| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| I just don't know about 2004 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 26 2003, 09:37 AM (360 Views) | |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 26 2003, 09:37 AM Post #1 |
|
Admiral
|
I was watching the Democratic debate on MSNBC last night and found myself shaking my head. I will have quite a dilemma during the next Presidential election. As I'm sure most of you know, I can't see myself voting for Bush. But the thought that I would be voting for one of THESE candidates instead...?
I can't see myself voting for Edwards, Gephardt, Sharpton, Kucinich, or Braun at all. I seriously doubt I could vote for Clark or Graham either. So that leaves Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman. I can't say I'm excited about any of those three. Sigh. I do think Bush is vulnerable in 2004, but I'm having a hard time believing yet that any of these 10 could be the one to beat him.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Lilac | Sep 26 2003, 09:51 AM Post #2 |
|
Painting the board red
|
Well, I won't be voting for any of them since I'm English ;), but I must say I see Bush still there in 2004, though I don't like him much. Though many people dislike him, he still has some loyal followers. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Sep 26 2003, 10:03 AM Post #3 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Count me as one of the loyal followers. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Swidden | Sep 26 2003, 10:11 AM Post #4 |
|
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
|
Impulse, I have the same dilemma as far as Govenor goes in California. That vote is in two weeks... |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 26 2003, 10:15 AM Post #5 |
|
Admiral
|
I see your point. If I lived there, I would feel the same. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Sep 26 2003, 10:20 AM Post #6 |
|
Unregistered
|
I will probably vote for Bush, although I am interested in Clark. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| 24thcenstfan | Sep 26 2003, 11:09 AM Post #7 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
Impulse…I am also facing the same dilemma. I just hope my decision-making isn’t reduced to having to pick between the lesser of two evils…among the Democratic candidates and eventually between the Democratic Candidate and Bush. That is a voting situation that I don’t want to be in. Lilac Posted on Sep 26 2003, 10:51 AM
Something about that phrase always scares me when it is used in reference to another human being.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Fesarius | Sep 26 2003, 11:12 AM Post #8 |
|
Admiral
|
Me as well--probably because I immediately think of 'cult.' |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| benetil | Sep 26 2003, 11:55 AM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
It does seem pretty bleak right now, ImpulseEngine. But things will come together. I'm trying to remember about four years ago - all of the Republican candidates who were competing for their party's nomination: in addition to George W. Bush there was John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, Elizabeth Dole, Steve Forbes, Allen Keyes, John McCain and Dan Quayle (I think). Many people thought that things (in 2000) seemed hopeless for the Republicans - they (the candidates) were so busy attacking themselves and trying to gain public (Republican) support at the same time. In due course, a front-runner emerged, the Party came back together and I'll be darned if they didn't capture the White House. I say this because I think we'll see the Democrats go through a similar process as they prepare for 2004. I agree with you - in the field of the Democratic hopefuls, I see just a few who really have what it will take to challenge President Bush. I respect Senator Joe Lieberman, I'm intrigued by Governor Howard Dean and right now I have to say that General Wesley Clark has introduced some real excitement into the equation. (Oh - the rest of the Democratic candidates can go pound rock, in my opinion.) Most of all, I agree with you that President Bush is vulnerable in 2004 - it's going to be a close election, I believe. Fun. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | Sep 26 2003, 12:04 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
I was under the impression that Gore was extremely beatable in 2000 and that is why the Republicans brought out such a large field. If you'll remember, Bush got out to a large money lead from the git-go and starved out many of his opponents. I wouldv'e chose Keyes over Bush, but knew that Bush would be the nominee. Bush is vulnerable, no president can be sure of re-election. That is one of the beauties of our form of government. Congress people in certain districts, however, have nothing to fear.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Wichita | Sep 26 2003, 12:30 PM Post #11 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I just love it when I'm right.
What did I tell you in our arguments at StarTrek.com, Impulse? The Democrats need to pull together and get a candidate that can beat Bush more than they need to try and prove him wrong on Iraq. They can harp all they want on what did or didn't happen. If the voters hear all that and still look at the Democratic choices and go "bleech", it won't matter. Better to get a strong candidate and get behind him and then go after Bush on the issue in the general election. I'm good.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 26 2003, 02:11 PM Post #12 |
|
Admiral
|
Arguments? And all this time I thought they were just discussions.
Did I disagree with you over there on this particular point? To tell you the truth I don't remember. I can be stubborn though so I probably did. :rolleyes: I hope not because it does make more sense to have a strong candidate than to hope to win on the basis of the lesser of two evils. Still, it's not over yet by a long shot. I just have this sinking feeling that in November 2004 I could be 1) disappointed Bush is still there or 2) happy that Bush is gone, but not happy about whoever else is there. Those aren't good choices.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Sep 26 2003, 06:59 PM Post #13 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
I thought you were a Libertarian, Impulse... why would you be voting Democrat? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| qubed | Sep 27 2003, 10:56 PM Post #14 |
|
Ensign
|
Its too early to get any good feeling for Bush vs (whomever). Right now its not really a race against Bush but really between the top 5 canidates with eachother. The attacks on Bush are mainly attempts to drum up support from the pissed off left that has been takin a hosing thanks to Bush. Bush's cuts have clearly been partisan and directed at social, enviornmental and health issues. So much for either being "compassionate" or being someone who can reach across the aisle. Anyways, at this point everybody complains about inner-party bickering and that we "need a clear message", blah, blah, blah. Right now they've got to distinguish themselves from the pack so the bickering will continue. Once we get through New Hampshire and Iowa you'll see the battle lines vs the Republicans be drawn. As for my vote - at this point a rock wearing a tutu with googly eyes pasted onto it would get my vote over Bush. Googly-eyed rock for 2004!! - He's Sedimentary! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Sep 28 2003, 04:03 PM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
No, I'm a Democrat and always have been. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2



2:31 PM Jul 11