Who Would You Like To See Win In 2008

[nightsilver]

Even worse than our interventionist policy is the fickle nature of our government. Since the end of WWII, supporting dictators and fascist regimes as it benefited us (be it to stave off communism or otherwise).

- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.
- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.
- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.
- Growing hemp in the US is illegal even though there are several industrial uses for the plant.
- I would like to see some of the grandfathered rules for plants removed (regarding pollution and waste).

I can't think of anymore off the top of my head that involve removing restrictions, and lessening government power.

As for the government engaging in more activities, the ones I support involve taking action for the environment.
- Tax incentives for installing solar power into homes and businesses.
- Increased efficiency for cars. Give grants to researches at universities to pursue this. I would hope they wouldn't be biased like car and oil companies.
- Tax incentives for recycling.

Money has to come from somewhere, and if we weren't fighting in Iraq we would have money to spend. If there wasn't the war on drugs, we would have money to spend. Didn't look up numbers, but from what I remember they are fairly hefty.

[Ocean_Soul]

A couple comments:

- Internally, one thing I would like to see is the government lowering the national debt. We as a nation are spending more than we make.

Nearly 200 billion currently. It doesn’t really matter until the rest of the world starts loosing faith in the US. If I understand this concept from what I’ve been told by someone who knew quite a bit about this.

- I would like to see the prohibition on drugs ended. Honestly, it didn't work on alcohol, and it isn't working with all the rest right now (no, I don't do drugs either). We spend too much enforcing it, and too much on keeping offenders in jails and prosecuting them.

Some but not all I think. I think the ones that turn people into whores for drugs should probably stay as far out of reach as possible.

- I would like to see more government bureaucracies enter the private sector under the ideal that competition will produce a more efficient result.

The effect of privatization does produce a more efficient result. However remember that privatization makes it profit-driven and share holders want to see increasing profits. There is only so much that can be done to improve genuine efficiency. After it gets to a point where efficiency is not increasing fast enough (it’s approaching a limit) profit is driven up other ways, often by cutting what the non-shareholders think the company should be doing. Basically it becomes a battle of money vs morals or duty. And we all know the good side doesn’t always win.

[TG]

This is so interesting. For years, we've had one political group at the throat of another group, just cursing each other out.

Now, here I am talking to a Libertarian and agreeing with much of what he's saying. You're right, nightsilver, over what you say about the support of dictators. All because they serve our needs, regardless of how they serve the needs of their own people.

How a dictator affects the world doesn't impact my life on Long Island (Egg Island if you read the Great Gadsby, home of the Long Island Ice Tea.). Wrong is Wrong. We have bloody hands because of this.

I don't know about the war on drugs. I really don't know the impact on people. The government hype is out there. I don't know the reality behind the hype. But the drug pushers are bad guys. I was in a shooting match with one of them for 2 yrs, taking pot shots are each other, until finally the guy was sent away for murdering the wife of an anti-drug activist. He tried to get the guy, missed, and got the wife. A little weasel of a man, who use to beat his wife, which is how I became involved with him.

I use to live in the worst of the NYC neighborhoods, and someone pulled a knife or gun on me, on average, once every 8 months. Most of them were druggies. In NYC drugs were bad news. (Things have improved a lot over time. Not like it use to be.)

nightsilver might know this because Tenn. is still mostly rural, right? How is speed affecting your area? From the hype, I understand it's hit the rural areas badly.

As I'm typing this I realize we all agree on what's wrong when we see it. We differ in the information we work with however. I suspect that if we all had the same data to work with, we would all probably agree.

Ocean_Soul is right about privatization. It's a nice idea on paper, but Ocean_Soul has captured the reality.

This is what politics should be like. Different people talking, sharing information, not insults. Because we all know wrong when we see it; we just work with information of varying degrees of accuracy.

My own particular hobbyhorse is finding a practical method of implementing the most good.

[nightsilver]

I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing.

First up, drugs. People are going to find a way to get them as we have seen over the past 30 years. Regardless of whether they are banned or not, people are going to ruin their lives with them.

TG, why were the druggies pulling a knife on you? Were the mugging you (I think you mentioned one trying to steal your car)? Most likely you are an ends to a mean. They want their fix. They need money to pay the dealer. The drugs are expensive because of the war on drugs.

If drugs are legalized, then drugs will cost less (risk of being caught and thrown in jail means they demand a high reward). Assuming the person can hold down a job, then there is no need to resorting to violent and illegal behavior. I find this second assumption harder, and I will admit I am basing it off of a stereotype because of how few druggies I know. As a side effect, the money would be flowing into businesses and the government instead of drug lords.

I remember reading that at least one country has taken to giving addicts a limited amount of the drug a day to reduce their urges. The idea behind this was to curtail the crime because they wouldn't need the money for the drugs because their need for a fix has already been filled. There will still be those who want more, of course.

Ocean_soul, I do agree with you. By no means do I think we should release all of them at once. I think a good initial step would be to start with the softer drugs. See how it affects our society before considering the harder drugs.

TG, I know one of the towns about an hour away is jokingly referred to as McMethville. The cops stomped down so hard on the other drug that was flurishing in the town that meth just rose up and became the new predominant drug.

Also in the area is Bonnaroo (a music concert) and it is apparently well know for drug abuse as well (friend for ohio recognized it and mentioned there being lots of drugs there as well as my sister seeing several people using).

Secondly, on the national debt. Ocean_soul, you are right that it doesn't matter until the world starts losing faith in us. To the world though, I would have to wonder if they expect us to ever repay those debts. From what I saw it is actually sitting over 8 trillion dollars though.

Furthermore, I have occassionally read that the strength of the US dollar is falling, and I understand that reflects less faith in the US economy.

As for privatization, the power over the company should not be in the hands of share holders but the community they work for. Ugg I am about to break into so******t/communist mode. Say a new community was being built and five hospitals were built. Everyone becomes an equal share holder of the comapny yet they still have to compete amongst each other. The customers are their owners though so (hopefully) they won't be cutting corners too much.

My apologies for being so long winded and rambly.

[Rhabbi]

The problem with the idea of legalizing drugs is it actually will create more addicts. I have spoken with recreational users who tell me that the only thing keeping them from becoming addicts is the thought of jail. Take away that threat and they would dive head long into addiction. How does creating more addicts help anyone? The problem will not go away if we make drugs legal.

Even countries that are liberal enough to try this approach have backed away from it, yet people refuse to accept that we cannot do it. they seem to think that eventually it will all work out because they think it will. Look around and see the real world and what happens in it.

[nightsilver]

I looked and saw one site (not sure of its reputability) claiming that Holland had legalized the softer drugs. They had noticed an initial increase in drug users but that it had stabilized after a few years.

[Rhabbi]

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles.[33] Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use.[34] Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem

Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.[61] Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy

Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.

In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgment that legalization had failed.

http://www.sarnia.com/groups/antidru...ent/myths.html

The truth is not so simple. People like drugs because they help them escape reality, and if they are easy to get then more people will get them.

[nightsilver]

Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.

They are specifically trying to correlate these two factors; however, they didn't specifically say increase was within the student population.

Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey.

I just did a quick search on the populations of both towns and Amsterdam's looks to be twice the size of Newark's.

The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime

Is this like how Americans have blamed immigrants for stealing our jobs?

I find your first quote the strongest. It definitely wasn't a scenario I thought of. Rhabbi, I am interested in what you would think they best way to work on the drug problem is.

[Rhabbi]

Read Tom Clancy, specifically Execytive Orders. He oulined an effective drug prevetion plan. We need to attack drug use form the consuner side, not the producers. If we take away the consumer, the producer will stop making drugs.

Why don't you go look up the crime stats for amsterdam before the drug policy? It used to be one of the safest cities on the planet. And crime stats are generally per capita.

[TG]

nightsilver,
You may have put your finger on the problem, above.

"I would like to take a moment to just mention that I am not an expert in any of these subjects, thus why I would like to see a government run by people who know what they are doing."

None of us are experts, and yet every few years we're called upon to decide what is the best thing to do. Worse, the people who assure us they have the solutions are not honest about their positions.

Like the drug question you and Rhabbi are discussing. Nobody knows the answers. Hell, if someone knew the answers there would be no problem. It would be finished, cured, over and done with.

You were right to bring up the possibility of decreasing crime by legalizing drug, it's simply a good idea. But as Rhabbi pointed out, the data is all in and what there is not looking so hot.

One danger may be ideas which sound intuitively sensible, but whose practical application reveals complexities we didn't anticipate. Common sense approaches often have to be tested because they don't always work: the problem turns out to be a complex problem.

I think when we are dealing with any hot political topic, by definition, we're dealing with a topic on which there is no definitive answer. That we're in a guessing game. And our best option is to figure out which politician is 1, being honest; and 2, has proposed a reasonable solution to the problem.

Now we find out Bush had suppressed his Surgeon General's reports on the effectiveness of absinance programs, and both Bush and Clinton suppressed the reports on global warming by the heads of the EPA.

And in all this we have to pick out the best choice for the next time around. This is what discussions should be about. One of us get some decent info on as issue, and uses that to make the up coming decisions better.

To answer you question nightsilver, muggings. Some, I guess, random acts of violence by someone with a bug up his ass. The usual progression of such events tends to leave one of the two parties indisposed to further conversation, so I seldom discussed the event with the other person after the event terminated.

PS. I love this section of the forum. I think we should all be here discussing these issues as reasonable, respectful adults compared to what's characterized the country for the past few years

[TG]

Rhabbi,
In my book, you just decided the position I'll take on this issue. You provided decent, factual evidence that pertains to the topic. And issues should be decided on facts.

Thanks for the research.

[nightsilver]

Rhabbi, the biggest thing I was pointing out is how statistics tend to be abused. They may mean rate in reference to per capita but they may mean rate as per year. The last two just felt a bit vague, and when things are vague people tend to fill in the gaps without even realizing it. Perhaps I am just being way to anal.

Regardless, I feel bad about having replied without taking more time to do some reading and looking stuff up. I mostly just wrote what I thought about the ideas and did a couple quick searches for the most part. I'll try to avoid that in the future. ^_^

So far we have been attacking the consumer (locking them up for possessing) and the providers as well; however, it doesn't seem to be terribly effective. I assume the book outlines a more effective method?

[Rhabbi]

nightsilver, do not worry about having an opinion without all the facts. We all do that, the smart thing is to change your opinion when you get new facts.

I know statistics can be misconstrued, why /I only trust them if I can get my hands on the raw data. Polls can be skewed to the desired result by asking the right questions. People see this everyday, yet never wonder how 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage while 70% think it is none think it is a good idea.

What Jack Ryan proposed was making drug use a social stigma my instituting a program where users are made to preform community service that is embarrassing and having to wear identifying clothing while doing it. And also an educational program that showed all the dangers and costs of drug use.

[nightsilver]

Scarlet Letter style then.

We do have an education system on drugs ( D.A.R.E.), it just happens that it's not completely factual. Marijuana is lumped in with the heavier drugs, and is told it's a no no. I have heard claims that makes it easier for people to jump from it to the harder ones because, "Hey, what does it matter? It's only a bit worse."

That suggestion embodies informal sanctions as a means to restrict a person's behavior because they don't want to be embarrassed. Only problem is that that works best in smaller communities and groups.

There was the law that required sexual predator's to be registered, and people can look them up thus that is similar in nature to what you described. I wonder how much of an impact that has had on those crimes. I think a lot of people don't really know about it so it's impact is minimal.

[Rhabbi]

Probably, but combined with a long range drug intervention and education plan it would eventually work.

What we do now is to try to educate people after they are hooked, and then punish them if that does not work, which it won't. Sort of like closing the door after the cat gets out, waste of time. But studies have shown that addicts can stop being addicts if they are given a reason to stop that matters more than what the drugs. It may be hard to find that motivation, but it is there.

[Rhabbi]

Really do not know who should win, but at least I found something to make it interesting.

www.ifilm.com/video/2875264

[Beatrice]

Obama. If I had to rank them...

1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Richardson
4. Dodd
5. Kucinich
6. Biden
7. Gravel
8. Clinton
9. McCain
10. Paul
11. Huckabee
12. Romney
13. Hunter
14. Tancredo
15. Giuliani

[Thorne]

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

Not a chance while there are self-interested politicians involved. And, believe me, there's NO other kind.

[Thorne]

Not a chance while there are self-interested politicians involved. And, believe me, there's NO other kind.

LOL! At least we can agree on something!

[mkemse]

Who would I like to see win?

How about the American people, for a change?

Every election we have had minus the Supreme Court ruling in 2000, has been decide by the American People, in 2000 The Court 'Gave" the Presidency To Bush, but aside from that, The American People be we right or wrong have always expressed our wants in elections, true we do not always make the right decsions, but at least we have the right to try
we do not have a prefect sytem, but our does at least work

[ThisYouWillDo]

Every election we have had minus the Supreme Court ruling in 2000, has been decide by the American People, in 2000 The Court 'Gave" the Presidency To Bush, but aside from that, The American People be we right or wrong have always expressed our wants in elections, true we do not always make the right decsions, but at least we have the right to try
we do not have a prefect sytem, but our does at least work

If your system is even faintly like ours, you aren't voting for what you want, but choosing between what's on offer. The least of available evils, perhaps.

Over here it's a choice between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Every election we have had minus the Supreme Court ruling in 2000, has been decide by the American People, in 2000 The Court 'Gave" the Presidency To Bush, but aside from that, The American People be we right or wrong have always expressed our wants in elections, true we do not always make the right decsions, but at least we have the right to try
we do not have a prefect sytem, but our does at least work

Not knocking the system, just the choices.

If your system is even faintly like ours, you aren't voting for what you want, but choosing between what's on offer. The least of available evils, perhaps.

Over here it's a choice between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber.

TYWD

This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

[Guest 91108]

Not knocking the system, just the choices.
...
This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

This is very apt description of the way things are. a vote for either side is basically the vote for mere facial changes.
You get the same.. screwed.

[mkemse]

Not knocking the system, just the choices.


This is more in line with my own thoughts. Except over here they aren't necessarily "dumb." It's "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." More a case of a strange Robin Hood: Take from the middle class and give to someone else. The right seems to take from us and line their own pockets, while trying to take away as many freedoms as they can. The left seems to take from us and, after taking an appropriate "finders fee," give the rest to those unable or unwilling to actually work for a living. Either way, the middle class loses.

My only point is that for those not in the UnitedStates, we the American People always decide who will serve in what office, so when other say, "Letthe people decide" all I can say is be they all right or all wrong, every election we haveever had, the American people have spoken
They may in the long run make the wrong choice it is OUT choice not our Govcernemnts choice, so as it goes, if people in the UnitedStates want change, we have the chancve this coming November of 2008, when WE THE PEOPLE will decide who WE want to run our country, if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other
But at least it can be said in Novembmer 2008, the American People did speak up, just like we did in November of 2006 when we changed the ballance of power in Congress, granite alot of what the Democrats promised in 2006 has NOT been done, but also rmember that altho they control both Houses of Conmgress, the Democrats still do NOT have enough votes to over ride Vetoes, they only hold a 1 vote majorit, so the Dems did NOT break their promise to make changes, they simply do not have enough votes to over ride Presdential vetoes due to their slim majotiy of only 1 vote in the House and it takes BOTH houser to over ride vetos
You might get 50mpg in your car, but if your local station has no gas your mileage ability of your car is pointless

[ThisYouWillDo]

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Oh - as a fully paid-up member of the whinging middle classes, I'm perfectly happy for my taxes to pay for people who cannot work to live above subsistence level, and to pay the costs of providing other social services too, such as medical and hospital charges, just as I would appreciate those things myself if I became sick or unable to work for any reason. You see, I believe we have a duty to care for everyone, even the disadvantaged. That's what belonging to a civil society means. OK, I don't like being ripped off by malingerers, but they're a small problem compared to politicians who sign over millions of dollars to finance some terrorists' activities, and then spend billions more trying to eradicate the same people when the weapons they paid for are turned back on them. I don't think right thinking people would support and maintain corrupt regimes in other countries given the choice and would withhold that portion of their taxes if they could.



Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.


(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

[mkemse]

Thorne says: Except over here [politicians] aren't necessarily "dumb."

Neither, I suppose, are ours: they're too conniving to be dumb. But we vote them in because there's no real alternative. Whoever governs or rules us will put their own interests first and their own beliefs over and above the rest of the country until we vote them out again.

In 2004, Bush won with a margin of 0.73% of the popular vote or by 3.16% of the electoral vote - I don't know what the difference signifies, but no matter. As voting is not compulsory in USA, there is likely to have been a significant number of abstainers. That means only a minority of Americans "spoke" in favour of Bush's election. The majority of people didn't want him - at least, they didn't want him enough to vote for him.

Skipping the 2000 election, where there is a suggestion of judicial interference, I note that, in 1996, Clinton obtained 49.23% of the popular vote (less than half the votes cast) but 70.45% of the electoral vote. I imagine that there were also quite a few abstainers in that year too, so, again, the President was voted in by a minority of the American People.

I expect the same could be said of almost all the other Presidents too. They are minority leaders, albeit the largest minority. British Prime Ministers are also consistently elected on the basis of a minority vote. In fact, for our local elections there's a real possibility that the non-voters will represent the majority one day. I look forward to seeing what will happen when that day comes.

Mkemse says: ... if you decide not to vote, not to excersie your Constitutional Right and Moral Obligation as an American Citizen do not complain about who won since you did not express any intrest one way or the other

To my mind, that's poppycock! As a citizen of the United Kingdom, I have exercised MY right not to vote in every UK election bar 2 since I reached voting age in 1978; I don't want self-serving incompetents to represent me. If I were obliged by law to vote, I would purposely spoil my ballot paper rather than cast a vote. That does not mean to say that I have no right to criticise our Parliamentarians for doing a lousy job. In fact, it frees me to criticise them just as much as I like. If I had voted for them, I should have to justify my foolish actions.

I don't vote because I believe the candidates would do a lousy job (they would follow their party leader and do as they were told rather than represent my interests). I am not going to validate any one of them with my vote, nor am I going to endorse the system that perpetuates this kind of nonsense by participating in it. I'm sure my attitude would be the same if I were a US citizen.

I also have a right to citicise foreign leaders, as do Americans. Yet we do not vote for or against them. I don't like Putin, for example, and I consider him a dangerous and treacherous man - typical politician, in other words. But the Russians love him (for now) and I have no say whether he rules Russia or not.

So, if you do vote, you have a lot of explaining to do when the person you support cocks up and ruins the economy, fails to respond to a national emergency, takes his country into an unpopular war, runs away with half the national treasures or does something else equally disasterous.


(I find Mkmse's last paragraph very interesting. The American People "spoke" by giving control to the Democrats in both Houses of Congress, yet the Democrats are still unable to impose their will because they cannot override a veto. You might have a 50 mpg car parked outside your house, filled to the brim with petrol. But if someone takes away your keys, you can't drive it.)

TYWD

No Buch never got anywhere near 51% of the vote in either election, but as far as 2004 goes, even with his small margin of victory, my understandingis the primary reason he even won in 2004 is that in the History of the US, NO President, No Incumbent has ever been voted out of office when were were at War, whether they initiated it or not
I would appriciate someone varifying this as being correct or incorrect

[ThisYouWillDo]

I can't confirm it, but I believe I have heard the same thing.

[Mad Lews]

No Buch never got anywhere near 51% of the vote in either election, but as far as 2004 goes, even with his small margin of victory, my understandingis the primary reason he even won in 2004 is that in the History of the US, NO President, No Incumbent has ever been voted out of office when were were at War, whether they initiated it or not
I would appriciate someone varifying this as being correct or incorrect

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 comes to mind. His reelection bid collapsed by March of '68 so he withdrew and allowed the Dems to chose Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace also ran and probably siphoned off some democratic votes (the old south was solidly democratic then still blaming the republicans for Lincoln and the defeat of the confederacy.) Nixon won a electoral college landslide 301 to 191 with Wallace getting 46. The popular vote was closer 43.4% to 42.8% with Wallace at just under 14%

[mkemse]

Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 comes to mind. His reelection bid collapsed by March of '68 so he withdrew and allowed the Dems to chose Hubert Humphrey. George Wallace also ran and probably siphoned off some democratic votes (the old south was solidly democratic then still blaming the republicans for Lincoln and the defeat of the confederacy.) Nixon won a electoral college landslide 301 to 191 with Wallace getting 46. The popular vote was closer 43.4% to 42.8% with Wallace at just under 14%

What I meant to say if any Incubent that actualy ran, always won, I know about johnson, but my reference was towards any incumbent that was actualy in the general election, Johnson choose to to run again thus with Humphrey runnig Humphry would not have been the actauly incumbent since he never served as President only VP