Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 If term limits were removed and Bush were eligible to run: Would he be the Republican candidate Would he win in a general election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Hahahahahahaha... he wouldn't even win the nomination... close the thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I 'd vote for him over the other two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USS Redskins Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Sure - if Katrina never happened and ithe Iraq & Afghanistan wars were done in 2005 or 2006..... But, no way now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chants Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 No and No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 poll is up. I think he would do better than some think. I think he would win the Repub nomination and lose in a squeaker in the general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpillian Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think not, on both accounts. It is an interesting question, though. The election season and even his un-popularity (the GOP is certainly not trying to do anything to salvage his image) is all predicated on the fact the incumbent not running. BTW -- the word is incumbent, not incompetent -- though perhaps either may work in this context... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 I think not, on both accounts. It is an interesting question, though. The election season and even his un-popularity (the GOP is certainly not trying to do anything to salvage his image) is all predicated on the fact the incumbent not running. BTW -- the word is incumbent, not incompetent -- though perhaps either may work in this context... That's part of what I'm curious about. Never underestimate the power of incumbancy. People tend to drift towards the familiar even if they are dissatisfied with it. It's the devil you know is better than the devil you don't mentality. That and Republicans are impossibly brand loyal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bschurm Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I doubt he would lose to Obama. But there is no way he would have won the nomination within his own party. And yes, I would vote for him over Obama. I wish his brother was running. At this point I think Jeb is the most qualified to run this nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 No and No.Not just no. Hell no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well, I think a few things would be different. But yeah, I think he'd be the nominee. And he'd have a chance. A lot of the dissatisfaction with W that you're seeing on the Right is because the Party recognizes that The People aren't happy about whet they've done. W can't run again. Therefore, the strategy: Claim that everything was Bush's fault, and things will be different if you put the GOP in uncontested control of the government again, except for that one person. IMO, if W were running again, then what you're be hearing instead of "W isn't a true conservative (like us)" would be "well, this wouldn't have happened if we'd been in uncontested power for eight years instead of only six." And, IMO, a lot of people would be perfectly willing to swallow that one. (As evidence, I'd point to several of Kilmer's latest.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redd Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Honestly? Yeah he would wound the Republican nomination for the third straight time. He'd lose the Presidency though imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 For you folks claiming he wouldn't stand a chance: What do the people know about W, right now, that they didn't know 4 years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Well, I think a few things would be different. But yeah, I think he'd be the nominee. And he'd have a chance. A lot of the dissatisfaction with W that you're seeing on the Right is because the Party recognizes that The People aren't happy about whet they've done. W can't run again. I can only speak for myself, as a registered Republican, but that isn't me. Of course, I've never voted for Bush. (I might have in 2000 if I lived in a more competitive state.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 For you folks claiming he wouldn't stand a chance: What do the people know about W, right now, that they didn't know 4 years ago? Two words: economic meltdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 Two words: economic meltdown. Come on, you saw that coming. There were signs everywhere for years that we were living in a deck of cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I can only speak for myself, as a registered Republican, but that isn't me. Of course, I've never voted for Bush. (I might have in 2000 if I lived in a more competitive state.) I'm not referring to the rank and file Party members. I'm talking to the people who decided two years ago what spin they were going to be using for the next two years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 I really don't want to hear anything for two years if Obama is elected. The current president has so messed things up you have to give anyone a chance to make it better regardless of who they are. So, Bush just needs to go. Not ride off, but just plain shut up and go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Come on, you saw that coming. There were signs everywhere for years that we were living in a deck of cards.While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hooper Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 If the Dems nominated Kucinich... Maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public. Maybe. But I remember forecasters saying that oil above 40 dollars a barrell for a sustained time would damage the country. By '04, we were at twice that. Then there was the housing bubble (check that, that may not have been obvious to '06) that everyone knew was going to cause a mess. Fannie and Freddie were having issues already. If you looked even beyond Iraq and China, there were signs everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 Burgy, I love ya man, but this is just an utterly stupid question. :laugh: (NOTE: My opinion of the poster's question in NO WAY reflects my opinion of the poster.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public. You mean to say that four years ago you thought we were winning the war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2008 Author Share Posted June 26, 2008 Burgy, I love ya man, but this is just an utterly stupid question. :laugh:(NOTE: My opinion of the poster's question in NO WAY reflects my opinion of the poster.) Really? I'm surprised you feel that way I'm getting an evil sort of joy from this thread. I know I shouldn't, but the fact that exile is trouncing all the other options tickles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnLockesGhost Posted June 26, 2008 Share Posted June 26, 2008 You mean to say that four years ago you thought we were winning the war?Well, I thought four years ago the costs might be containable given a prudent strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.