Latest cnn/time poll

[BTox]

Amongst registered voters. Hmm... Bush isn't doing too badly...

cnn/time presidential race poll (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by BTox
Amongst registered voters. Hmm... Bush isn't doing too badly...

cnn/time presidential race poll (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm)

I'll vote for Bush. The media will be taking polls on the half hour after the new year starts and proclaiming the winner every half hour as well.

[Nasarius]

Not too far apart, considering that the Democrats are still a mess as far as finding a candidate goes...and Bush's approval ratings aren't looking good (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031118.asp) either. IMHO, it's going to be another close race...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by BTox
Amongst registered voters. Hmm... Bush isn't doing too badly...

cnn/time presidential race poll (http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm)

I think that's a little premature. The fact that the Democrats still have a large pool of candidates weighs against them, since there's no "take charge" person in the foreground yet. When it's down to a one-on-one race, I bet the numbers will be slightly different.

Jeremy

[Tricky]

With his controversial election and the horrible gaffes he made early in his administration, Bush's ratings started out low and were dropping in early 2001. Then came the terrorist attacks, and the country rallied behind him, as they would have done for any president. Since reaching those stratospheric highs, they have been dropping fairly steadily since, revived briefly by good economic news.

This recalls the same situation his father faced. He was quite the hero after Desert Storm, then was sunk by the domestic situation. The difference was that Bush the first was actually a pretty good diplomat and knew a lot about government. Bush II has neither of those advantages. He may win the election because in US politics, money is everything, and Shrub's war chest is far and away the biggest. He has assured that by paying off his friends in big business by letting them trash the environment at will and trample unions. But the US will survive him, as they have other bad presidents. It will be a long time, though, before we regain the international respect we had before his administration, and an even longer time before we undo the damage done to the environment.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by toddjh


I think that's a little premature. The fact that the Democrats still have a large pool of candidates weighs against them, since there's no "take charge" person in the foreground yet. When it's down to a one-on-one race, I bet the numbers will be slightly different.

Jeremy

When it gets to a one-on-one race, there still won't be a "take charge" Democrat. That's the whole problem for this sorry group. The only two things on their platform is being against a war that we've won and criticising an economy that has begun to recover. Here it is on the eve of the election year and the Democrats still haven't put together any kind of coherent party message or any positive plans.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Tricky
With his controversial election and the horrible gaffes he made early in his administration, Bush's ratings started out low and were dropping in early 2001. Then came the terrorist attacks, and the country rallied behind him, as they would have done for any president. Since reaching those stratospheric highs, they have been dropping fairly steadily since, revived briefly by good economic news.

This recalls the same situation his father faced. He was quite the hero after Desert Storm, then was sunk by the domestic situation. The difference was that Bush the first was actually a pretty good diplomat and knew a lot about government. Bush II has neither of those advantages. He may win the election because in US politics, money is everything, and Shrub's war chest is far and away the biggest. He has assured that by paying off his friends in big business by letting them trash the environment at will and trample unions. But the US will survive him, as they have other bad presidents. It will be a long time, though, before we regain the international respect we had before his administration, and an even longer time before we undo the damage done to the environment.

I think Bush Sr. lost because he didn't have the cahonies to tell the UN where to stick it and go all the way to Baghdad. How much better would it be now if he had done the right thing then?

That being said, I am glad Bush Jr.'s energy bill was defeated. This was a transparent attempt by Bush to protect his own personal family interests and even his fellow Republicans saw through it. It could have been political suicide for W if it had passed. I like W and I think that he has the interests of the US well in hand, but sometimes he can be a bonehead.

Energy bill loses oomph (http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/112203/new_energy001.shtml)

[BTox]

Originally posted by Tricky
This recalls the same situation his father faced. He was quite the hero after Desert Storm, then was sunk by the domestic situation. The difference was that Bush the first was actually a pretty good diplomat and knew a lot about government. Bush II has neither of those advantages. He may win the election because in US politics, money is everything, and Shrub's war chest is far and away the biggest.

Nothing like Bush Sr. He lost because of economic recession, this time around, we are just recovering from the recession started at the end of the Clinton admin. Economy should be roaring next year.

Originally posted by Tricky
He has assured that by paying off his friends in big business by letting them trash the environment at will and trample unions. But the US will survive him, as they have other bad presidents.

Uh, sure. But you are right about one thing, we did manage to survive Clinton.

Originally posted by Tricky
It will be a long time, though, before we regain the international respect we had before his administration, and an even longer time before we undo the damage done to the environment.

Yes, international respect is so much more important than national security...:rolleyes:

[Ed]

I am desperately waiting for the dems to put up someone I would vote for. As with Dukakis, McGovern and Gore, they are in a death roll....again.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Ed
I am desperately waiting for the dems to put up someone I would vote for. As with Dukakis, McGovern and Gore, they are in a death roll....again.

If Gore was a bad choice for the democrats, what does it say for the republican candidate who got fewer votes?

[Samus]

Originally posted by Tricky
It will be a long time, though, before we regain the international respect we had before his administration Not really. A good diplomat can mend those ties pretty quickly. Any international respect we lost during this administration (which I don't believe is as much as you think) can be re-gained by the next administration in less than one term.

Originally posted by Tricky
and an even longer time before we undo the damage done to the environment. Maybe so, but we've been doing irreparable damage to the environment since the industrial age. Not that Bush has done anything to reverse that trend, but he's certainly not to blame for "starting the fire", as they say.

Bush might win, he might lose. It really is anyone's guess at this point, because of the volatile nature of war and a recovering economy. If the Democrats manage to choose a good candidate, then have the strength as a party to rally all the others behind said candidate, then they have a chance. If their primary fragments their party, especially if a more popular losing candidate runs as an Independent, then they are assuring Bush a re-election.

[clk]

Originally posted by BTox

Uh, sure. But you are right about one thing, we did manage to survive Clinton.



You mean "thrive under", not "survive".

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by BTox
Nothing like Bush Sr. He lost because of economic recession, this time around, we are just recovering from the recession started at the end of the Clinton admin. Economy should be roaring next year.

I'm glad you can accurately predict economic trends; no one else seems to be able to. Face it, there are way too many factors that can affect the economy, and you have no idea what's going to happen. This "recovery" could peak low and go back into a slump. And it probably wouldn't really be Bush's fault. His stupid economic decisions like creating an enormous deficit (cut taxes and spend more, yeah, that makes sense) won't be felt for a while. It's difficult to say how much effect any president really has on the economy. Bush does make really awful policy, but the current situation probably isn't his fault.

You mean "thrive under", not "survive".

It's amusing to see conservatives criticize Clinton so much, especially because many of his policies, including his economic ones, were decidedly conservative. Very few Democrats are actually liberal these days.

[fishbob]

Yes, international respect is so much more important than national security There is some correlation between these factors. We might be nationally securer if we were more internationally respectored.

[BTox]

Originally posted by clk


You mean "thrive under", not "survive".

So you look only at economic performance? Then you must agree that we also thrived under the Reagan admin.

[BTox]

Originally posted by Nasarius


I'm glad you can accurately predict economic trends; no one else seems to be able to. Face it, there are way too many factors that can affect the economy, and you have no idea what's going to happen. This "recovery" could peak low and go back into a slump. And it probably wouldn't really be Bush's fault. His stupid economic decisions like creating an enormous deficit (cut taxes and spend more, yeah, that makes sense) won't be felt for a while. It's difficult to say how much effect any president really has on the economy. Bush does make really awful policy, but the current situation probably isn't his fault.


By coincidence... 3q03 gdp growth (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=3&u=/ap/20031125/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy)

Originally posted by Nasarius


It's amusing to see conservatives criticize Clinton so much, especially because many of his policies, including his economic ones, were decidedly conservative. Very few Democrats are actually liberal these days.

Wonder why that is? ;)