I don't really know much about either, except Kerry seems like a total jerk.

Anyway, while he may dispense w/ the south, alot of analysts say a Dem needs some southern states to win. Would Edwards deliver on that?

On the other side, doesn't Bush need someone other than Cheney? Someone to groom for 2008, and honestly someone w/o so much baggage (pun intended) and someone who campaigns more, and someone w/o a health condition. Cheney has been very quiet for a long time.

Cheney served Bush well in 2000 as evidence for experience on the ticket. But, is he necessary?

Rudy Guliani will be there in 2008... no vice presidency needed.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:Rudy Guliani will be there in 2008... no vice presidency needed.

i don't think so. It's gonna be bill owen, governor of Colorado. He's made that state one of the best in the US. They passed a bill in the early 90's where citizens can vote on tax increases.

I love this. We go from an initial thread about the '04 election to supposing who will take the election in '08 from George II?

I hate to bring this up but Kerry's kicking that son of a Bush in the arse, poll wise. Should y'all really be counting your chickens this early?

joebordenrebel Wrote:I love this. We go from an initial thread about the '04 election to supposing who will take the election in '08 from George II?

I hate to bring this up but Kerry's kicking that son of a Bush in the arse, poll wise. Should y'all really be counting your chickens this early?

well seeing how George II can't run again in 08.

joebordenrebel Wrote:I love this. We go from an initial thread about the '04 election to supposing who will take the election in '08 from George II?

I hate to bring this up but Kerry's kicking that son of a Bush in the arse, poll wise. Should y'all really be counting your chickens this early?

personally i don't want bush to win this election. I want gary Nolan, but he's got no shot. I'm just worried that when i start paying taxes, i'm going to be paying out of my ****** for my parent's prescription drugs.

joebordenrebel Wrote:I love this. We go from an initial thread about the '04 election to supposing who will take the election in '08 from George II?

I hate to bring this up but Kerry's kicking that son of a Bush in the arse, poll wise. Should y'all really be counting your chickens this early?

I don't think it is accurate to say who is winning the polls right now, b/c there are prob a good bit of people who are going to vote republican who are voting now for dems. Wait until the republican candidates start and then look at the polls. JMO

they al ready have in 3 states OKlahoma had a Republican Primary Last night as well as a Democractic Primary (THE EYES OF THE NATION WHERE UPON US).

The only kind of "reliable" poll this early would be to gauge every state. That way they can project which state will go for whom and can tally electoral votes.

Stalin, it may well be that more Americans favor Kerry to Bush or any Dem to Bush, or a pet giraffe to Bush. But that doesn't mean squat because we have this pesky electoral system

I will stick to my guns here and claim GW wins in a landslide come Nov. He'll take the states with the largest electoral votes. The Dems will take small states like West Va. and New Hampshah. They might even take Californy. But Bush will get the rest. He'll take Texas, Tenn. Colorado, Washington, New York, Fla. Michigan, Ohio, Mizzou, Va, NC and SC, along with Ga. AL, MS, La, AZ among others.

Any poll that just randomly calls folks will talk about popularity issues. Kerry may be more popular than Bush, a pet giraffe may be more popular than Bush. But Bush still wins this race because Americans are violent people and when we attack other nations, we love the man who orchestrated it!

A Democrat might win California? Bush will win New York?

Put down the crack pipe, son.

Unless Bush dumps Cheney for Giuliani, Bush has no chance in either state.

Al Gore got the most votes in 2000 in part because he piled up such wide majorities in New York and California. If small rectangular red states weren't overrepresented in the electoral college, Al Gore would be president today.

The race will come down to states like Michigan and Ohio, states that are hemmoraging good-paying manufacturing jobs right now.

To win these states, Bush is either going to have to:

1. Catch that guy responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center. Bush isn't into saying his name too much these days, but it rhymes with "Bahama."
2. Spend millions of dollars on television ads aimed at convincing the Rust Belt that that toppling Saddam Hussein and defending marriage from gays and lesbians is more important than actually having a good-paying job on which one can raise a family.


If both campaigns had equal resources, I'd lay my money on the Democrats to win. But Bush has a ton of dough, so who knows?

The Democratic problem right now is a lack of supporters who can afford to plunk down $2,000 per pop at a fundraiser. Howard Dean has pointed to a new way of raising money, but I'm not sure the Democratic Party can absorb his lessons in time for November.

Also, I think Democrats would be better off with Edwards, but it's looking kind of grim for that right now.