New poll finds voters, polticians split

[Jobber of the Week 0]

This one poll seems to have been split into two news stories, so I'll just post them both. The poll statistics have been bolded for your convenience.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...6-2003Nov1.html

Two years after a surge of national unity in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States is once again a 50-50 nation, shaped by partisan divisions as deep as ever that stand between President Bush and reelection.

 

A year before Election Day, growing questions about the U.S. mission in Iraq and continuing anxieties about the jobs picture, despite recent signs of economic improvement, dominate the political agenda, according to interviews with scores of voters in all regions of the country and amplified by a new Washington Post-ABC News Poll.

 

Three years after one of the closest and most bitterly contested elections in U.S. history, the nation is again polarized over the performance of the president. Bush's Republican supporters see him as strong and decisive, a man of good character and moral convictions. His Democratic detractors believe that, at home and abroad, he is leading the country in the wrong direction.

 

Democrats, however, are virtually invisible as an effective opposition to a president who commands center stage. Even many loyal Democrats complain that their party has no strong leaders and no alternative vision to Bush on either foreign or economic policy. The nine Democratic presidential candidates have made almost no impression on voters outside the few states with early caucuses or primaries next year. Most voters cannot name more than one or two of the candidates.

 

Bush begins the campaign year with an overall approval rating of 56 percent, according to the new Post-ABC News poll. That number is good by historical standards and masks sharp differences between Republicans and Democrats. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans approve of how Bush is handling the presidency, while 24 percent of Democrats approve -- a 63-point gap in perceptions. Independents narrowly approve of his performance, splitting 52 to 47 percent.

 

Although there is concern about the state of the country and dissatisfaction with the absence of political compromise in Washington, nationally there is little evidence of the voter anger that helped defeat Bush's father in 1992 and elect a Republican Congress in 1994. Nor is there any sign that the discontent that ended Democratic Gov. Gray Davis's tenure in California in a recall election last month has become a national phenomenon.

 

But Bush has lost ground since last year's midterm elections, largely because of perceptions about his handling of Iraq and the economy. Forty-five percent of those surveyed approve of his handling of the economy and 47 percent approve of his handling of Iraq, the first time that number has dipped below 50 percent. Only 40 percent say he "understands the problems of people like you," the lowest in a Post-ABC News poll since Bush began running for president.

 

Conflicting attitudes regarding Bush are evident in battleground states throughout the country, often in the same neighborhoods. Florida is typical: In the state that split evenly between Bush and Democrat Al Gore during the 2000 election, voters seem as divided in their opinions of Bush today as they were then.

 

"I give him a triple-A in leadership," said Jack Prevost, a corporate banker in Orlando. "He's from Texas, and he's a take-charge, get-out-and-make-a-decision, go-for-it kind of guy."

 

But Jeannie Clarke, an Orlando mother of a 5-month-old, worries about the economy and dislikes Bush's leadership style. "The mentality of this administration," she said, "seems to be 'everybody be damned, we're going to do what we're going to do.' "

 

Voter interviews suggest that Bush has made few converts among those who voted against him in 2000, while some of those who backed him say they may not do so again unless there is clear improvement in the jobs situation and stabilization of the violence in Iraq.

 

A year ago, Bush's GOP supporters, motivated to cast an affirmative vote for his leadership, produced historic Republican gains in the midterm elections. A year out from the 2004 elections, Democrats appear just as eager to vote to deny him a second term -- if they can produce a strong candidate with a compelling message.

 

This report is based on a national poll of 1,003 Americans and separate interviews by Washington Post reporters with more than 100 voters and nonvoters in eight states: California, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Florida. The poll was conducted Oct. 26-29 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percent.

 

The War in Iraq

 

The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks reshaped Bush's presidency and his standing with the voters. Iraq now threatens to undermine public confidence in his administration. Alan Campbell, of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., voted for Bush and plans to do so again, but he is frustrated with the president's handling of Iraq. "He should have gotten more countries involved instead of just barging in," Campbell said.

 

Sitting on the porch of her peach stucco house in the Albuquerque area, Democrat Lily Villaneuva said it is time for the United States to get out of Iraq. "It would be embarrassing to pull out, but the way they are killing our soldiers," she said. "We should get out before they kill everybody."

 

Frustration over Iraq runs deep, cutting across party lines. Many of the people interviewed during the past two weeks said the near-daily reports of U.S. combat casualties and terrorist attacks have caused them to question the president's policy, including many who believe it was right to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

 

A majority of Americans (54 percent) still say the war was worth fighting, although partisan divisions on the war are stark. Among Republicans, 81 percent said it was worth it, while 30 percent of Democrats agreed with that statement. Independents were evenly divided, 48 percent saying the war was worth fighting, 50 percent saying it was not.

 

"When I saw the reaction of the Iraqi people when that first statue of Saddam Hussein came down, I just knew deep in my soul we did the right thing," said Larry Logan, a criminal courts judge in Huntingdon, Tenn.

 

Many Americans appear resigned to the United States being in Iraq. Susan Smith of Torrance, Calif., said her brother-in-law just returned from Iraq. "I didn't agree with sending them over there," she said, but added, "We've made a big mess in that country, and we need to stay there and help them clean it up."

 

The number of Americans who say bring the troops home has grown. In July, 72 percent said they preferred to keep U.S. forces there until order is restored, with 26 percent saying it was time to withdraw. In the new Post-ABC News poll, 58 percent said the United States should stay the course, while 38 percent said it was time to get out.

 

Today, 87 percent say they fear the United States will get bogged down in Iraq, and 62 percent said the nation has suffered an unacceptable level of casualties there. At the time Baghdad fell in April, 28 percent said combat deaths had reached an unacceptable level.

 

If there is one figure that has punched through to public consciousness, it is the $87 billion Bush has requested to fund military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Opposition has risen to 64 percent.

 

The continuing violence in Iraq has prompted some Americans to raise new questions about how Bush led the country to war. "It looks more and more like a mistake," said Chris Iverson of Aurora, Colo. A Bush voter in 2000, he is wavering. "I would like to hear the administration admit that they got it wrong, or got some things wrong," Iverson said. "But you know, from what they're saying now, they think they did everything right. To me, that means they might go into another war."

 

The Economy

 

Even more than Iraq, it is the troubled economy -- and its effect on voters such as Beverly Ozment, an employee of the Carroll County, Tenn., health department -- that poses a threat to Bush's reelection.

 

Her home county is a bellwether for Tennessee and narrowly supported Bush over native son Gore in 2000. Ozment was a Democrat who voted for Bush in that election, but not again. "Personally, I feel like he's a good Christian man, and I feel good about that, but I don't feel he's pulling our country out of our economy crisis as well as it should be . . ." she said. "We need to be pulled out of this, or we'll vote for someone who will pull us out."

 

Kenny McBride, the Democratic county executive, says Carroll County has lost 2,000 jobs from a population of fewer than 30,000 people. That has left his constituents "scared." He blames it on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the trade pact with China, and says people think "they have been let down by their leaders because the jobs are being shipped out of this country for cheaper labor."

 

He said the county government gets "feelers" from companies interested in abandoned factory buildings, but "until they see some growth on a long-term basis with the national economy," no one wants to risk moving or expanding.

 

Administration officials hope the latest economic numbers signal that kind of healthy trend, but the Post-ABC poll, completed just before the announcement that the July-September quarter produced the fastest growth in 19 years, showed continuing public anxiety about jobs and incomes. The poll found 53 percent to 45 percent disapproval of Bush's handling of the economy -- exactly the reverse of where he stood last April, the last time his rating was positive.

 

At the end of that stunning 7.2 percent third quarter economic burst, those polled rated the economy negatively by a 2-to-1 margin. As many thought it was getting worse as improving. Only 9 percent said they thought most Americans were better off than they were the day Bush took office; 49 percent said the reverse.

 

The explanation for the gap between economic numbers and public perception centers on the loss of jobs -- a topic much on the minds of voters everywhere from tourist-oriented Orlando to the suburbs of Los Angeles County.

 

In Wisconsin, a battleground state that tipped narrowly Democratic in 2000, it is not hard to find Bush voters with second thoughts. John Swiencicki, who recently retired as a deputy sheriff in Racine County, said, "The economy is rough here. Industry has been moving out. My wife is an accountant, and her company, Walker Chemical, moved down South. She hasn't worked for over a year. She can't find anything where her professional training would be used. My old department is cutting people. When I retired, they didn't fill the job."

 

Economic concerns spill over onto related issues -- the rising cost of health insurance, the budget cuts that voters say have hurt schools, and the concerns some express about record federal deficits and their implications for Social Security's future.

 

The tax cuts that Bush says have powered a strong economic recovery are rarely mentioned by voters -- and easily dismissed when interviewers raise them as a topic. Nadine Polk, a Wheat Ridge, Colo., office worker who has switched from considering herself a Bush supporter because of Iraq, said, "It's hard to see what the tax cuts have done for me. We did get that check [the expanded child tax credit], but it didn't even pay for the increase in our property tax. . . . I don't see any sign that they helped the job situation."

 

Such comments help explain why the poll found 53 percent disapproval of Bush's record on taxes and 41 percent approval -- the lowest rating on that question of his presidency.

 

The Democrats

 

These widespread economic concerns have fueled support for at least one Democrat -- Bill Clinton.

 

Heather Rockwell, an Albuquerque Republican mother of two and casino supervisor, is critical of Bush, her choice in 2000, because "we need to be spending more money here, not in a country [iraq] where we train them and educate them and then they end up killing us."

 

She knows nothing about the Democrats running, but says she would consider voting for one of them, because the economy seemed so much better when Democrats were last in power. "I think Clinton was a much better president," she said. "I just think he handled things in a better manner."

 

Her vagueness about the current Democratic field is widespread -- even among Democrats. The Post-ABC poll found four candidates bunched at the top -- former Vermont governor Howard Dean, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark. Dean was the top choice, with 16 percent of Democratic-leaning voters, with the other three at 13 percent or 12 percent. But more than half those polled said there was a good chance they might switch to someone else.

 

When they look at the nine candidates debating one another, many throw up their hands in despair. Tim Canty, who lives in the Detroit suburbs, has little use for Bush, but he despairs at the state of the Democratic Party. "They do not have an effective central leader with an effective central message," he said. "That is the weakness of the Democratic Party. They don't have a Clinton."

 

Bill Barnes, a Democratic businessman, was having a hamburger at a mall in Torrance, Calif. By the time the California primary is over in early March, Democrats may well have anointed a party leader. For now, Barnes is one of many Democrats with a bad case of Clinton nostalgia. "Even with the womanizing issue," he said, "I don't expect to see another president like Clinton in my lifetime. George Bush just followed a very good president."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...2-2003Nov1.html

Democrats are divided over the direction of their party and sharply split over whether party leaders should be more willing to confront President Bush or compromise with him on the Iraq war, taxes and the budget deficit, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

 

The survey also found that the race for the Democratic presidential nomination remains wide open. No clear front-runner has emerged among the field of nine candidates, each of whom remains largely unknown to an overwhelming majority of the party rank and file.

 

With war and economic worries jeopardizing Bush's standing with the public, electability has emerged as a key criterion for many Democrats as they evaluate their party's contenders. Barely half -- 53 percent -- said they preferred a candidate who closely reflects their positions on key issues, while 42 percent say they would prefer a nominee who is better able to defeat Bush, even if the candidate is further from them on policy questions.

 

But when asked which of the contenders had the best chance of winning next year, these Democrats scattered across the field -- more evidence the nomination remains up for grabs with fewer than three months before the Iowa caucuses.

 

Most Democrats agree that the economy and jobs is the most important issue in determining their choice for the nominee. But that consensus vanishes when voters are asked which candidate they favor, as once again, no contender emerges as the clear favorite even among economy-minded Democrats.

 

A total of 1,003 randomly selected adults were interviewed Oct. 26-29 for this Post-ABC News survey. A separate sample of Democrats brought the total of Democrats interviewed to 642. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points and 4 percentage points for the Democratic subsample.

 

The survey found that Democrats remain far more divided about the direction of their party than Republicans. According to the poll, 57 percent of all Democrats but 74 percent of all Republicans said the leadership of their party was taking it in the right direction.

 

Much of this dissatisfaction comes from the most vulnerable part of the Democratic base: those who think of themselves as independent but tend to vote Democratic.

 

Among this group, exactly half said they were happy with the course party leaders had set. Less partisan men were particularly displeased; about as many expressed discontent (43 percent) as said they were satisfied (39 percent).

 

In contrast, independents who tend toward the GOP were just as content with the party's direction as the partisan core. More than seven in 10 Republicans and GOP-leaning independents said their party was headed in the right direction.

 

Democrats also were conflicted over whether to confront Bush or compromise with him on key policies. Nearly half said party leaders were too willing to compromise with Bush on the tax cuts (49 percent), war in Iraq (49 percent) and the budget deficit (47 percent). But more than four in 10 said they wanted their leaders to compromise more with the administration.

 

Those divisions mask even deeper and potentially more divisive ideological differences. Nearly six in 10 liberal Democrats consistently said party leaders were too reluctant to confront Bush on the key issues. But an equally large majority of conservative Democrats faulted their leaders for not compromising enough with the president. Among Republicans, ideological differences were far more muted.

 

No Democrat holds a clear lead in the race for the presidential nomination. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean leads the field with 16 percent of the vote, followed by Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (13 percent), Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (13 percent) and retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark (12 percent). No other candidate gets more than 10 percent of the vote. Nearly seven in 10 Democrats said they were satisfied with their choices this year, virtually identical to the proportion satisfied with the field in early January 2000.

 

But the survey also found that Democrats know little about the candidates. Lieberman and Gephardt are best known, though only about a third acknowledged they knew much about the two candidates' personal qualities or issue positions. Only one in six Democrats was familiar with Clark, the least well-known of the first-tier candidates.

[Guest MikeSC]

Two years after a surge of national unity in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States is once again a 50-50 nation, shaped by partisan divisions as deep as ever that stand between President Bush and reelection.

 

Bush begins the campaign year with an overall approval rating of 56 percent, according to the new Post-ABC News poll. That number is good by historical standards and masks sharp differences between Republicans and Democrats. Eighty-seven percent of Republicans approve of how Bush is handling the presidency, while 24 percent of Democrats approve -- a 63-point gap in perceptions. Independents narrowly approve of his performance, splitting 52 to 47 percent.

 

Umm, if Bush has a 56% approval rating (which is roughly where the "wildly popular" Clinton stood for most of his second term), how is this a "50-50 nation"? Seems a little inconsistent, if you ask me.

 

Hint: Winning 56% of the vote would be one of the biggest landslides in electoral history.

 

This report is based on a national poll of 1,003 Americans and separate interviews by Washington Post reporters with more than 100 voters and nonvoters in eight states: California, New Mexico, Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Florida. The poll was conducted Oct. 26-29 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percent.

 

They asked NON-VOTERS these questions?

 

What, precisely, would be the point if they won't vote?

 

MOST polls tend to IGNORE non-voters.

 

Post-ABC poll, completed just before the announcement that the July-September quarter produced the fastest growth in 19 years, showed continuing public anxiety about jobs and incomes. The poll found 53 percent to 45 percent disapproval of Bush's handling of the economy -- exactly the reverse of where he stood last April, the last time his rating was positive.

 

At the end of that stunning 7.2 percent third quarter economic burst, those polled rated the economy negatively by a 2-to-1 margin. As many thought it was getting worse as improving. Only 9 percent said they thought most Americans were better off than they were the day Bush took office; 49 percent said the reverse.

 

Ahh, basing opinions upon information not released at the time of the poll but upon media reports that are increasingly inaccurate about a great number of things (see Iraq, War in).

 

You see, in the REAL world, this is called OUTDATED INFORMATION.

 

But, hey, I guess ABC knows what they're doing. Right?

 

Right?

 

You don't suppose that *gasp* the media's incessant harping on how bad the recession is, you don't suppose the Dem candidates incessant harping on how bad the economy is might have, shocking as it may be, given AMERICANS FALSE ASSUMPTIONS AS TO THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY?

 

Nah, no chance of that.

 

When they look at the nine candidates debating one another, many throw up their hands in despair. Tim Canty, who lives in the Detroit suburbs, has little use for Bush, but he despairs at the state of the Democratic Party. "They do not have an effective central leader with an effective central message," he said. "That is the weakness of the Democratic Party. They don't have a Clinton."

 

Clinton HAD a central message?

 

Nearly seven in 10 Democrats said they were satisfied with their choices this year, virtually identical to the proportion satisfied with the field in early January 2000.

 

But the survey also found that Democrats know little about the candidates. Lieberman and Gephardt are best known, though only about a third acknowledged they knew much about the two candidates' personal qualities or issue positions. Only one in six Democrats was familiar with Clark, the least well-known of the first-tier candidates

 

So, 70% of the voters are SATISFIED with candidates that they don't know much about?

 

Yeah, I'm LOVING their chances.

-=Mike

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

The media's coverage of the war is terrible. I've talked to my friend who's currently stationed there several times over the last two months. It's basically night and day between what I see on the news and the vibe I get from him.

[NoCalMike 0]

So the country is split on Bush and voters can careless about the primary elections.......well this should come as no suprise. It is the same thing that has been reported for the last 6 months or so. I am tired of hearing reports that no one cares about the Dem candidates, when it seems no cares about ANY primary ever so early in the process.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wow, Mike, I'm impressed.

 

That you read both articles.

 

(Could care less what polls say one or more years before an election...)

[Guest MikeSC]

So the country is split on Bush and voters can careless about the primary elections.......well this should come as no suprise. It is the same thing that has been reported for the last 6 months or so. I am tired of hearing reports that no one cares about the Dem candidates, when it seems no cares about ANY primary ever so early in the process.

If Bush has a 56% approval rating, the country isn't exactly evenly split.

 

And this election looks like it's going to be a rout for the President. Let's be honest.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Hey, chuckles, it's still early. Bush still has plenty of time to piss more people off.

[Firestarter 0]

George Bush vs the Naive Nine by Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

 

"I will vote for George W Bush for president. I have come to believe that George Bush is the right man in the right place at the right time. And that's a pretty big mouthful coming from a lifelong Democrat who first voted for Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate the 12 cycles since then... this was the easiest decision I think I've ever made in deciding who to support... the Democratic candidates who want to be president in the worst way are running for office in the worst way...

I cannot vote for a candidate who wants us to cut and run...

These naive nine have managed to combine the worst feature of the McGovern campaign... with the worst feature of the Mondale campaign... George McGovern carried one state in 1972. Walter Mondale carried one state in 1984. Not exactly role models when it comes to how to get elected or, for that matter, how to run a country.

So, as I have said, my choice for president was an easy decision. And my own party's candidates made it even easier."

(emphases mine)

 

Thanks for your support, your confidence, and your vote, Senator. You're a man of integrity and courage, and I'll miss seeing you in Congress. God bless.

[Justice 0]

Hey, chuckles, it's still early. Bush still has plenty of time to piss more people off.

Aww, weren't you and Tyler talking about how close Bush was to losing the election a year in advance? You know, maybe we should all stop posting useless polls stuff until we are within a month or so of the real election because it doesn't matter right now, m'kay?

[Guest Cerebus]

"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves elected President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams

[Jobber of the Week 0]

George Bush vs the Naive Nine by Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

[Firestarter 0]

Good work, Jobber! I'm impressed by the way you summarily rendered irrelevant Senator Miller's 48 years of consistent support for Democratic presidential candidates by posting a single crude cartoon.

 

But wait, you didn't.

 

Try harder.

[Guest MikeSC]

George Bush vs the Naive Nine by Senator Zell Miller (D-GA)

Just making sure:

 

Republicans who support Democratic ideas are bi-partisan and independent-thinking.

 

Democrats who support Republican ideas are puppets and should be discounted.

 

Got it.

-=Mike

...Marney is right about your attempt

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

This is why Zell is my n*gga.

 

Screw McCain, Miller is the TRUE maverick of the Senate...

[Guest MikeSC]

This is why Zell is my n*gga.

 

Screw McCain, Miller is the TRUE maverick of the Senate...

For shizzle my nizzle.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Good work, Jobber! I'm impressed by the way you summarily rendered irrelevant Senator Miller's 48 years of consistent support for Democratic presidential candidates by posting a single crude cartoon.

 

But wait, you didn't.

 

Try harder.

Actually, I wasn't discounting anything, I saw the cartoon a few days back and wondered what the meaning of it was about. Now I know, and I thought of the cartoon again. That's all.

 

Hey, he's entitled to his opinion. I think our current President has had the worst run we've seen in a while (although I wouldn't say he's done nothing but bad things, but certainly in the 70% range), I think he lied to get us into Iraq, he certainly lied on the campaign trail when saying he wasn't into nation-building, and I think while not every criticism of him is valid (economic-wise, shit did start to slide in Clinton's final year) there's plenty of appaling other things he's done to make up for that.

 

Plus he's brought along some of the worst elements of conservatism, from the Reagan economics that back in the day caused George Stephanopoulos running from the White House complaining that the plan wasn't gonna work, to his big backing from the political evangelicals.

 

While I know he'll get the job done in Iraq eventually, he'll do it on his terms, and his terms have been nothing but a flagrant and needless display of the US' power, which is going to (and in some ways already has) bite us in the ass at some future dark period. It'll be a brighter day when he's gone.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Republicans who support Democratic ideas are bi-partisan and independent-thinking.

 

Democrats who support Republican ideas are puppets and should be discounted.

 

Got it.

                -=Mike

...Marney is right about your attempt

Big difference between the left and right ideas and the people that represent them, some better than others.

[Vyce 0]

I thought we had decided - REPEATEDLY - in this forum that polls essentially mean nothing?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

We repeatedly discuss decided issues plenty of times here.

 

FAUX NEWS LOL2003!

 

MIKEY MOORE FAT LOL2003!

 

BUSH IS LIKE HITLER!

 

OMG LIBERAL MEDIA!

 

OMG THE MEDIA ISN'T LIBERAL, IT'S CONSERVATIVE!

 

Doesn't mean it will stop...

[Firestarter 0]

I thought we had decided - REPEATEDLY - in this forum that polls essentially mean nothing?

No. Just that online polls are meaningless due to the automatic preselection. Scientific opinion polls conducted by reputable agencies still have validity.

[Guest MikeSC]

Republicans who support Democratic ideas are bi-partisan and independent-thinking.

 

Democrats who support Republican ideas are puppets and should be discounted.

 

Got it.

                 -=Mike

...Marney is right about your attempt

Big difference between the left and right ideas and the people that represent them, some better than others.

Fair enough.

 

So, supporting the outright suppression of free speech with the campaign finance reform laws is good and noble?

 

Feeling Pres. Bush has done a good job and that the Democratic candidates bring no alternatives to the table is worthy of scorn and mockery?

 

Bush has done a magnificent job with the teeming pile of poop left to him.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I thought we had decided - REPEATEDLY - in this forum that polls essentially mean nothing?

No. Just that online polls are meaningless due to the automatic preselection. Scientific opinion polls conducted by reputable agencies still have validity.

Well, I think we can also agree that polls where those being polled aren't given information aren't of any real use.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Feeling Pres. Bush has done a good job and that the Democratic candidates bring no alternatives to the table is worthy of scorn and mockery?

No, but for every cartoon like the one above, there's another idiot calling every Republican without extremist views a RINO. It's all pretty bad.

 

Again I say, Mr. Miller has his opinion. I just don't agree with it. I hope he's trying to open some doors to Republicans by praising Bush, because he's probably burned a bridge with a number of Democrats with what he said in respect to the candidates.

[Guest MikeSC]

Feeling Pres. Bush has done a good job and that the Democratic candidates bring no alternatives to the table is worthy of scorn and mockery?

No, but for every cartoon like the one above, there's another idiot calling every Republican without extremist views a RINO. It's all pretty bad.

 

Again I say, Mr. Miller has his opinion. I just don't agree with it. I hope he's trying to open some doors to Republicans by praising Bush, because he's probably burned a bridge with a number of Democrats with what he said in respect to the candidates.

Quite frankly, the Dems would do well to listen to Miller. The Dem field IS horrible and if the party wishes to bury its head in the sand over it, they have every right to do so.

 

2004 is shaping up to be a debacle for them.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Wonder if Big Media will cover Zell in the same fashion as they did Mr. Jeffords when he jumped ship?...

[Guest MikeSC]

Wonder if Big Media will cover Zell in the same fashion as they did Mr. Jeffords when he jumped ship?...

I doubt they'll even mention him, to be perfectly honest.

 

I wonder if Jeffords realizes how much of a waste his defection was in the long run.

-=Mike

..."Next on CBS News, total douchebag Zell Miller said that the Democrats have poor candidates for President..."

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Funny thing about JJ is that I read one big reason he defected was to fund some pet project of his that the GOP wasn't going to bother with.

 

I read later that after his jump it never got the funding with Dems in control of the Senate.

 

HAHAHAHAHA. Little bitch...

[NoCalMike 0]

I am sure Clinton was looked at as an easy win for Bush41 as well too. No one gave Clinton a thought when he got into the race. Just like everyone though Gore would be fed the win in 2000. Crazier things have happened then Bush losing in 2004(if it happens).

[Firestarter 0]

CNN story - Democrats lose another two governorships

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Can’t wait to see Terry McAuliffe's spin on this:

 

"We’re just getting all this losing out of our system for ’04!..."