Could this be a good election to lose?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Short of some unforeseen disaster or a truly terrible performance by Bush in the TV debates, I'm predicting a comfortable Bush victory. But might not this be a blessing in disguise? Very soon after the election, the next president is going to have to deal with a pretty unpleasant situation. Iraq is not going to get better, it's going to get worse. And pretty soon, the historically high deficit is going to have to be addressed, without the advantage Clinton had in similar circumstance of a sustained economic boom. Under Bush, this will be the moment when the whole neocon edifice crumbles, leaving the GOP compromissed for maybe the next two elections (see: UK Tory party). For a Kerry, it would be a no-win situation. He'd be blamed for fucking up Iraq, he'd have to take wildly unpopular measures to stem the deficit. Given that perspective, mightn't it actually be better to wait out a term?

― RS Jackson, Monday, 27 September 2004 11:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Will the situation be any better after "4 more years"?

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 27 September 2004 11:36 (twenty-one years ago)

The next for years are going to be about taking very unpopular decisions and dealing with an impossible situation in Iraq with plenty of potential for utter humilation. I'm suggesting that it might be better, in the long term, if it were Bush who had to deal with all this (assuming he'll be too hamstrung to invade any other countries), with the Dems in a strong position for a 2-term president next time around.

― RS Jackson, Monday, 27 September 2004 11:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Unless the Rs nominate in 2008: Jeb Bush.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 27 September 2004 11:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Jeb Bush V Dan Perry 08 FITE.

Also you need to define better, better for who? The Democrats, The World? Iraq?

I want to Kerry to win I dont think things will get any better worldwide apart from several issues pertaining to to which lobbyists each side has to perform for, possibly gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research (not that it really affects me in the UK. I want him to win to wipe that idiotic grin from Ws face.

― Jarlr'mai (jarlrmai), Monday, 27 September 2004 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

All the shit that's about to unwind will make for a difficult second term for Kerry, but I'd rather have things get back on track than have them sink further in the next four years.

Also, voters are stupid and have short memories. There are no guarantees that the country being in the shitcan would change the way people vote.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 27 September 2004 11:47 (twenty-one years ago)

like amateurist said on another thread, there are people who stand to lose a lot more from four more years than most internet messageboarders (a number of them non-american) - the mild discomfort suggested by the phrase 'waiting it out' doesn't really do justice to their prospective suffering.

plus, see http://web.pitas.com/tashlan/31m8_1m8y3.html (scroll down to "leftists for bush").

― m. (mitchlnw), Monday, 27 September 2004 11:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Reason #1 why this is not a good election to lose: THE SUPREME COURT

― Dan Perry '08 (Dan Perry), Monday, 27 September 2004 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Congress will have stripped away the Supreme Court's power by 2008 anyway by passing a Constitutional Amendment barring the Supreme Court from hearing cases that involve the Constitution or "morality" issues.

― dave225 (Dave225), Monday, 27 September 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Dan OTM

Also, four more years of doing very little to nothing about, or even encouraging, perhaps with irreversible results:
- climate change
- the rapidly-increasing economic predominance of China and India
- nuclear development in East Asia and perhaps Iran
- the public image of the U.S.

Just for starters.

If the first time was so much worse than most people (not me) expected, why are so many rushing to imagine how not-terrible the second term will be?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Climate change is the biggie. Fuck Bush - sodomize him with the total US CO2 output for the next four years.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Is anyone hammering the message home in Florida, that is bad hurricane season could be a result of climate change and it's only going to get worse.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

― Free the Bee (ex machina), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

the rapidly-increasing economic predominance of China and India

I don't know what an American President can do about this.

I hate to sound like a broken record here but Dan is so OTM. I find myself more and more yellow dog about this 'cause the Republican choices for the judiciary have been so execrable lately. Any Democrat candidate is likely to get my vote to protect the Supreme Court from the flat earther, misogynist, rapture-awaiting, racists who seem to be all the rage on the right.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:37 (twenty-one years ago)

Sadly, as Lincoln pointed out so succinctly, you can fool some of the people all of the time. And with US voter turnnout hovering near 50%, you don't really need much more than that plus the wealthy and upper middle class to win an election. Consequently, a disasterous four more years of Bush gives us no guarantee of anything better after that.

― Aimless (Aimless), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

You LOSER, Williams.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:41 (twenty-one years ago)

do you need a car, in london, markelby?

― RJG (RJG), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

There are no guarantees that the country being in the shitcan would change the way people vote.

OTM. What about the wittle tiny fetuses?

― Ain't That Peculiar (kenan), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, the premise of this thread is quite absurd. Bush in office for another four years would do damage that we might never undo. He's repealing the New Deal, people!

― Ain't That Peculiar (kenan), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:50 (twenty-one years ago)

The next four years are going to be rough sledding for whoever turns out to be President. Iraq spiralling out of control, the ballooning deficit, the imminent bankruptcy of social security - these are all tough problems that are going to require politically unpopular solutions. However, I wouldn't underestimate the ability of BushCo to fib and blunder through for four more years by placing band-aids on critical wounds and denying the extent of the problems. Also, we have seen all too well their keen ability to use the levers of political power to score political points against their opponents. Holding the White House for four more years would be a major boon to the GOP at all levels of government, not just the executive.

― o. nate (onate), Monday, 27 September 2004 15:57 (twenty-one years ago)

Could someone name the last American presidential election which would've been "good to lose" ?

― Michael Daddino (epicharmus), Monday, 27 September 2004 16:05 (twenty-one years ago)

RJG, do you need to use all those commas?

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 27 September 2004 16:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Know what you'd never see on a conservative message board? A FUCKING THREAD ENTITLED COULD THIS BE A GOOD ELECTION TO LOSE?

Think real hard for a second and try to come up with anything that's important that would be good to lose. Your faith, your love, your home, your COUNTRY?

Vince Lombardi would be very disappointed in this thread.

― Pleasant Plains (Pleasant Plains), Monday, 27 September 2004 16:09 (twenty-one years ago)

as I read on National Review recently, the furst rule of politics is that winning is always better than losing.

― Symplistic (shmuel), Monday, 27 September 2004 17:29 (twenty-one years ago)

I dunno. I think this might be a good election for G.W. Bush to lose.

― Michael White (Hereward), Monday, 27 September 2004 17:31 (twenty-one years ago)

three years pass...

Very soon after the election, the next president is going to have to deal with a pretty unpleasant situation. Iraq is not going to get better, it's going to get worse. And pretty soon, the historically high deficit is going to have to be addressed, without the advantage Clinton had in similar circumstance of a sustained economic boom.

O the prescience!

― Jeb, Monday, 19 May 2008 22:22 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, look at the all deficit-addressing going on

― gabbneb, Monday, 19 May 2008 22:23 (eighteen years ago)

Reason #1 why this is not a good election to lose: THE SUPREME COURT

This, too.

― jaymc, Monday, 19 May 2008 22:23 (eighteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.