In a street fight, no weapons, no third party, who would win, Al Gore, or George Bush?
94498
George Bush would win. Go Texas!
301835
Democrat or Republican, what is the difference? None really. \n\nAs for a Democrat winning. As badly out of touch with the people as the Republicans are the Democrats are even worse. They will try to run somebody so abomible like Hitlerly Clinton that the public will puke in response. Think about it, against Bush the first they they ran Gore who could not even bother to remove the price tag from his ear. The same guy who's wife attempted to get Rap and Metal music banned in the US. Entire forms of music banned! Gore led a group that passed a law which could have gotten you a prison term if you said a cuss word on the internet. Gore is the biggest proponent of censorship we have EVER had. He makes McCarthy look like a timid easy going fellow when it comes to attacking the rights of people. Not only did they attack freedom of speech the Clinton/Gore administration wrote the laws which made the Patriot act possible. \n\nThen you have Kerry who could not make up his mind on anything. Who would want such a wishy washy do nothing leading the nation? \n\nCompared to these clutzs the Republicans could run Mickey Mouse and win. Bush barely bothered to campaign either election and still won. Not quite sure where all those campaign contributions went but I doubt even half of that went to campaign activities. As represive as the Patriot act is it is nothing new. Clinton's administration not only passed laws that were only milder versions, they were openly caught using the IRS and FBI to go after personal enemies. The blatent misuse of power while dusted over by the press stuck in quite a few people's craws. How would YOU feel if you had the IRS and FBI breathing down your neck because 10 years ago you offended a nobody politicion?  \n\nSo as fed up with Bush as so many are unless the Democrats learn quite a bit in a short time they will sabatage themselves again in the next election. Ineptitude and Democrat are fast becoming synomyns. \n\nI suggest looking into independent cantidates. People who might actually believe in half of what they say. Who might make it through a term without trampling all over the Constitution and abusing the office.
688818
It's hard to guess, but I'll take a shot:  9/11 would probably still have occurred.  Gore would most likely have gone into A'stan as a result of the attack.  Saddam would still be in power as I doubt Gore would have had the political will to confront Iraq.  Chances are that Bin Laden would still be alive (as I believe he is today).  The economy might be a little worse off, due to Gore's reluctance to engage in cutting taxes or spending on entitlement programs (even though Bush hasn't been much better in that regard) and appeasement of the enviromentalist and their religious adherence to the Kyoto Protocols.  Assuming he would have been reelected in 2004, Gore would have been able to shift the Supreme Court to the left with more pro-abortion, anti-2nd Amendment justices not to mention placing a more liberal chairman on the Federal Reserve board.  That's about all I can think of.  Frankly, beyong Iraq and the SCOTUS appointments, I don't see much difference.  Anyone who says otherwise is a partisan hack who hasn't been paying attention to how little difference there is between the two mainstream political parties these days.
1182298
Without question.  I never imagined in these modern times a popularly elected candidate would fail to win because of the electoral college.  The 2000 presidential election was a sham.  500,000 more voted for Gore than Bush, yet we have been stuck with this merciless demogogue for two terms.  Bill Clinton how you are missed!
345214
Well, Bush the younger is a jogger, but assuming they're all back from the dead and in their prime, then all of the presidents who were generals (there were a lot of those in the 19th century) would be probable winners.  I'm gonna go ahead and guess Franklin Pierce, because not only would he have to have been in good shape in the Army, he was also really good looking.  It's always nice to see the handsomest win.  Fatass Taft would definitely finish last, assuming he didn't have a heart attack first.
518265
A monkey would do better than bush.
511095
Gore didn't run in 2004, he ran in 2000.  John Kerry ran in 2004 and no Kerry wouldn't have won anyway.
644562
No one is better than Bush.
156294
No he wouldn't. Unlike old Bush, Bill Clinton is not an idiot who would break the law for his son. Also, he wouldn't have had Jeb to help him with cheating in Florida. His father's friends were also the ones that got him into good schools, the Texas Air National Guard (where he received a Dishonorable Discharge), aand who got him his multiple oil companies he ran into the ground. Also, HE DID NOT GET THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTE IN 2000. THE SUPREME COURT WAS IN HIS POCKET, AND HE CHEATED IN FLORIDA. ONE MORE THING, GORE HAD THE POPULAR VOTE, MEANING THAT GORE HAD THE MAJORITY! So, no, Bush would have failed miserably in life and would have hopefully been in prison, as one answer said. But yes, it's still possible!
252930
Both of them are politicians.  Bush appears to be a little more ethical.  He spends like a liberal, but his toys are different.  Both say they have a plan - both light on specifics.  Bush has lousy PR skills.  If I was in the military I wouldn't want Carter, Clinton, or Kerry my boss - they'd get me killed.  Kerry has shown he will stab his fellow GI in the back.
293905
George W. Bush for alive, responsible for killing around 30,000 people for personal glory. I know more people have died in the Sudan and other places, but there isn't one person responsible.\nAlso for destroying the environment, harming the poor and women, destroying america's political system, etc...\n\nprobably hitler for dead, killing 10-12 million people in his quest for glory.
549352
Toughie.  I'm going to go with Mugabe though.  At least Bush does his evil under the guise of liberating Iraq.
232487
clinton, although gwb would probably take out a $9 billion loan to get the army to do it, or have the nsa wiretap the ex-pres and dig up MORE dirt on him... you get the point\n\nexcept that even with all that money and the entire USA army behind him, gwb would barely be able to get a "non-existent civil war" started, let alone take out clinton...\n\nnow the real question becomes, between GWB and HILLARY Clinton, who would win?
1068568
first of all bush would have trouble finding these weapons.. especially if they are of mass destruction... and clinton being able to act for himself would have no trouble defeating the bush- who  restricted from his animators by the cage would fall short of anything remotely capable of defending himself, or that country  he supposed to run...\n\nso physically clinton would win... but if its congress who decides the winner.. then i must say it would probably be bush who wins... though his capacity for living affterward would be likened to that of a vegetable after clintons beatingness of ample destructitude... \n\nindeed congress is corrupt.
159155
Al Gore. Oh no, wait, that was the internet that he invented. Never mind. Sorry.
1230
Hitler would win because Hitler is tough and mean and Bush is a great big panty-waste.
1086363
George Bush, because he is a complete idiot who cannot run a country yet he was able to win re-election.  He must be a good politician.