If John Kerry is able to win the elction this November, do you think there will be a Bush family deathmatch in 2008? George would want to reclaim what he sees as his rightful place and run again and Jeb, who has been waiting in the wings, might see 2008 as his turn. What will Barbara--the dragon lady to end all dragon ladies--do?

~Adam

If Bush Loses in November...

it wouldn't be the first time.

If Bush loses in November, look for one of the most bitter transfers-of-power ever. Bush will whine about how he is president until Jan. 20 and no one can tell him what to do.

Twin, so so true. Reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker at the moment, "Re-defeat Bush". wink

Actually, we were treated to "the most bitter transfer of power" when Clinton took his time leaving - and too many artifacts from - the WH.

This entire thread is nothing more than speculative and gratuitous Bush-bashing. It adds nothing to the debate.

and then there's the truth. i find the most telling line in the story is the one stating that the gao couldn't confirm the damage claimed by the incoming (bush) administration because of a lack of records provided by the white house!

plus ca change!

[ September 13, 2004, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

double post, my bad.

[ September 13, 2004, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: thersis ]

Adam, looking at your question objectively, I would say No. No eligible former President has even considered running again since TR in 1912. Grover Cleveland is the only one who succeeded and that was because he lost the electoral college in 1888 but won the popular vote, and was the first Democrat in a generation to win the Executive Mansion.

Also, the GOP has tended to ask this question when nominating a candidate: "Who's turn is it?" Usually the "powers that be" in the Republican party unite behind one candidate perceived as being the one who has given enough to the party to deserve nomination, or strongest GOP credentials. Only 1964 breaks that pattern when Goldwater defeated Rockefeller and Scranton.

So when Bush loses, you'll have a race in '08 between John McCain (though at 73 he might pass), Rudy, and Jebby. Wild card would be Tom Ridge.

In that match up, McCain would probably get the nomination even though the powers that be would question his GOP stands. McCain out, it goes to Jebby, but only because he's more GOP on their core issues. eek!

I have to agree that the formulation of the question was gratuitous Bush bashing. A defeated president will not run for election after the intervening term. TR did it as a member of a different party and it was a disaster. I think everyone has learned the lesson of that one. Bush may be a bit of a loose cannon, but he's enough of a party loyalist to see the folly of those ways.

Calling Barbara a "dragon lady" lets Nancy off the hook, and that's unacceptable. I can't think of a First Lady I prefer to Barbara. Even Hillary makes a better Senator than she did First Lady. But then again, I'm not particularly fond of the focus we put on that position in this day and age. I prefer Bess Truman's attitude.

I've always considered George H. W. Bush a gentleman, and assume the ease of the transition from his tenure to Clinton was because of his ability to look beyond the immediate failure of his campaign. I do not consider his son to be a gentleman, and the people he surrounds himself with are certainly not. If I had to choose who was lying, I'd pick his crew over Clinton's. It may be partisan, but I think it's just good judgment of charecter.

A landmark electoral reform proposal is on the Nov. 2nd ballot in Colorado which, if passed, would go into effect immediately and would divide up the state's 9 electoral college votes (instead of the winner-take-all formula that is currently used in every state but Nebraska and Maine)....according to this wire story today the Bush camp is fighting the initiative (which is backed by a millionaire from Brazil who is attempting to get the proposal passed) and is "scrambling to rally support", lest the 4-5 apportioned electoral votes determine the presidency....FYI, if this amendment had been in force in 2000 Bush would have carried only 5 instead of all of the state's 9 votes, resulting in Al Gore being in the White House today.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that the Republican presidential candidate has carried Colorado in every election except 1964 and 1992, the column points out that "the situation could backfire on the Democrats. Thanks to the popularity of their Senate candidate Ken Salazar, Kerry could outdo Bush here November 2, and end up suffering from the change...Seen as in the Republican camp some months ago for both presidential and senate races, Colorado is now considered the ultimate toss-up."

~Joe

[ October 12, 2004, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: gamecock ]

IF the initiative passes, look for an immediate court challenge on constitutional grounds. I saw a news report that the initiative will be challenged on the grounds that the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to apportion its electoral votes. I am NOT a constitutional expert by any means, but that's what I be hearing. Others are against the change (not just Bushies) becuase it would dilute the state's electoral college power and cost Colorado whatever influence it may have had in the past.

Needless to say, it's my opinion that this election won't be close enough in the electoral college (according to the Constitution, the popular vote means nothing) for Colorado's 9 votes to make the difference.

My belief regarding the 2000 transition of power was that both sides were a bit guilty and testy. I think the Dems had quite a bit more to be bitter about regarding the campaign, but I don't believe that gave them the right to cause any damage or issues.

However, I can imagine that the Repubs made it very clear and very smug that they were now in charge.

I have always wondered why states had to completely give all of their votes to one candidate. Why not use a percentage base in a state to provide a division of the electorates.
It would still permit the same amount of power to the state by controlling the # of electorates but not silence the minority votes in any state. Im sorry, but in some states I think Dems and Repub voters are disenfranchised by the electorate- like as a Dem, why would I bother to vote in Idaho at all? All the electorates are going to Bush- if you use the percentage of electorates give victory by Congressional districts, this disenfranchisement may not occur.

Anyways- I am not hopeful Bush will lose, but I will be thrilled if he does. I think he's tired of the "hard work".

Doesn't Maine already do what Colorado is proposing? Or is that only in local elections?

I would hope that after this Bush, we never elect another in my lifetime, since the progression in generations marked a worsening on all levels.

That includes George Prescott Bush, who is both hot and smart (unlike his father, uncle or grandfather).

Pretty depressing reading this thread. Just reminds me how far we've veered from any sort of true democracy: Electoral College, influence of money, the low turnout. And this is what we all consider the "lesser of evils" among the worlds governing institutions - so much "lesser" that we seek to impose it by force all over the world. That old saw "We can do better." screams out at me when I think about such things. I could never support Communism, but we certainly seem to have lost sight of the common good. Sad.

Maine and Nebraska distribute their electoral votes according to who won each congressional district and then whoever wins the vote state-wide gets the two senate votes. Colorado would apportion its electoral votes according to the state-wide totals. Colorado has 9 votes-Bushie gets 55%-he gets 5 votes, Kerry with 45% gets 4 votes.

As for American politics just now getting nasty, I would direct you to almost everyone of America's Prez elections-they have always been nasty. One election had a candidate accusing the other of fathering an illigetimate child. Our elections have not gotten worse. With the internet, we just here a lot more of the nasty stuff.

America has never been a true democracy. It's a representative republic (hope my term is correct). If you want a direct Prez election, it could get very messy and up being as politically divisive as the 2000 election.

Let's take the 1992 election. Most people assume Ross Perot got mostly Bushie votes (maybe wrong here). With a popular vote election such as in France, the top 2 vote getters would have a run-off after the first election. The 1992 runoff would have pit Clinton Vs Bush-Bush would have had a 50/50 chance or better of winning head to head. Then you have the time it takes for vote challenges (as in 2000)-could you challenge, do a recount and then have the runoff?? Don't think so.

OK, now that I have finished "War and Peace" in this thread, I will go to bed.

As in Bush's wanting a Constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage, I would hope the Constitution would not be changed Willy Nilly (love thate term). The Electoral College is not perfect, but I am not sure if a change would IMPROVE things. IMHO-WIAR

Off-topic, but I've never been able to figure out why people are so convinced Perot got mostly Bush voters. First of all, it's inconsistent with polling data. Secondly, Perot's policies were hardly Republican--he opposed free trade and wanted to raise taxes. Actually, I read an article prior to Perot's entrance as an independent suggesting that Perot should run for the Democrats.

if bush loses in november.....

and the world will be a better place
and the world will be a better place
for you
and me
just wait
and seeeeee

put a little love in you heart...

If Bush looses in November...

It will be the 3rd time in the last 4 elections that a Bush has gotten fewer votes than the opposition.

We will never know who the Perotistas would have voted for in a run-off between Bush and Clinton. The talking heads I watched at the time, thought his big business ties from Texas, and his anti-NAFTA stance (like Pat Buchanan's), would appeal to the mostly GOPers.

Needless to say, a direct Prez election sounds like the answer, but it would create new problems. I am all for more direct democracy.

I just mix my enthusiasm with a little bit of cynism about mankind and a dash of realism.

Thanks for sharing that, JC....I STILL proudly admit that I voted for Perot (along with 18% of the electorate, which is so often overlooked) and were he not on the ballot I would NEVER have voted for W's father and the Democratic party would have retained my allegiance....having said that, I do NOT consider my vote for the Texas billionaire to have been "wasted", as many members of the GOP (to this day) would like the public to believe.

~Joe

I am sure if you would have voted for Clinton, if not for Perot, the GOPers would not considered your vote wasted. They would have wished a few million more would have followed your lead.

Personally, I thought Perot was a little cooky at the time. But I now look back and think he was the best of the bunch. I liked his attitude towards the federal budget deficit and NAFTA should have been looked at more carefully. He seemed like a 90s version of Harry Truman-Ross would have givin them all hell!

Afer reading this topic i remember seeing a newsbite many weeks ago on CNN Headline News that stated Bill Frist would be the favourtie among republicans in '08. I believe he is a senator from Tennessee? Not that I know a lot about him, but he sounds like a good choice for the republicans geographically.

Senate majority leader from TN. Medical doctor. Conservative and close to George Bush-supported him when Lott had to step down. I don't know much about him either-that's about all I know.

His family owns a controlling interest in the Columbia/HCA chain of for-profit hospitals, which got nailed a few years back for massive Medicare fraud. On social issues, Dr Frist makes Santorum look positively liberal. Can't say that he'd be any improvement over El Presidente, but then again, I'm a yellow-dog Democrat...

I would say Frist would be one of the front runners-although there is not a good chance of a sitting Senator becoming Prez. If my history serves me, it's not happened but a few times. I know Florida Bush wants it bad.

As for the Dems, it's Hillary and maybe John Edwards. Do ya hear that sucking sound??? It's not Monica on Bill, it's Hillary sucking up all the cash from the Democratic fund raisers in '08.

I agree- I think that McCain and Giuliani are too obvious of choices for the upper tier in 2008. I think someone will sneak up through the ranks in the next four yearsand become the primary focus of the candidacy. Both McCain and Giuliani are too popular and their flames will flicker...

The Dems will simply run the Kerry/Edwards ticket again wink or I sense if we have Bush in power til 2008 that somone could bring Hillary on board as a V.P. candidate- I actually think she would be stronger in this position versus the higher up

A few thoughts...
Of course someone would mention Clinton..and in another topic bash media reports, typical

I would be rather concerned about what a scorned GW, party in control of both the HOR and Senate would do

Last, if Bush loses how long do you think it will take for someone on the web to have Trump saying George Bush YOUR FIRED!

Last, it almost seems as if they think they might lose...
oh and one last point the the electorials are not bound to follow the popular vote

[ October 15, 2004, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: p2insdca ]

If Bush loses in November, then this boob will get waht he deserves.

Pity poor President Kerry. He will have to undo the damage that this buffoon has done over the past 3 + years.

McCain, and especially Guiliani, are too moderate for Republican primary voters. Unless McCain can get new people to turnout, or Dems to cross over, i don't think he would win the GOP nomination. I am not sure how old he is right now, but 2008 maybe too late for him.