Bush TV Ads.. a non-negative campaign

[Conscript]

So far the 3 ads that Bush is running are non-negative. Most people expected Bush to start running a negative campaign, but that's yet to happen.

http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/

[keith]

bush doesn't have to negate his opponents because he has actual issues on which to run.

[Robert]

Originally posted by keith
bush doesn't have to negate his opponents because he has actual issues on which to run.

yea! He has his own issues to be worried about.. issues he created! :D

[MATRIX]

Originally posted by Robert
yea! He has his own issues to be worried about.. issues he created! :D

Hmm,

I think Edwards can lead US :)

[Conscript]

Originally posted by keith
bush doesn't have to negate his opponents because he has actual issues on which to run.

Yeah, like Defense, Economy, etc. Democrats are under the impression that "hating Bush" is much more important than the economy, defense, education etc, so that's what they're running on. We'll see who wins, hint: it wont be the Democrats.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Conscript
Yeah, like Defense, Economy, etc. Democrats are under the impression that "hating Bush" is much more important than the economy, defense, education etc, so that's what they're running on. We'll see who wins, hint: it wont be the Democrats.

Wait a second. You are surprised that Bush's main concern is the economy? Well hell I hope so... he destroyed it.

[Conscript]

I wouldn't call a soaring stock market, plunging unemployment, fast GDP expansion (one quarter being fastest in 20 years), and low inflation a "destroyed" economy...

[jmiller]

< mod edit, post removed > Please stop posting personal attacks. Feel free to post your own views on this subject instead. Thank you. /Peo

[Robert]

Originally posted by Conscript
I wouldn't call a soaring stock market, plunging unemployment, fast GDP expansion (one quarter being fastest in 20 years), and low inflation a "destroyed" economy...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371103/

Yea.. Nice Economy we have. Let's cut SS. Nice!

[Fuzzylogic]

so long as its someone with more foresight than bush then i couldn't care less who won the next election. its the main reason the USA isn't going so well is bush gets tired up in the moment does something without any foresight or thought for the consquences and hits a :doh!: .

[Daniel]

All politics are ----ing liars and crooks. End of discussion.

[Ben]

I have a feeling that, since Ralph Nader is running again, something similar to the Bush Sr. election will happen....

For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, Ralph Nader ran in the Bush Sr. election and took enough votes away from the Democrats to lower the totals between them, so Bush stayed with a higher total than both the Democrats and Nader (Independent). So, therefore, if he hadn't run, we might not have had Bush Sr. at all.

Notice I kept (or tried to keep) this post neutral to avoid arguments.

[awayfromforum]

Originally posted by Robert
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4371103/

Yea.. Nice Economy we have. Let's cut SS. Nice!

Yoooooooooooooooooo, i pay out of the --- for that crap, and i might not even get it once i am old and need it?

[Blank Verse]

See, here's the thing. The average American voter is unfortunately not very well informed, something that both parties are definitely aware of. If every voter was informed, image would never enter into the fray of politics. But as it stands, character can very well win or lose an election for you, as most people don't have any idea what the issues are about.

This is why the Democrats will continue to attack Bush, because they know it's going to have an effect on a lot of the voters, rather than debating ACTUAL issues. It's the world of politics, people.

As far as Bush is concerned, he doesn't have to have a negative campaign. I mean, it's not official, but it's pretty safe to say that Kerry is going to win the Democratic leadership. And while he has gained significant media attention over the course of all the primaries, he is still not as recognizable as previous candidates in presidential elections (let's not forget the fact that people are still talking about the Howard Dean "I Have a Scream" speech), and therefore, doesn't have the name recognition that Bush does. Attacking Kerry (especially since he's not officially the Democrat leader yet) is just simply a waste of money. The Bush campaign is smart enough to know that they can win an election by just attaching the Bush name to a few campaign ads saying "we need to do this..."

Basically, what it comes down to is, a lot of voters probably don't support Bush, don't like him, but they know who he is, and know what to expect. And because the average voter doesn't really pay attention to issues, that's unfortuantely likely to get Bush re-elected.

[Robert]

Originally posted by Ben
I have a feeling that, since Ralph Nader is running again, something similar to the Bush Sr. election will happen....

For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, Ralph Nader ran in the Bush Sr. election and took enough votes away from the Democrats to lower the totals between them, so Bush stayed with a higher total than both the Democrats and Nader (Independent). So, therefore, if he hadn't run, we might not have had Bush Sr. at all.

Notice I kept (or tried to keep) this post neutral to avoid arguments.

Bush Sr. wasn't bad. He gave Clinton the Economy on a silver platter.. and Clinton gave it to Bush Jr. on a Silver Platter and what did he do? Destroy it.

Our economy sucks..

Clinton served 8 years and the debt only went from
$4,064,620,655,521 in Sept 1992
$5,674,178,209,886 in Sept 2000
A difference of 1.61 trillion in 8 years.

GB jr. met the debt at
$5,674,178,209,886.86
it's now
$7,074,045,293,090.18
A difference of 1.41 trillion in less than 4 years

GB sr. met the debt at
$2,602,337,712,041
it went to
$4,064,620,655,521
A difference of 1.46 trillion in 4 years


So in a matter of 8 years, the debt went up by 1.61 Trillian with Clinton.

In 4 years the debt with up to 1.46 Trillian with Bush Sr.

And less than 4 years the debt went up 1.41 Trillion with Bush Jr.

Baby Boomers.. get ready for no SS!

[Conscript]

For those of you that don't know what I'm talking about, Ralph Nader ran in the Bush Sr. election and took enough votes away from the Democrats to lower the totals between them, so Bush stayed with a higher total than both the Democrats and Nader (Independent). So, therefore, if he hadn't run, we might not have had Bush Sr. at all.


What on earth are you talking about???

In 1988 Bush Sr. ran against Dukakis and won a landslide (426 electoral votes to 111). Ralph Nader did not run that time.

In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% or so of the popular vote, spoiling the election for Republicans and handing Clinton a victory, despite Clinton only winning 43% of the vote.

Bush Jr., the current president, won the 2000 election with about 49% of the vote, Ralph Nader got something along the lines of 1% if even that. They say he spoiled the election for Algore because if Nader's votes went to Gore he would've won.

Ralph Nader never ran as an independent, he ran as the Green Party candidate, and in 2000 Bush lost the popular vote, meaning he got less actual nationwide votes. Since the US Constitution says a president is decided based on electoral votes, not the popular vote, Bush Jr. Won as the states he won gave him a majority of votes in the Electoral College (Bush: 271, Gore: 266).

[Ben]

Originally posted by Conscript
What on earth are you talking about???

In 1988 Bush Sr. ran against Dukakis and won a landslide (426 electoral votes to 111). Ralph Nader did not run that time.

In 1992, Ross Perot got 19% or so of the popular vote, spoiling the election for Republicans and handing Clinton a victory, despite Clinton only winning 43% of the vote.

Bush Jr., the current president, won the 2000 election with about 49% of the vote, Ralph Nader got something along the lines of 1% if even that. They say he spoiled the election for Algore because if Nader's votes went to Gore he would've won.

Ralph Nader never ran as an independent, he ran as the Green Party candidate, and in 2000 Bush lost the popular vote, meaning he got less actual nationwide votes. Since the US Constitution says a president is decided based on electoral votes, not the popular vote, Bush Jr. Won as the states he won gave him a majority of votes in the Electoral College (Bush: 271, Gore: 266).
I must have been given incorrect info then.......nevermind my last post. And Robert, when did I say Bush Sr. was bad?