Will Bush get kicked?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The percentage of registered voters who say they would support President Bush in 2004 fell below 50 percent for the first time, according to a new CNN/USA TODAY/Gallup poll, which finds more Americans concerned about the economy.

 

Two-thirds of those who responded to the poll, released Thursday, describe current economic conditions as poor, a 10-point increase since December. Optimism about the future of the economy also dropped 10 points during that time.

 

Asked their choice for president, 47 percent of the registered voters polled said they would support Bush in 2004 -- compared with 51 percent in December. About 39 percent said they would support the Democratic candidate, compared with 37 percent in December.

 

Still, a majority of those polled, 57 percent, said they approved of the way Bush is handling the job of president. That Bush approval rating is the lowest since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/02/27/bush.poll/

 

The key point for me:

 

The poll numbers suggest Bush has further to go in convincing Americans that he can turn the economy around. About 45 percent of those polled said they favor Bush's economic plan, while 40 percent said they oppose it, and 15 percent described themselves as unsure.

 

A Republican President offering big tax cuts and new spending should not only have the support of 45% of Americans for their economic plan. Of course, this doesn't contrast with alternatives. It be interesting to see a point by point list. (ie, do you favour increased spending in this area if it will be financed with a deficit, etc.)

[Guest Mad Dog]

47% of voters is still enough to get him back in office.

 

And if the Democrats put up a really bad candidate he might have a cakewalk back in.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

Yeah, the Democrats REALLY need to come up with a good candidate in 2004, unless the economy worsens or the war with Iraq turns into a clusterfuck somehow.

[Guest Mad Dog]

The other problem for the Democrats is they're probably going to have to contend with Nadar running again.

[Guest JMA]

I think the DNC should nominate John Edwards. I like his stance on issues.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

If the Dems want to win with a pro-war angle, they'll hope Lieberman wins the primaries.

 

I don't think Bush is cooked just yet. A lot can happen between now and November 2004. Although, a war with Iraq will not help the economy so he's going to have to end up trying something. Tax cuts, coupled with a decrease in all his spending is what I'm hoping for.

[Guest JMA]

If the Dems want to win with a pro-war angle, they'll hope Lieberman wins the primaries.

Lieberman isn't too differant from Bush though.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

If the Dems want to win with a pro-war angle, they'll hope Lieberman wins the primaries.

Lieberman isn't too differant from Bush though.

Exactly, which is why he'll have a shot at beating Bush. The Dems just want to win. Luring over wishy washy centrists with a pro-war agenda is easier than you may think.

[Guest RevEvil]

Do you really think a non-Xian can win?

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

The other problem for the Democrats is they're probably going to have to contend with Nadar running again.

Yeah, where's Perot when you need him to draw off the conservative vote.

[Guest JMA]

Do you really think a non-Xian can win?

I would hope so (seeing as how I'm an atheist).

[Guest LooseCannon]

Out of the Dem candidates, so far I like Dean. Kerry and Edwards are both too much of a pretty boy. The others just plain are not viable options really. Dean's got some interesting stances, has a populist appeal, and is good speaker; and I don't think Nader would be very successful running against him.

[Guest JMA]

I think America would like to have a youthful looking President for once.

[Guest LooseCannon]

It's not a matter of youthfulness. Edwards is considered a bit of an airhead. But so is a certain someone else by some, so maybe that doesn't matter. Anyway, a lot of people just don't think he has the stature for the presidency. Kerry does have the stature, but I think he'll turn a lot of people off.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Senator's aren't elected President. Kennedy was the last one.

 

The Dems all seem the same. They have their differences, but overall no one stands out who is a viable nominee at this point.

[Guest Olympic Slam]

It's not a matter of youthfulness. Edwards is considered a bit of an airhead. But so is a certain someone else by some, so maybe that doesn't matter. Anyway, a lot of people just don't think he has the stature for the presidency. Kerry does have the stature, but I think he'll turn a lot of people off.

Kerry thinks he's got a presidential stature but I bet mostly people will see through that. To be honest he reminds of a Frankenstein monster.

[Guest Kotzenjunge]

I don't see an atheist being elected President for a looooooong time.

[Guest LooseCannon]

It's not a matter of youthfulness.  Edwards is considered a bit of an airhead.  But so is a certain someone else by some, so maybe that doesn't matter.  Anyway, a lot of people just don't think he has the stature for the presidency.  Kerry does have the stature, but I think he'll turn a lot of people off.

Kerry thinks he's got a presidential stature but I bet mostly people will see through that. To be honest he reminds of a Frankenstein monster.

Funny, Gore always reminded me of the Frankenstein monster.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Gephardt was pretty good on Meet The Press last week, btw. Was taking a more hawkish attitude than you'd expect of a Dem candidate. Might be a good choice as he takes a "we need to go to Iraq and deal with this threat" attitude without going on every 30 seconds about the media raping kids minds like Lieberman.

[Guest Mad Dog]

Lieberman will turn off a lot of moderates with all his censorship talk.

[Guest JMA]

I don't see an atheist being elected President for a looooooong time.

It sucks that religion plays such a big part in getting elected to office. It shouldn't even be an issue. Although, if they kept quiet about it until they entered office...

[cawthon777 0]

I don't see an atheist being elected President for a  looooooong time.

It sucks that religion plays such a big part in getting elected to office. It shouldn't even be an issue. Although, if they kept quiet about it until they entered office...

It shouldn't be an issue per say but keep in mind "this country ... under god".

 

America, in general, wants a President that will stand up for moral values and often that goes hand in hand with religion (not saying it should, just making observations).

[Guest JMA]

It shouldn't be an issue per say but keep in mind "this country ... under god".

 

America, in general, wants a President that will stand up for moral values and often that goes hand in hand with religion (not saying it should, just making observations).

Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. He liked the Bible but only the teachings. He even edited out the supernatural stuff. True story.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Lieberman will turn off a lot of moderates with all his censorship talk.

I know. That's why I was talking about Gephardt. Someone said "If the Dems want to win with a pro-war angle, they'll hope Lieberman wins the primaries." and so I was remarking that Gephardt has that angle without the scary stuff.

 

IMHO, Lieberman oughta be the Republican Party's MVP. He's so scary that I'll vote for Bush if it comes down to those two.

[Guest B-X]

Edwards is a local guy. He's from my county, and if he gets the nomination from the Demos, holy shit. This county will be overrun by news trucks.

[Guest Choken One]

Know what? You guys may want Gephardt, Edwards and Kerry...Fuck you guys...I'll vote for Rev. Al Sharpton...

 

If yer gonna lose, lose with STYLE.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

lol -- the GOP did it with Goldwater almost 40 years ago, and look what happened (Reagan).

 

Election '04 is still a LONG ways away. I'm not even paying attention to these stupid polls...

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Kerry is the only one who has a shot unless Bush really, REALLY screws up. We're talking a fuck-up on Jimmy Carter's level.

[Guest JMA]

If the Dems do nominate Al Sharpton, and he loses, it would still help them in the long run. The Dems would get more of the so-called "black" (I hate using terms like "black" and "white" in refernces to race) in the next election (and many elections after). It's all a matter of them willing to sacrifice four more years to George W.

[cawthon777 0]

If the Dems do nominate Al Sharpton, and he loses, it would still help them in the long run. The Dems would get more of the so-called "black" (I hate using terms like "black" and "white" in refernces to race) in the next election (and many elections after). It's all a matter of them willing to sacrifice four more years to George W.

The only demographic Sharpton could carry is the paranoid "they're out to get you" black voters that actually buy into what he has to say. He's a nut. Jackson was a viable candidate in '88 because that was a pre-nut Jackson. They can't attract voters with what they have to say - they can only turn them away. The fact that both men use AA to profit themselves would make them even more on the outs with voters.

 

I thought Tracey Morgan's impression of Sharpton on SNL's 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' skit a few months back was classic and right on the money.

 

Sharpton: "Pikachu is a slave owner and Osama bin Laden is an Uncle Tom!"

 

Matthews: "Reverend Sharpton, that's the craziest thing I've ever heard ... (random other guest) - CAN YOU BEAT THAT?"

 

Or when SNL had the Super Bowl halftime show and Morgan / Sharpton said that the Bushes were out to get him. When Hammond / Matthews asked him which one (George Sr, W, Jeb, etc), Sharpton replied "...No, the bushes outside my window. I leave the house and I swear they're watching me!"