Why will the republicans win in 2008?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
2861U2 said:
I thought of another reason why I think the GOP might win- the 2004 election. In the months leading up the election, Bush had about a 50% approval rating (better than today, but still not super great), and Iraq wasn't going as well as planned. Despite the negatives, Bush somehow still attracted and convinced America. I don't think Bush won just because Kerry was a bad candidate.

Actually, I distinctly remember being almost certain that we would lose, but I ended up being wrong. So if I ever get worried or frustrated this coming year, I'll think back to 2004 :wink:


Bush won in 2004 because of two major reasons, neither had a single thing to do with Kerry. You won't hear that from the Dems though, they've got to be able to blame Kerry or Gore for that matter for being less-than-stellar candidates otherwise they might have to admit that the majority of Americans are not in league with their positions.

Clinton was elected twice and despite what the Limbaugh crowd likes to say about Bill or even Hillary for that matter, they are moderates. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl for goodness sake. Bill compromised quite a bit with Republicans, he had a Rep Secretary of Defense on and on. They were and are not even close to the Leftists that some think.

Anyways, it's pretty simple folks, the two reasons Bush won the election in 2004 were because enough Americans still supported the war (gasp) and didn't want to "cut and run"=highly effective slogan and the other being that in those swing States (remember Kerry was one big State from victory) the Rep National Party got the Gay Marriage vote on the ballot (Ohio for sure and maybe Florida? I don't remember exactly) and turned out a LOT of self-justified and bigoted Evangelicals.

The Republicans win in 2008 if they can make it an issue of John Wayne vs Jane Fonda all over again. On those culture issues the Reps are in the majority and the Dems can't win certain States without a true moderate.

The General Election (President) is usually a pretty simple race. It just takes a long time to figure out what those simple issues will eventually be.

On Hillary and her negatives, one thing you will never hear from the Bushie crowd:

Look it up, Bush had negatives in the 46-48% range in late October 2004 and won the election.

Depending on the general support of 3rd parties, you obviously don't need 50% of the vote to win the election. You just have to win enough big States. Bush got a little above his approval rating at the time.

It's going to be a tight race anyways. The biggest difference to me is that Obama is CLEARLY in the "get out now" crowd on Iraq and if he's the nominee and things continue to improve= hello John Wayne vs jane Fonda and 4 more years of big business moralizing cowboys.
 
Last edited:
2861U2 said:


If I'm the Republican nominee, I'm milking these quotes for all they're worth.

Do you think that those quotes in any way could outweigh the enormity of the 'Bush Failure' noose hanging around each and every Republican candidate, all in bed with Bush, not a single one of them distancing themselves from him?

He's the biggest negative on any side.
 
2861U2 said:



If I'm the Republican nominee, I'm milking these quotes for all they're worth.

These are just quotes(most of which I'm not even sure your point of posting them was) but the Republican party as a whole has a huge failure on their hands.

They've back it no matter what. Whereas the Democrats at least started to question 'what are we doing here'.

They were the ones in charge during most of this failure.

A little quote means nothing compared to the failure on their hands.
 
2861U2 said:
As one of the minority Republicans here, I feel pretty confident about the GOP in 2008, for a number of reasons.

Iraq: As stated before, Iraq has improved drastically in the past year. The surge has been successful, and the deathtoll is at its lowest since the war began. This could and will help the Republicans, especially McCain and Giuliani. I noticed someone in the other thread say that the public doesnt care about Iraq, and that is nonsense. If anything, the public is not informed of the current status due to the lack of positive reporting by irresponsible media. The Bhutto assassination put the War on Terror on the front pages again. My dad said something the other day that I agree with. He said "That just goes to show that Al-Qaeda, if they really wanted to, could take out absolutely anybody." If most Americans have that mindset, I think that definetely benefits the Republicans.

Taxes: On this particular issue, I do not understand why every single person does not favor the GOP. I don't know much about economics, but I do know that I'm pretty sure most Americans want to keep as much money as possible. The Democrats want to end the tax cuts (which, by the way, EVERYONE gets- not just the rich), which will have the effect of a tax increase. Do Americans honestly want the government (particularly this irresponisble, spending-obsessed Congress) to have more of their hard earned money? Do Americans honestly think that they aren't paying the government enough? It baffles me. In shaky economic times, I don't think that can help.

The Clinton factor: I've said it before and I'll say it again. I hope Hillary is our opponent next year. I'm confident that the American people will, after studying her, want to get away from the Clinton machine. Hopefully they have enough sense to not allow Bill back in the White House. There was a poll out recently asking who people want to prevent from becoming president, and Hillary "won" with 40%. With a number like that, and unfavorable ratings at 50-some percent, I just cannot see how she can win.

The 2006 elections: I think the 2006 Democratic victories may be a blessing in disguise for the Republicans. I believe people will look at Congress and their complete lack of accomplishment and reject having more of the same. These people were elected with promises of change, and they have delivered zero. Suddenly Bush's approval rating doesn't seem so laughable when you look at Congress' hovering in the low teens at best.

So, basically, I'm not too worried at all right now. If McCain is the nominee :)Pray: ), I would say that the Republicans may even be the favorite. McCain beats Hillary in most polls I've seen, and would certainly attract more independents.

ETA: I think it would help if Ron Paul ran as a third-party, as he would take votes away from Hillary regarding the war. Sounds like he doesn't plan on it, but you never know.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY
 
2861U2 said:


I can say the same thing about the Democrats. They have absolutely no credibility regarding the war. This is the party that brought us....

"As far as setting a timeline, that's not a wise decision because it only empowers those who don't want us there." -Harry Reid

"A deadline for pulling out will only encourage our enemies to wait us out. It would be a Lebanon 1985, and God only knows where it goes from there." - Joe Biden

"I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you." -Hillary Clinton

"A hard, fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field and our diplomats in the region insufficient flexibility to implement that strategy." -Barack Obama

If I'm the Republican nominee, I'm milking these quotes for all they're worth.



all of the Democratic front runners think we will be in Iraq well into 2009.

most people don't want to walk out right now, but most people don't think a 15 year or more occupation is the correct course of action.

you're doing what Strongbow/STING does, which is take a minority position amongst a minority of people, and pretending that this speaks for everyone and anyone who disagrees with you. i think a pullout tomorrow would be disastrous. but i think a long term occupation is even worse.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


These are just quotes(most of which I'm not even sure your point of posting them was) but the Republican party as a whole has a huge failure on their hands.

They've back it no matter what. Whereas the Democrats at least started to question 'what are we doing here'.

They were the ones in charge during most of this failure.

A little quote means nothing compared to the failure on their hands.

That's another thing. You use the word "failure" three times here. I don't think a majority of people view Iraq as a "huge failure," regardless of whether they think we should be there now or not.

I sure hope those quotes and facts like them are used in the general campaign. The Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining how it was dangerous to leave back then, but somehow it isn't dangerous now. The Republicans have stuck with the war when it was popular and when it was unpopular, unlike the Democrats who go with whichever way the wind is blowing.

I honestly don't understand how a quote means nothing, in your mind. You really think there isn't a single thing wrong about Hillary warning against a withdrawal date back then, but now being in total support of one?
 
when has Hillary called for a withdrawal date?

a withdrawal is one thing -- even Bush wants to start reducing troops once he gets enough coverage from "the surge" -- but she has not mentioned a specific date to withdraw by.

most of us are concerned by the size of the US embassy being built over there and the groundwork that has been laid for a long term occupation in the heart of the most instable region in the world that will do nothing but breed more hatred and swallow billions and billions more into a cesspool of ethnic hatred that's quickly devolving. the best thing we can do is get off their oil and move on to other things -- like the actual "war on terror," for lack of a better term -- rather than incur the debt, loss of morale at home and inspiration of rage abroad that a long term occupation of Iraq/Mesopotamia/the Middle East would entail.

an endless military and economic commitment to Iraq makes no sense, unless you're willing to say that, yes, we are there to secure the oil. but i'd respond by saying that the only rational response to oil dependence is to get ourselves off the junk rather than have our very own Afghanistan that will surely rot the US from within just as surely as it brought down the Soviet Empire.
 
2861U2 said:


That's another thing. You use the word "failure" three times here. I don't think a majority of people view Iraq as a "huge failure," regardless of whether they think we should be there now or not.

I sure hope those quotes and facts like them are used in the general campaign. The Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining how it was dangerous to leave back then, but somehow it isn't dangerous now. The Republicans have stuck with the war when it was popular and when it was unpopular, unlike the Democrats who go with whichever way the wind is blowing.

I honestly don't understand how a quote means nothing, in your mind. You really think there isn't a single thing wrong about Hillary warning against a withdrawal date back then, but now being in total support of one?


Date of birth: January 29, 1988

You're old enough, why haven't you enlisted then?

Explain yourself, neo-con.
 
So let me understand this. I create two threads, one for people to state why they think either side will win.

Yet we have to attack attack taunt.

THis place has really deteriorated.

Come on now.
 
Dreadsox said:
So let me understand this. I create two threads, one for people to state why they think either side will win.

Yet we have to attack attack taunt.

THis place has really deteriorated.

Come on now.

:huh:
 
financeguy said:



Date of birth: January 29, 1988

You're old enough, why haven't you enlisted then?

Explain yourself, neo-con.

Go search previous threads. I've played this game before.

I don't get the relevence of your post to the discussion, anyway.
 
2861U2 said:


That's another thing. You use the word "failure" three times here. I don't think a majority of people view Iraq as a "huge failure," regardless of whether they think we should be there now or not.
I haven't ran a poll or anything, but even my most Republican friends think it's a huge failure. There are many who are willing to admit it was grossly mismanaged and a failure, but are still going to vote Republican.

2861U2 said:

I sure hope those quotes and facts like them are used in the general campaign. The Democrats are going to have a hard time explaining how it was dangerous to leave back then, but somehow it isn't dangerous now. The Republicans have stuck with the war when it was popular and when it was unpopular, unlike the Democrats who go with whichever way the wind is blowing.

This doesn't even make sense.
2861U2 said:

I honestly don't understand how a quote means nothing, in your mind. You really think there isn't a single thing wrong about Hillary warning against a withdrawal date back then, but now being in total support of one?
Context, context, context.
 
2861U2 said:


Taxes: On this particular issue, I do not understand why every single person does not favor the GOP. I don't know much about economics, but I do know that I'm pretty sure most Americans want to keep as much money as possible. The Democrats want to end the tax cuts (which, by the way, EVERYONE gets- not just the rich), which will have the effect of a tax increase. Do Americans honestly want the government (particularly this irresponisble, spending-obsessed Congress) to have more of their hard earned money? Do Americans honestly think that they aren't paying the government enough? It baffles me. In shaky economic times, I don't think that can help.


I actually had this conversation last night. It makes me laugh when Republicans, especially young ones which this guy was, talk about taxes as a selling point for the GOP.

You guys want your endless wars, you want your big walls, etc...

Yet you want Jesus to pay for it, because Jesus loves war and seperation.

Seriously. Young Republicans, do not use taxes and small government as selling points for your party. That is not what your party stands for anymore, you are using selling points of the past, actually look at your party before you make these kind of comments. Otherwise, you'll just get laughed at.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


I actually had this conversation last night. It makes me laugh when Republicans, especially young ones which this guy was, talk about taxes as a selling point for the GOP.

You guys want your endless wars, you want your big walls, etc...

The free market will correct for all of those.

Just like the Iraqi oil paid for the war.
 
wikipedia was updated with:
On December 31, 2007, Bloomberg stated unequivocally, live on the Dick Clark New Year's Eve TV Show, that he was not going to run for president in 2008.
 
Yeah, but he's meeting with a bunch of people soon where he's expected to announce a third-party candidacy. The group is a mix of moderate Republicans and Dems who are conncerned over the divide in American politics. They just had a big deal about it on CNN's the Situation Room today.
 
maycocksean said:
Wow, you see him entering the race? I mean I agree, he would be formidable.

Headache in a Suitcase said:
because the democratics once again fail to put forth a candidate that can get the masses excited, thus lose votes to a viable third party candidate?

I posted over in this
thread starting on page 24 of 2008 Presidential Campaign
why I think bloomberg could be the reason the GOP win the Whitehouse in 2008
 
Last edited:
Headache in a Suitcase said:
yes i read that... but it still comes back to the fact that the democrats are a splintered party whom are unable to find a candidate to truely energize the base and thus are very vulnerable to a viable third party candidate.

I don't think this is true this time around. The Republicans are the ones who can't come up with a candidate to energize any large faction, much less the base.

That said, Bloomberg would certainly cost the Dems votes.
 
Bloomberg could cost Republicans some votes as well. He is liberal on some issues, conservative on others.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
yes i read that... but it still comes back to the fact that the democrats are a splintered party whom are unable to find a candidate to truely energize the base and thus are very vulnerable to a viable third party candidate.

I think that's true to a degree. I know many people (including some in here, if I'm not mistaken) who like Obama or Edwards, but don't like Hillary at all and wouldn't vote for her. That's probably not real good for a party.
 
2861U2 said:


I think that's true to a degree. I know many people (including some in here, if I'm not mistaken) who like Obama or Edwards, but don't like Hillary at all and wouldn't vote for her. That's probably not real good for a party.

And how many people like McCain but hate Romney? How many people like Ron Paul and hate the rest of them? How many people like Huckabee and can't stand Giuliani? If anything, it's the Republican field that's a total mess.
 
anitram said:


And how many people like McCain but hate Romney? How many people like Ron Paul and hate the rest of them? How many people like Huckabee and can't stand Giuliani? If anything, it's the Republican field that's a total mess.

And that's also true. The Republican electorate is divided. But the Democrats are too. It's not like the Democratic base is all one big happy family that is completely 100% satisfied with Hillary.
 
The top 5 Republicans seem to each have between 10 and 20% support - that seems pretty fractured to me. I think it'll largely be a "lesser of two (or three) evils" election for many in November.
 
Yeah if I were to make a judgement as to which party is more fractured at this moment, it would definately be the Republican party. They don't have much to unite them. They aren't united on the war, they aren't even united on Jesus this time around, they have very little holding them together... except hating men who love other men.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
They don't have much to unite them. They aren't united on the war, they aren't even united on Jesus this time around, they have very little holding them together... except hating men who love other men.

What are you talking about? With the exception of Ron Paul, most Republicans still support this war and the idea of combating terrorism rather than running away.

And please explain your Jesus comment. I don't know what that means.
 
I think he means that Mitt Romney's Mormon, and it's caused a stir among the party.
 
Back
Top Bottom