Bush approval sinks to 52%

[Justice 0]

Then again, Jobber, Clinton got as low as 45% as well and still won, and this is one hell of a competitive Primary. It'll start getting much more vicious. Dean will make it out, though he'll probably have taken a some good damage to his campaign as well, and the President probably has some issues and programs to burn him on anyways. At any rate, even you have to admit that going through these primaries and hitting a President who is moderately popular and is waiting for you is an uphill battle.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The thing is, any of these candidates will immediately get 5ish percentage points by asking the voters if they're better off now than in 2000... because the answer to that is clear. Whether or not it's Bush's fault is irrelevant; we've had negative job growth, two major wars, and our civil liberties have been raided by his administration. If you think he's infallible, you're greatly mistaken.

 

Right now, it's going to be a crapshoot.

[Firestarter 0]

...

 

No matter what you think of the President or his policies, that sort of confidence is simply insane. Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? Jesus Christ, a crapshoot? I don't even want to know what you're smoking.

 

Mike said it best. Your polisci teachers are robbing you of an education.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

And your association with Bush is making you blind to the fact that his four years as president have been pathetic.

[Justice 0]

Then again, Tyler, one could say that you are so on the Dean bandwagon that you can't see the fact that you are still going up against a somewhat strong incumbant. Just a thought there...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Name me three facets of your life that have improved because of the Bush administration.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

America has one of the poorest political systems in the world. Albeit, they are not the only one's who run a country that way. Democracy itself is a great system, however, the way that it is played out in America is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

 

If you look at any sort of major operations (corporations, military or what have you), the operations are most successive when the people in power work together. This isn't to say the people in power should agree on everything, it's just that they should work together when they don't. With America, the system is just the opposite, with the people in power constantly fighting rather than working together.

 

What the fuck is the point of having individuals always vote along party lines? What America really needs to do is scrap Republicans and Democrats. Have all political candidates run on their own forum rather than one laid out for them. That would be a true democracy and a real step towards smartening the country up.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Jesus Christ, a crapshoot? I don't even want to know what you're smoking.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=crapshoot

 

crap·shoot    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (krpsht)

n. Slang

A risky enterprise.

 

Whoa, I'm totally wrong by calling the election close, right? DAMN THOSE LIBERAL PROFESSORS.

[Firestarter 0]

And your association with Bush is making you blind to the fact that his four years as president have been pathetic.

You're out of your mind. There's no other way to explain this.

 

An incumbent facing zero primary opposition with absolute and unqualified support from his party's base. An ongoing, protracted, popular, and overwhelmingly successful war made necessary by a national tragedy. A recovering economy. Whether or not anyone's life has improved doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if every single person who voted in 2004 had seen a major decline in his quality of life. However you want to characterise the 2004 election, it can't be called a "crapshoot."

[Justice 0]

Name me three facets of your life that have improved because of the Bush administration.

I honestly couldn't say, Tyler. Then again, I'd say my family has hit a peak at the moment until I get out of college. Though I did manage to get a job this summer, for what it's worth.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Name me three facets of your life that have improved because of the Bush administration.

I don't look for the government to improve my life, but here's what I came up with off the top of my head...

 

1) I paid my rent for a month and change with that insta-credit back in 20(01)?

 

2) With the No Child Left Behind Act, it opened up more client opportunities for my previous employer.

 

3) I got a few extra dollars from the reduced taxes -- it wasn't much, but every little bit helps...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Since this is a thread about polls...

 

An ongoing, protracted, popular, and overwhelmingly successful war

 

"Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing handling the situation with Iraq?"

 

  Approve Disap-

prove Not

Sure 

  % % % 

9/9-10/03

54 38 8

 

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

 

  Approve Disap-

prove No

Opinion 

  % % % 

9/4-7/03 49 47 4

 

"In the long term, do you think having gone to war with Iraq will increase or decrease the risk of further terrorism in the United States?"

 

  Increase Decrease No Differ-

ence (vol.) No

Opinion 

  % % % % 

9/4-7/03 48 40 8 5

 

"In your opinion, has the military campaign against Iraq been successful, unsuccessful, or somewhere in-between?"

 

  Successful Un-

successful In-

between Not Sure 

  % % % % 

9/3-4/03 32 13 53 2

 

"Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not?"

 

  Worth It Not

Worth It Don't

Know 

  % % % 

8/26-28/03 46 46 8

 

Source: www.pollingreport.com/iraq

 

Popular? EVERY pollster more or less agrees that the country is SPLIT over this war.

 

A recovering economy.

 

Which the public overwhelmingly blames Bush for in the first place. Need I pull out polls for public opinion of Bush's handling of the economy?

 

with absolute support from his party's base.

 

Oh, right, especially with pundits like Andy Sullivan and groups like Cato splintering their support of the big-government Bush administration.

 

It's going to be close, no matter what; quite frankly, residual "patriotism" of rallying behind the president thoroughly affirms that it's not going to be a runaway election for the Democrats. However, your assertation that Bush is popular and his actions are widely accepted is ludicrous.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

2) With the No Child Left Behind Act, it opened up more client opportunities for my previous employer.

 

What about the schools it left on life support?

[Firestarter 0]

Popular? EVERY pollster more or less agrees that the country is SPLIT over this war.

Tyler, I'm not talking about the war in Iraq. I'm talking about the broader war against militant Islam: the "War on Terrorism."

 

Which the public overwhelmingly blames Bush for in the first place. Need I pull out polls for public opinion of Bush's handling of the economy?

No. The fact is that one year before the election, the economy is already recovering. It will only continue to improve. The Democratic candidates are using a short-term issue to gain ground in the primaries, but in the long term, it will butcher their nominee nationally.

 

Oh, right, especially with pundits like Andy Sullivan and groups like Cato splintering their support of the big-government Bush administration.

Cato is not a conservative institute. Anyway, by "base" I was referring to Christians, foreign policy hardliners, supply-side tax-cutting conservatives, and other groups that the President's policies have consistently pleased.

 

It's going to be close, no matter what; quite frankly, residual "patriotism" of rallying behind the president thoroughly affirms that it's not going to be a runaway election for the Democrats. However, your assertation that Bush is popular and his actions are widely accepted is ludicrous.

I guess we'll see. My prediction is that it will be a nationwide landslide for the President, and furthermore, the DNC is fully aware of this. In fact, the smartest Democrats are betting on it.

[Firestarter 0]

2) With the No Child Left Behind Act, it opened up more client opportunities for my previous employer.

 

What about the schools it left on life support?

The Act is more concerned with children than schools. I realise it's hard for a Democrat to understand how that can be a good thing. Much like vouchers, I suppose.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

2) With the No Child Left Behind Act, it opened up more client opportunities for my previous employer.

 

What about the schools it left on life support?

What about them?

 

That's not the question you first asked...

[Guest BDC]

I think it's cute how these polls are being compared to each other like they ask nearly the same question...

 

No, Bobby, the answers depend on who is contracting the survey.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

No matter what you think of the President or his policies, that sort of confidence is simply insane. Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about? Jesus Christ, a crapshoot? I don't even want to know what you're smoking.

Where are the WMDs? Either they're not there, or they've been moved away and are STILL going to be used against us. That will be THE issue right there when the election starts.

 

Although this president is popular (which may be enough to simply get people tired of seeing him) he hasn't suddently made many Dems question their party affiliation because of his rhetoric.

 

Tell me what President Bush has done to appeal to Democratic voters and then we can debate this airtight chance of victory you seem to think he holds.

[Vern Gagne 0]

America has one of the poorest political systems in the world. Albeit, they are not the only one's who run a country that way. Democracy itself is a great system, however, the way that it is played out in America is, for lack of a better word, retarded.

 

If you look at any sort of major operations (corporations, military or what have you), the operations are most successive when the people in power work together. This isn't to say the people in power should agree on everything, it's just that they should work together when they don't. With America, the system is just the opposite, with the people in power constantly fighting rather than working together.

 

What the fuck is the point of having individuals always vote along party lines? What America really needs to do is scrap Republicans and Democrats. Have all political candidates run on their own forum rather than one laid out for them. That would be a true democracy and a real step towards smartening the country up.

So basically scrape our system of gov't we've had since the Constitution was written.

[Firestarter 0]

Where are the WMDs? Either they're not there, or they've been moved away and are STILL going to be used against us. That will be THE issue right there when the election starts.

Nope. It won't.

 

Yes, I realise I'm being ambiguous, and I'm being ambiguous for a reason.

 

Tell me what President Bush has done to appeal to Democratic voters

If you're talking about "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," he hasn't done very much at all, really. And that's why he'll win.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Although this president is popular (which may be enough to simply get people tired of seeing him) he hasn't suddently made many Dems question their party affiliation because of his rhetoric.

 

Tell me what President Bush has done to appeal to Democratic voters and then we can debate this airtight chance of victory you seem to think he holds.

 

See, this is your problem. Bush does not need to appeal to Democratic voters. He only needs to retain the Republican voters. He never had the Democratic vote to begin with, and the Republicans still won in 2000 and 2002.

 

The Democrats need to steal away Republican votes, and Howard Dean is not the man to do it. He is too far to the left to appeal to the moderates. He may be popular among the Dems, but he is hated among the Republicans so by running Dean you have pretty much lost to begin with. If dumping Bush is the greater goal, the Dems need to run someone more moderate like Kerry. Even then its a long shot, but at least the race isn't over before it begins.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

If you're talking about "the Democratic wing of the Democratic party," he hasn't done very much at all, really. And that's why he'll win.

Actually, I was talking about registered Dems.

 

Bush has been 98% along the Republican party line. Centerist Democrats, the left, and the far-left have no reason to vote for the guy (well, the last one never did, but anyway.) You don't have to win "The Democratic Wing Of The Democratic Party," but what about the rest of them?

[Art Sandusky 0]

Right now, Bush supporters have PLENTY of reason to be confident, since AS OF RIGHT NOW, he'd stomp anyone on the Democratic side. However, after the primaries are over (and the lead candidate is pretty much sealed up by the middle of March), the Democratic party has seven months to make their man look like a million bucks. So to say that the election will be close is a very good possibility. A landslide or even fairly decided (3/5 to 2/3 of the electoral vote) victory for Bush won't happen. This nation is still in its trend of being right down the middle on most things, which has shown since the midterm 1998 elections. Now that the major conflict in Iraq is over and people are starting to pay attention to domestic issues again, Bush really really needs to show a focus on those again after being on almost exclusive foreign policy duty for two years now. So far, the only domestic initiative that the public at large will remember is the tax cut, but Bush won't be able to promise another one without throwing us deeper into debt. He's just going to have to find another way to satisfy the nation that doesn't involve warfare or further deficits.

[Vyce 0]

Where are the WMDs? Either they're not there, or they've been moved away and are STILL going to be used against us. That will be THE issue right there when the election starts.

Nope. It won't.

 

Yes, I realise I'm being ambiguous, and I'm being ambiguous for a reason.

She's right.

 

I'm taking her ambiguity to mean that she believes that we will find WMD in the future, but even if we do not, it will not matter much come the election.

 

The majority of Americans care more about the bottom line on the Iraq war (that Saddam is overthrown and the country liberated of his regime), and the blame for any lapses on intelligence will not weigh down onto the Bush administration nearly as heavy as liberals want it too.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

See, this is your problem. Bush does not need to appeal to Democratic voters. He only needs to retain the Republican voters. He never had the Democratic vote to begin with, and the Republicans still won in 2000 and 2002.

That because of who the Dems ran. Everyone saw Gore and Bush and said "Damnit, this is the same damn guy. I guess I won't vote for either of them."

 

Unless Lieberman wins the primary, in which case yeah I guess it could be 2000 all over again.

[Guest JMA]

She's right.

 

I'm taking her ambiguity to mean that she believes that we will find WMD in the future, but even if we do not, it will not matter much come the election.

 

The majority of Americans care more about the bottom line on the Iraq war (that Saddam is overthrown and the country liberated of his regime), and the blame for any lapses on intelligence will not weigh down onto the Bush administration nearly as heavy as liberals want it too.

Judging by polls, a lot of Americans think we've ALREADY found WMDs.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

See, this is your problem.  Bush does not need to appeal to Democratic voters.  He only needs to retain the Republican voters.  He never had the Democratic vote to begin with, and the Republicans still won in 2000 and 2002.

That because of who the Dems ran. Everyone saw Gore and Bush and said "Damnit, this is the same damn guy. I guess I won't vote for either of them."

 

Unless Lieberman wins the primary, in which case yeah I guess it could be 2000 all over again.

I disagree. Gore would spank Bush if he ran this time. Americans largely do not approve of the way Bush ran the war, but they do agree with the idea of war itself, something that Lieberman. Lieberman would have a much easier time of getting the undecided vote than an extremist like Dean, who most non-Democrats see as a coward. I still don't think Lieberman will win, but if Gore was running he would beat Bush.

 

The Democrats need to ask themselves one question. Is your goal to run your favourite candidate or the candidate most likely to beat Bush? Because if it is the latter, it would make far more sense to run someone like Kerry or Lieberman. Of course, if they don't think one of the more conservative Democrats are any better than Bush, they might as well give Dean a shot.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

the undecided vote than an extremist like Dean,

 

Jesus Christ, do some research before you spew nonsense.

[Justice 0]

the undecided vote than an extremist like Dean,

 

Jesus Christ, do some research before you spew nonsense.

He's the damn person you have to reach, Tyler, which is why I lack faith in you guys. If your only response to him being an extremist is "OMG STFU DO RESEARCH", then you aren't gonna reach a lot of undecided voters.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

the undecided vote than an extremist like Dean,

 

Jesus Christ, do some research before you spew nonsense.

He's the damn person you have to reach, Tyler, which is why I lack faith in you guys. If your only response to him being an extremist is "OMG STFU DO RESEARCH", then you aren't gonna reach a lot of undecided voters.

Not exactly, because I'm Canadian, but I am the same type of person that the Democrats need to reach.

 

Gephardt appears to be leading now so maybe the Dems have realized this too.