Bush for Prez again? ah crap

Sleipnir

Listening to the radio last night about the upcoming elections on the U.S.
Apparently Bush will have, wait for it, 171 MILLION DOLLARS to spend on his campaign. 171,000,000 bucks!!
There is a limit on the amount of public money a candidate can spend so he has decided not to use it. The 171 million is going to come from fund-raising ( those $2500-plate dinners you hear about) and, of course, hefty donations from oil companies, car manufacturers etc, all the huge corporations.

Also heard an interesting fact; in the last 25 years of election campaigns in the States, the candidate who spent the most money has always won! Well I guess advertising does work then.

He's had two wars in his current time in office, will he break that record in his next administration?

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by Kananga


Also heard an interesting fact; in the last 25 years of election campaigns in the States, the candidate who spent the most money has always won! Well I guess advertising does work then.

Bill Gates for President
VOTE nerd


Well it worked for Belisconi

fisty

Bush deserves to be hung on hooks from a tree by his nut sacks and beaten ith a baseball bat.

Moriarty

I read recently (in new scientist, if im not mistaken) that the democrats actually recieve far more large-denomination donations than the republicans, however strange that sounds.

Up to about $1,000 the republicans have more people donating said amount than democrats, but once it goes over about $5,000 a gap favouring the democratic party begins to appear and only widens as the amounts go up. Much of the republican funding comes from 'grass-roots' support, with much of the democratic war chest coming from wealthy individuals and businesses of varying sizes.

Sparks

Originally posted by Moriarty
I read recently (in new scientist, if im not mistaken) that the democrats actually recieve far more large-denomination donations than the republicans, however strange that sounds.

I keep reading the exact opposite, especially in articles about Dean where they show that when you get below the $1,000 mark, he's pulling in a lot of cash in those amounts thanks to his internet usage.

Sand

Well, the democrats are the party of the guilty middle to upper class and white. And they must make an absolute bomb from the hollywood elite.

Sparks

Yeah sand, but the republicans are the big company party...

Sand

Republicans would seem to be more the party of the little man if the contributions "spread" is to be believed - whod have thunk it:x

giftgrub

theres currently a lot of hassle with the democratic party candidates, the front runner is howard dean but it seems that a lot of his own lot dont like him

he gets his wedge from internet donations i think he's the first guy to do that, but 171 million jesus thats scary

i dont think theres going to be a democratic government in 04

and i doubt we'll be seing a liberal in power for a while

Typedef

I'm taking bets on Iran being the next country to be annexed...

I mean liberated.

Xhen

Originally posted by Moriarty
I read recently (in new scientist, if im not mistaken) that the democrats actually recieve far more large-denomination donations than the republicans, however strange that sounds.

Up to about $1,000 the republicans have more people donating said amount than democrats, but once it goes over about $5,000 a gap favouring the democratic party begins to appear and only widens as the amounts go up. Much of the republican funding comes from 'grass-roots' support, with much of the democratic war chest coming from wealthy individuals and businesses of varying sizes.

That's true. The Republicans have broader support among the middle class and receive a lot more small donations than the Democrats.

The big advantage Bush has is that without a GOP competitor he won't need to spend anything until the general election while the Democratic candidates will be forced to spend heavily while fighting it out in the primaries.

It's a pretty weak field anyway so unless Al Gore or possibly Joe Biden enter the race I don't think Bush will be beaten. He still has strong approval ratings and the Democrats need the economy to go into the tank if they want to have a real chance. The economy looks like it's beginning to improve though so the Democrats may be screwed no matter who they nominate.

Typedef

Hillary Clinton

Sand

The Ice Queen vs lovable Uncle George?:)

Hilary Clinton isnt exactly going to unify the electorate behind her to be honest. And the republicans will be able to counter any sleaze allegations with questions of their own about the clinton administration:|

Typedef

Perhaps.

Then again, so long as georgous George reduces the massive defence defecit (without so much as a commie is sight) and the US economy grows in his second term, who really cares who's President?

Typedef

I see....




Down with big brother....

sceptre

I very much doubt that Hillary will enter the 2004 race, though she may well be thinking about 2008. Simple reason: she promised that she'd finish out her term as Senator when she entered the 2000 Senate race and made this one of the primary bases of her campaign. If she does show that she's willing to dump that for a Presidential race, she'll fail to carry New York. She'll also reveal herself without question as someone who can't keep the most basic of promises. Hence, no Hillary in 2004. Deep down, I'll bet she's hoping Bush will win, then she can romp home four years later.

George Soros has put together a campaign called "Americans Coming TOgether", put 10 million of his own money into it and hoppes to raise 75 in total for an "anyone but Bush" campsign. They're going to focus the money on 17 swing states.

The one thing we can be sure of in the next US Presidential election is that the Green party will take a massive hammering compared to last time.