting kickbacks from Saddam Hussein because of the overtly corrupt Oil for Food program. Saddam gives them a little oil for cheap so that they can sell it elsewhere for big-time bucks. Let's ponder this. If it were in France's best interest to leave Saddam there, EVEN IF they had WoMDs in Iraq, would they have been sold on the idea? Like heck they would've.
(d) If "vast majority" of the international community equates to France and Germany, then I think they've got to start looking in the dictionary some.
(e) Bush actually met the requests of the US Senate prior to going to war in Iraq. They requested Bush to go to the UN; he did. They requested weapons inspections; Bush allowed them. They requested allies; Bush satisfied them.

Now let's go on the offense. You don't like Bush? Better not vote for Kerry as a substitute.
(a) Kerry voted for the authorisation of the President to go to war. Sure, NOW he's claiming it that the President should have the right... pending that got the alliance he was promising. So let's get this straight: you vote for the war when you really want to wait and see how it goes before you really want that war to kick start? Where does that start making sense?
(b) Kerry, in the midst of his anti-war mobilisation, has said that he would, knowing today that there would be no WoMDs found in Iraq, still have gone into Iraq with the war. Okay, so it's the wrong war, but I still would've done it. It looks like Nader is more promising all the day.
(c) The primary qualm now about the Iraq war is the lack of allies that Bush took into the war. Given that we have no idea WHAT Kerry really thinks about the war AND given that even Kerry can't get the French into the war now (nor then because of Oil for Food), what alliances does Kerry hope to obtain to help complete the war?

Yep, looks like if you're upset about Iraq, you'd better vote Nader this time around.

1. "Bush spent the U.S. surplus and shattered the record for the biggest annual deficit in history."

I will admit, I don't like the abandonment of pay-go. However, we have to consider the following things.
(a) Bush's tax cuts are not "for the rich". Anyone remember the Bush checks that Bush signed into law at the very beginning of his campaign? Those went to everyone, not just "the rich". Secondly, even if they were "for the rich", let's do a quick analysis of who the rich are.... how about business owners? To quote a rather famous source, "I never got a job from a poor man." As such, the business owners, now with a bit more money in their budget, are able to hire more workers and increase the salaries of their employees. What, you think that every person in the world is inheritly greedy and will hoarde every single dollar to themselves and not buy stuff? No way! They're going to buy stuff from someone else. Even if that is an umpteen million dollar yacht, that yacht has to be made, and thus people have to be hired to build said yacht. Rich people tend to get bigger tax cuts because, surprise, they pay more taxes.
(b) As if Kerry is going to be better. Kerry still hasn't responded to claims about the tax gap between his spending proposals versus his tax freeze on the "middle class". Kerry vows he won't raise taxes on anyone who earns under $200k per year, but at the same time can't raise enough money to fun his multitrillion dollar spending cap. Balance the budget? Only if he's using that "new math" concept.

"Bush entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down. His first two years in office resulted in 2 million Americans losing their jobs AND he cut unemployment benefits for more out-of-work Americans than any other president in US History."

(a) Can anyone say... 9/11? Folks, if you think Bush caused this ruckus, I've got news to you? Do you remember waking up on 9/12? People were really freaking scared. People didn't want to leave their houses. People thought the malls would get blown up. People thought the world was going to end. People... stopped spending money. THAT'S the reason all the economic indicators went belly up. You think Bush caused that? Don't you remember how many airlines nearly or did go bankrupt in the months following 9/11? The terrorists caused that. If anything, Bush did the opposite. Bush had to spur the economy into action. Bush HAD to lower taxes in order for us to increase consumer confidence. You think we'd have spent more money if he had hiked taxes!? Not on this planet. Why else would interest rates be the lowest they had been in 50-some years?
(b) We came in with a bubble in the economy from the Clinton's era. I won't even blame it on Clinton (the President doesn't do all that much to physically help the economy, and if you don't like that, then tough; it's a fact), but the fact that the bubble DID burst at the get-go is a sign that we started off Day 1 with a negative directioned economy. 9/11 made that even worse. To think that in the past two and a half years that we nearly turned around the 9/11 sink is actually quite amazing.
(c) With this comes the issue of jobs. Yes, jobs. Now before anyone ridicules me on this, I live in Ohio, ranked 49th in job "creation" this year. We've had a net loss. But people, when money doesn't flow in the nice circle that we call "circular economics", people don't make money. If people don't make money, people can't afford to keep others as employees. When employees can't be kept, what happens? They get laid off. This net job deficit over four years (which is a debated statistic) is a NATURAL result from us being both at war AND attacked on our home soil. Never mind that the President has REALLY LITTLE control on job creation; Bush did the best he could.
(d) Talk to any investor in the nation and ask who would be better for the economy. Nine times out of ten, they'll say Bush. Bush's economic policies, record and statements, are more consistent with economic growth than Kerry's record and statements. And that comes from someone with financial and investment experience.

Conclusion

The quotes are all a sham. They're pitting statistics up against non sequitur conclusions, tainted with the "It's Bush's fault" charge when nine times out of ten, there was little he could have done to have prevented it. Thus, for those of us actually thinking about what we're being told, there's two sides to every issue. Bush is FAR from perfect, and I'll be the first person to admit that. But he's not as bad as many demean him to be; in fact, he's actually a decent President. The problem is that most people see Kerry as this hero, or at least see him as "Not Bush". Kerry may accuse Bush's policy of being "more of the same", but Kerry's policy can be summed up in three words: "Bush, but better". Yes, you had all better vote for Nader, because Kerry surely won't be helping us out.

This election won't be a landslide by any means. If it IS a landslide, it'll actually be for Bush than Kerry given the newest polls out -- 50% to 47% Bush.

[Nick]

(a) All intelligence sources in the US believed that there were WoMDs in Iraq. Let's face it, sure, either this is a big screw up on our part OR Iraq hid them really well OR sent them off to somewhere else. However, given that intelligence, what are you going to do? Say you don't believe them? These people, wrong or not, have jobs to investigate this stuff; consider them the leaders of the intelligence community. Disbelieving them is probably the most stupid thing you can do.

Iraq doesn't equal war on terror for starters. If we go by original mission, we failed miserably. Intelligence is pointing to Osama bin Laden hiding in Pakistan, yet we refuse to even approach the Pakistanis to get in there and investigate.

There is massive evidence of a WMD program in stasis that wasn't functioning, but little to none showing an active one that is similar to that described by Powell (who's since apologized for his UN speech), the UK, and the CIA. There's been talk of book-cooking through the CIA, and there is considerable evidence against the administration for rushing to war.

Furthermore, there was direct and open evidence agaist other countries who are still actively going after WMDs (North Korea especially, Iran to a lesser extent). North Korea was closer to a bomb, had delievery systems just under ICBM range, and has a ground army that's more than able to pour over the DMZ and demolish one of the more technological powerhouse countries in Asia. Why is that ignored.

(b) The Russians believed there were WoMDs in Iraq. Source: our good old friend Vladimir Putin. Vlad had whispered in the ear of our President that there were WoMDs in Iraq, and it wasn't just the Russians. There were other people too who were convinced of it. With our own intelligence plus the intelligence of others telling us this, just what are you going to do? Ignore them all? How much are you willing to risk?

Lets examine Putin: Used Chechnyian attacks (which are a result of a decade of bungled Russian policy to Chechnya) to increase his power while decreasing the power of the regional governments and the Russian Dumas. Lets not forget the shifty tactics used against opposition leaders, such as open kidnapping and inprisonment. Putin is securing a new dictatorial state in Russia, so you know....he's credible and all.

(c) Bush could not have passed it by the U.N. because of the French. No matter how you look at it, the French would never have approved this measure, and it's not just because they didn't like the war. They didn't like the war because they were getting kickbacks from Saddam Hussein because of the overtly corrupt Oil for Food program. Saddam gives them a little oil for cheap so that they can sell it elsewhere for big-time bucks. Let's ponder this. If it were in France's best interest to leave Saddam there, EVEN IF they had WoMDs in Iraq, would they have been sold on the idea? Like heck they would've.

It says something that public opinion supporting the US was at an alltime high (higher than post WWII) in the international community after 9/11. Why? We were finally going to address a problem that has plagued the rest of the world for decades: terrorism. Yet, we saw support in this fade after we started to slack off and shift focus from anti-terrorism to this hunt for Saddam's unconnected WMDs. Evidence was sketchy at best, so that didn't help our case. France would have been on board if we would have presented solid and true evidence because the rest of NATO would have been on board. UK, US and Austrailia does not make a wide-spread coalition.

d) If "vast majority" of the international community equates to France and Germany, then I think they've got to start looking in the dictionary some.

Don't forget Poland. Let's face it...we went in without our traditional allies. We couldn't even get NATO troops in Iraq. UK, Australia, and the US bore the main invasion, and anyone else that was in our "coalition" was in name only or in support roles and not doing direct fighting. Even then, no major powers outside of Britain were in the coalition. Why do you think that is? The real question should be "How did George Bush manage to turn the greatest level of international American support since WWII into the greatest level of international American hatred EVER?"

(e) Bush actually met the requests of the US Senate prior to going to war in Iraq. They requested Bush to go to the UN; he did. They requested weapons inspections; Bush allowed them. They requested allies; Bush satisfied them.

Doesn't say much since the Senate was republican controlled, nor does it say much since the politically accountable senate was still in its post-9/11 rollover phase (meaning it was too afraid to stand up to questionable policies). That doesn't even get to the notion of faulty intelligence given to Senate members.

a) Kerry voted for the authorisation of the President to go to war. Sure, NOW he's claiming it that the President should have the right... pending that got the alliance he was promising. So let's get this straight: you vote for the war when you really want to wait and see how it goes before you really want that war to kick start? Where does that start making sense?

You missed his point and you don't have a grasp on national politics, though I may touch on the latter in a little bit if I'm not too tired. He's basically saying that the President should have the right to engage in war as commander in chief. Also, in the minds of every career politician in Washington, the spectre of military action is generally thought to go hand in hand with seeking support from our strongest allies. Bush has violated 50 years of foreign policy and scuttled decades of work in foreign relations for his crusade. Is that truely worth it?

(b) Kerry, in the midst of his anti-war mobilisation, has said that he would, knowing today that there would be no WoMDs found in Iraq, still have gone into Iraq with the war. Okay, so it's the wrong war, but I still would've done it. It looks like Nader is more promising all the day.

Completely and utterly out of context, like most Kerry quotes. He's referring to the point from the first one.

c) The primary qualm now about the Iraq war is the lack of allies that Bush took into the war. Given that we have no idea WHAT Kerry really thinks about the war AND given that even Kerry can't get the French into the war now (nor then because of Oil for Food), what alliances does Kerry hope to obtain to help complete the war?

I'm a shareholder in a company. The CEO we elect takes on some questionable policies that essentially drives my stock value from 50/share to 3/share. At the shareholder meeting, we're given the option of firing the current CEO and electing a new CEO. The potential new CEO doesn't have a clear plan to fix all of the mistakes of the former, but he'll still get elected every time because if someone screws up that badly, any replacement is needed. Kerry isn't calling for an immediate pullout (since he's realistic and knows it isn't possible). The main reason he's being vague is because it isn't smart politics to present a clear-cut plan or course of action in a campaign because it may not be possible or may backfire. Prime example is Kennedy in the 1960 elections criticizing Nixon (Ike's VP) for the administration being too soft on Cuba. He gets in and finds out that they were actually planning the Bay of Pigs, and pressured by his campaign rhetoric and old guard military advisors, he orders that fiasco.

a) Bush's tax cuts are not "for the rich". Anyone remember the Bush checks that Bush signed into law at the very beginning of his campaign? Those went to everyone, not just "the rich". Secondly, even if they were "for the rich", let's do a quick analysis of who the rich are.... how about business owners? To quote a rather famous source, "I never got a job from a poor man." As such, the business owners, now with a bit more money in their budget, are able to hire more workers and increase the salaries of their employees. What, you think that every person in the world is inheritly greedy and will hoarde every single dollar to themselves and not buy stuff? No way! They're going to buy stuff from someone else. Even if that is an umpteen million dollar yacht, that yacht has to be made, and thus people have to be hired to build said yacht. Rich people tend to get bigger tax cuts because, surprise, they pay more taxes.

Wealthy pay more taxes, but they should bear the tax burden, not the middle and lower classes. Tax cuts can work and do work, although they have two styles. Temporary ones should be coupled with increased government spending. This worked fairly well in the mid-20th century (Kennedy and LBJ, lesser extent Ike). Granted, most of the boom was due to the Interstate system forming. Then there's the typical Neo-con tax-cut. Cut all taxes permanently. This actually can work IF YOU CUT SPENDING. Under Bush, the size of the fed has ballooned to its highest level ever (after 2 decades of cuts under Reagan, Bush, and Clinton). He hasn't controlled spending, and it isn't like he's facing a hostile congress. He's had Republican controlled Congresses every year save half of one that he's been in office. Why has he not vetoed any of these grotesquely large spending bills? He single-handedly through is inaction took the US budget from a nice shade of black to a horribly bad shade of crimson.

(b) As if Kerry is going to be better. Kerry still hasn't responded to claims about the tax gap between his spending proposals versus his tax freeze on the "middle class". Kerry vows he won't raise taxes on anyone who earns under $200k per year, but at the same time can't raise enough money to fun his multitrillion dollar spending cap. Balance the budget? Only if he's using that "new math" concept.

It really doesn't matter. He at least is trying to find a way to get the budget out of the red. The Bush admin has made no indication that they'd actually balance the budget or even try to remotely control spending. Do you realize how many people would not understand the technical jargon in a report on the proposed kerry budget? He doesnt' even get access to the specifics of much of the intelligence budget, so he doesn't know how much is going to antiterrorism in Afghanastan and how much is going to ohidontknow developing mind-controlling giant chickens with eye rays.

Can anyone say... 9/11? Folks, if you think Bush caused this ruckus, I've got news to you? Do you remember waking up on 9/12? People were really freaking scared. People didn't want to leave their houses. People thought the malls would get blown up. People thought the world was going to end. People... stopped spending money. THAT'S the reason all the economic indicators went belly up. You think Bush caused that? Don't you remember how many airlines nearly or did go bankrupt in the months following 9/11? The terrorists caused that. If anything, Bush did the opposite. Bush had to spur the economy into action. Bush HAD to lower taxes in order for us to increase consumer confidence. You think we'd have spent more money if he had hiked taxes!? Not on this planet. Why else would interest rates be the lowest they had been in 50-some years?
b) We came in with a bubble in the economy from the Clinton's era. I won't even blame it on Clinton (the President doesn't do all that much to physically help the economy, and if you don't like that, then tough; it's a fact), but the fact that the bubble DID burst at the get-go is a sign that we started off Day 1 with a negative directioned economy. 9/11 made that even worse. To think that in the past two and a half years that we nearly turned around the 9/11 sink is actually quite amazing.

How do you pay for the new programs he instituted? Furthermore, blaming 9/11 for everything doesn't work. There are far too many other issues plaguing the economy. 2001 saw the final nail in the tech-boom's coffin. See, that was faulty investor's problem. Investing ungodly amounts of capital into dot-com startups that aren't proven and have no profit structure is stupid and should have never happened.

(c) With this comes the issue of jobs. Yes, jobs. Now before anyone ridicules me on this, I live in Ohio, ranked 49th in job "creation" this year. We've had a net loss. But people, when money doesn't flow in the nice circle that we call "circular economics", people don't make money. If people don't make money, people can't afford to keep others as employees. When employees can't be kept, what happens? They get laid off. This net job deficit over four years (which is a debated statistic) is a NATURAL result from us being both at war AND attacked on our home soil. Never mind that the President has REALLY LITTLE control on job creation; Bush did the best he could.

The rust belt is a prime example of why Bush has actually worked against the American worker. In the last 5 years, outsourcing has become a huge problem. Bush turned a blind eye to it. Companies recieve "corporate welfare" even if they outsource American jobs to sweatshop conditions overseas. That is deplorable. 9/11 didn't effect manufacturing, it effected office. People getting laid off in an auto-part plant because the company packed it up and moved to Malaysia has nothing to do with 9/11, but everything to do with the federal government allowing companies to still get taxbreaks and federal subsidies when they're exporting the workforce. The jobs created under bush pay an average of $9000 less than the jobs that were lost under Bush. That is not good.

(d) Talk to any investor in the nation and ask who would be better for the economy. Nine times out of ten, they'll say Bush. Bush's economic policies, record and statements, are more consistent with economic growth than Kerry's record and statements. And that comes from someone with financial and investment experience.

Talk to any investor in 1999 and he'd tell you to sink all your money into Worldcomm, Enron, and generic-dot-com-failure-number-5.

Bush is FAR from perfect, and I'll be the first person to admit that. But he's not as bad as many demean him to be; in fact, he's actually a decent President. The problem is that most people see Kerry as this hero, or at least see him as "Not Bush". Kerry may accuse Bush's policy of being "more of the same", but Kerry's policy can be summed up in three words: "Bush, but better". Yes, you had all better vote for Nader, because Kerry surely won't be helping us out.

Bush had no mandate, though he acted as if he did. The state of things are generally worse than they were 4 years ago, and change is needed. Keeping someone that hasn't made things better or stay the same in power is dumb from any standpoint...we don't need an Eisner-style situation in politics.

This election won't be a landslide by any means. If it IS a landslide, it'll actually be for Bush than Kerry given the newest polls out -- 50% to 47% Bush.

Debatable. All of the polls fall in the margin of error, plus the general consensus among staticians is the heart-pounding fear that they're underestimating and representing the under 30 crowd in the polls. The tech-savvy under 30 crowd is thought of as not being able to be polled because more and more of them are primarily using cells and not house-phones, plus the under 30 crowd isn't included as much because they're generally not clear to the pollers, so they don't know where to include them. Many staticians have feared that a large turnout by the under-30 crowd would completely contradict the projected polls.

Pushing all of that aside, Bush proved in 2000 that you don't need a majority to win. Kerry is a traditionally strong finisher, and he's fairing well in many of the large-vote states and gaining ground in many of the swing states.

[Nick]

echo

[imported_]

huh?

[ocarinagirl]

MY TOES ARE COLD.

[Prince Toad]

^Well ****, put some socks on.

[ocarinagirl]

Erm...

*cough*

[Prince Toad]

Well ****.