Can we defeat Bush in 2004?

[_Jumper_]

With the economy appearing to recover can we win in 2004?

[Zynx]

1. I laid out a method for doing this in another thread.

And the answer is yes.

[_Jumper_]

2. Which thread?

n/t

[Zynx]

5. This one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=777488

There is a good line of attack here that we should use even if the economy is quite strong. I don't care which candidate anybody supports. This is a good way of doing it.

[LittleDannySlowhorse]

3. Yes

Presidents who were in office during a "good" economy (and it remains to be seen if any of this financial news will actually result in the majority of Americans feeling like employment is plentiful) have been beaten before. Coffins coming here from Iraq on a daily basis can certainly put a damper on things.

[jeter]

4. Yes. The "recovery" is a bubble

The economy "grew" under Bush I too. But no jobs. We have a lot of issues regarding the economy left:

- jobs, millions lost. Qualities of those gained.
- deficit
- debt public and personal
- health care
- many many more that I'm not in the mood to get into

Stop watching Lou Dobbs.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

6. What recovery?

Show me 2 or 3 consecutive quarters of 4-5% growth and we'll talk. Show me job creation. Show me a strong dollar. Show me fiscal control of the spiralling debt.

Recovery? This is a very dangerous economic time.

[arewethereyet]

7. yes, but you need a new message and Edwards has it

Dean, no. Clark, NO. Kerry, no. Lieberman is the only other one close to it.

[Coldgothicwoman]

8. Absolutely!

It always stuns me to hear the question 'Can Bush be beat' on some mediawhore propaganda program. The proper question is a little more like 'Can Bush even stand a chance if the truth gets out?'

Clark, Dean, Kucinich, Sharpton (not listed in preferential order). ABB 04!

[_Jumper_]

10. That is a big IF

How can we get the truth out when the right-wing controls the media, and the vast majority of the population is apathetic?

[JailBush]

9. Of course we can, but WILL we?

After Campaigns 2002 and 2003, I have very little hope. The election's less than a year away and what percentage of Americans care enough to vote - 50%? What percentage care enough to do something beyond voting - 10%? Of these, what percentage really have their heads screwed on straight?

And if Bush DOES get re-Selected, will we at least get some good candidates elected into other offices, or will everyone be too focused on the presidential campaign to worry about anything else, as usual?

[mw]

11. We ARE going to re-defeat Bush in 2004. Count on it.

Rove is trying even now to build the "inevitability factor", but it's all bullshit:

1 - Bush is well liked, polling well

2 - Democrats are finished, done, irrelavent

3 - Dean is a McGovernite (substitute another losing name for any other candidate).

Remember, Karl Rove puts alot of stake into the "bandwagon effect"--believing that many Americans vote for who they think will win. So he's going to keep making it seem like Bush is a shoo-in.

Bush is not. We can and will beat his treasonous ass, over the knee, pants down.

And what a day-after election day it will be!

[Bucky]

12. Right now the odds are against us

The press just loves President Bush and is playing the economic growth figures to the hilt. Bush's victory on prescription drugs has robbed the Democrats of a winning healthcare issue. He didn't do much, but he can spin it as "problem solved" regardless. And of course the fear of terrorism factor is working for him.

Honestly, the economy is looking a little bit better, but there are still major factors not being looked at in the "rosy glasses" assessments. The trade deficit is worse under Bush than it was under Clinton and continues to expand. The rate of underemployment is unbelieveably high. And according to the MetLife Study of Employee Benefits Trends, a majority of Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck, including a third of households making over $75,000. There is huge uncertainty out there, only the surface of the economic numbers do not show it.

We can win, but I'd give Bush good odds that he can get elected with an actual majority of the votes--if he runs against Dean he could take 53-55%. It's really that bad.

[mw]

15. Bullshit! You're buying into the faux-hopelessness!

WE CAN AND WILL defeat Bush in 2004!

Rove WANTS us to think that the odds are against it.

They're not. We merely need to be vocal in our opposition to the moron, and people will go for the CHANGE of a new Prez.

Bush is toast.

(ok...I admit...I'm knocking on wood...but I MUST believe it!)

[quinnox]

13. Yes

Much depends on the Democratic candidate, and how the Iraq situation resolves.

If Iraq improves markedly, and the economy also, then it will be very difficult to beat Bush.

But I think Iraq will end up being the hangmans rope for the Bush administration.

[SheilaT]

14. What really matters

is if there is a fair, free, and honest election next November. What are the chances of that?

It's almost impossible for the economy to improve so much that three million jobs will be put back in the economy. Least of all jobs that pay as well as so many of the lost jobs. It's no longer just manufacturing that's headed overseas, but IT and help desk jobs, ones that a couple of years ago we all thought couldn't leave the country.

But if the "mainstream" media plays up the supposed improvement in the economy, it may be hard to get anyone not currently unemployed to pay much attention.

But in the end, what can we do to keep the election from being stolen again. We must keep in mind that the current administration came in to power in a coup, and people like that do not willingly give up the power. There are so many ways the election can be stolen, that I have almost no hope we can prevail.

[kodi]

16. no, i dont think so.

bush has the power and weight of the executive branch fully tuned to his re-election needs, and a war chest xerxes would have loved to have had when he invaded greece.

the dems are fragmented, have no cohesion, no plan, no inspired leadership, and worst of all, no money.

they do not have a candidate running who has been able to produce a narrative both for himself or his policies that can be grafted onto the great american myths the american people live by and which drive their voting habits.

its not all the media's fault. its also the fault of fairly weak, inarticulate, and uninspiring candidates and those who direct their campaigns.

its also our fault by not being more active in the process.

get active, locally.