What are GWBs chances of being reelected?

[amp]

What happened to the polls? Anyways, with the way Bushs(Shrubs)(<--thanks Zero) foreign relations policies are flopping and his (I'll say) admins deliberate deception used the promulgate the war against Iraq coming back to haunt him, what do you think? I mean even with his(staff is) cooking the books to make it seem as though we are expierencing an economic recovery I don't think many people are being fooled. Remember everything is not always what it seems.

 

[NateTG]

I'm not sure Shrubaya and his cronies are in any positition to cook the books, and I expect that the economic recovery is mostly real.

Bush is currently still leading in the polls. Things are likely to get very hot for him in the next couple of months though.

There are some scenarios that improve Bush's chances hugely like a windfall in the middle east, massive hiring in the next 8 months, or having a non-mainstream Democrat win the nomination.

There are also much more unlikely possibilities - a foreign relations breakthrough in Korea, or getting the UN to take over in Iraq are both unlikely, but could both be huge.

OTOH if the Democrats manage to pick a strong candidate for the presidential election, and Iraq or Afghanistan go sour, then he's probably on his way out.

 

[Zantra]

Shrubby can lick me. I want him out. I think if the economy and war situation remain unchanged, he's gone as long as the Dem's have a good candidate. In fact, if they have anyone who's even halfway decent at public speaking, they have him beat. One good debate should take care of that. They just have to find a good public speaker.

And that, ladies and gentlement is what we call "strategery"

 

[russ_watters]

With the economy back up and booming and the deomcrats not having a a viable candidate, his re-election is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
With the economy back up and booming and the deomcrats not having a a viable candidate, his re-election is a foregone conclusion.

Don't count on it...count on the media to slam Bush hard, on account of the fact that closer races mean more ratings.

BTW, the lack of a 'viable' candidate, and the economy getting better, are both more media myth than truth.

 

[kat]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, the lack of a 'viable' candidate, and the economy getting better, are both more media myth than truth.

I'd be interested in seeing you go into a little more depth in regards to this. It's something I've been mentally debating with myself...eep!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, the lack of a 'viable' candidate, and the economy getting better, are both more media myth than truth.

The economic recovery thing is just data. It is what it is. Last quarter for example we had GDP growh not seen since Reagan was president. The recovery is by no means over, but the election is a year away.

The viable candidate thing - well, you know how big I am on personal responsibility: if the Democrats don't have a viable candidate, its their own fault. The ideal situation of course is one strong candidate and a bunch of weak ones to make him look better. But you can have a similar problem if you have TWO viable candidates. Thats one of the reasons the 2000 election was so close: McCain was too strong of a candidate.

 

[Njorl]

I've heard a lot of pundits talking about the threat of a "jobless" recovery. They think this would hurt Bush. Unfortunately, it won't. The actual numbers of unemployed are usually small, even during times of high unemployment. The people who get laid off tend to vote democratic anyway. The advantage of the conservative economic policy of favoring low inflation over low unemployment is that someone who is mildly satisfied casts the same number of votes as someone who is really pissed-off.

There are any number of things that could go terribly wrong for Bush.

Foreign policy:

-No visible progress in Iraq - it doesn't matter if their one step away from democracy on election day. If the American people don't know about it and believe it.

-Another crises erupts and no troops can be spared. Right now, N. Korea knows it has more freedom to push the US than ever. They also know that the closer election day comes, the more they can push. They may force Bush into an embarrassing situation. They might even do it specifically so that he would lose the election.

-Putin becomes totally shameless in his authoritarianism. Putin's re-election is in March. It is not in doubt. Russia stopped being a democracy shortly after he was elected. Bush's head-in-the-stand posture toward Putin could cost him if Russia takes a more hostile stance. We could see clips about Bush "looking into his soul" and seeing that Putin is a good man.

Domestic:

No-recovery recovery. Last quarter's boom might be part of a real recovery, or it might be an anomaly. One quarter booms are common after big tax cuts.

Another terrorist strike. 9/11 was a tragedy, but another strike will be a failure. It won't really matter if it is a failure by Bush or not, it will be seen that way.

At this point, I think Bush would probably win, quite easily, but the election is a year away. Probably the most important factor is how the press decide to treat him. He got a free pass last election, while the press roasted Gore on a spit. I don't think it will be the same this time.

Njorl

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The economic recovery thing is just data. It is what it is. Last quarter for example we had GDP growh not seen since Reagan was president. The recovery is by no means over, but the election is a year away.

The viable candidate thing - well, you know how big I am on personal responsibility: if the Democrats don't have a viable candidate, its their own fault. The ideal situation of course is one strong candidate and a bunch of weak ones to make him look better. But you can have a similar problem if you have TWO viable candidates. Thats one of the reasons the 2000 election was so close: McCain was too strong of a candidate.

GDP isn't an accurate representation of financial health for America, Russ, and certainly shouldn't be taken by itself to mean anything much to the average American. For Americans as a whole, better indicators are unemployment and the number of people living in poverty.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Njorl
I've heard a lot of pundits talking about the threat of a "jobless" recovery. They think this would hurt Bush. Unfortunately, it won't. The actual numbers of unemployed are usually small, even during times of high unemployment. The people who get laid off tend to vote democratic anyway. The advantage of the conservative economic policy of favoring low inflation over low unemployment is that someone who is mildly satisfied casts the same number of votes as someone who is really pissed-off.

I actually disagree with your logic. People who actually lose jobs are obviously the most pissed off, but other people who don't lose their jobs may be influenced by the APPEARANCE of a bad economy. The "jobless recovery" reports could sway them.

GDP isn't an accurate representation of financial health for America, Russ, and certainly shouldn't be taken by itself to mean anything much to the average American. For Americans as a whole, better indicators are unemployment and the number of people living in poverty.

GDP is only one piece of data, but its an important one. No, it isn't the only important one, but then neither is unemployment. Similar to what I and Njorl were discussing above, the actual number of people who are unemployed is small, and the rest will look at more factors than just unemployment. The word "recession" for example is a powerful word and is based soley on GDP.

 

[Jonathan]

I think it is too early to be able say much, but I think Bush will be re-elected. This is my opinion based on the facts so far, but I don't have the time or the energy to back it up against the attacks I assume will come as a result of this comment. You all can go back to arguing irrelevant semantics now.
EDIT: P.S.: Russ is right.

 

[GENIERE]

The economy is booming at >7.5% increase in GDP. Historically employment lags the GDP. Economists believe GDP will be growing at 3.5-5.0% in 2004. At that rate, about 250,000-300,000 new jobs per month will be created. Expect this to be well advertised by the GOP next spring. The economy will not be an election issue except as a plus for President Bush.

Wesley Clark was the only candidate that would have provided an alternative to President Bush in matters of national security, but he’s shot himself in the foot so many times he’s no longer a viable candidate.

The latest edition of Time magazine reveals the true situation in Iraq. Time magazine generally supports the “liberal agenda”.

As far as the two above major issues, President Bush has both locked up. There are about 30% of voters who will not vote for President Bush even if he were to turn the world into a Garden of Eden. All he needs is the typical 90% of Republican voters, which is highly likely, a reasonable percentage of independents, and a smattering of democratic dissenters.

National trends with few exceptions point in a favorable direction for the GOP. The number of people who identify themselves as a Democrat continues to decrease at an alarming rate, while Republican registration is increasing. The recent Harvard poll of college students determined that 34% of students now consider themselves republicans. About 38% consider themselves Democrats. That’s simply fantastic growth in the young republican ranks. As the “flower children” faculty members die off, expect the trend to continue. Even I was a flaming liberal in my college days. Within two months the GOP has acquired three more state governors with Louisiana soon to follow. California is now “in play” for the GOP. While it’s not likely that President Bush will win the state, the democrats must protect it with already strained cash resources. The 28 or 29 states having republican governor’s will have a huge impact in the national elections.

The liberal media is no longer the prime source of information for a great number of voters. Talk radio, cable news, and the internet are becoming the information sources of choice for likely voters. Conservative hosts have the largest audiences. Republican/Conservative web sites have the most hits. The response of the liberal media to this is, by economic necessity, to become less biased. Would the very liberal CBS have folded to pressure so easily were that not the case?

The best “rub it in their faces news” for the republicans is that Catherine Harris is likely to be the next elected senator from Florida, replacing the retiring democratic senator.

The sad truth is the liberals among us are reduced to wishing for the very worst to happen so as to have any chance to win in 2004.

My prediction: GW in 2004 and Connie Rice in 2008.

 

[Zero]

Boy, keep trotting out the GDP, like it matters. It is spin, and it is, in a way, a lie. If people can get a tax refund every month, the GDP can keep growing. It is a 'fake' number, in that it is not indicative of any actual change in the economy. If everyone gets $1000 more credit, it could also increase GDP without signalling any real change in the economy.

Oh, and the liberal media lie again, GENIERE? Hell, your entire post is GOP spin from start to finish.

 

[GENIERE]

Oh, and the liberal media lie again, GENIERE? Hell, your entire post is GOP spin from start to finish.

You’re absolutely right.

We must use different economic indicators to evaluate President Bush’s performance than we used for President Clinton.

Wesley Clark is a strong candidate who’s statements can not be evaluated literally. One must consider what he meant to say rather than what he did say when he contradicts himself, and opinions must vary from day to day.

Time magazine did not publish an article wherein the Iraqi recovery is described as progressing well in the north and south, nor does it usually publish anti-Bush articles.

The liberal base of about 30% of voters will vote for President Bush in 2004. Harvard did not publish its poll results. Three republican governors were not recently elected. The DNC has ample funds to achieve its political objectives.

The conservative media is no longer the prime source of information for a great number of voters. Talk radio, cable news, and the internet are not becoming the information sources of choice for likely voters. Liberal hosts have the largest audiences. Liberal web sites have the most hits.

CBS will air President Reagan’s biography.

Catherine Harris is not considering running for the Senate.

The truth is the liberals among us are hoping President Bush’s policies are successful.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
You’re absolutely right.

We must use different economic indicators to evaluate President Bush’s performance than we used for President Clinton.

Wesley Clark is a strong candidate who’s statements can not be evaluated literally. One must consider what he meant to say rather than what he did say when he contradicts himself, and opinions must vary from day to day.

Time magazine did not publish an article wherein the Iraqi recovery is described as progressing well in the north and south, nor does it usually publish anti-Bush articles.

The liberal base of about 30% of voters will vote for President Bush in 2004. Harvard did not publish its poll results. Three republican governors were not recently elected. The DNC has ample funds to achieve its political objectives.

The conservative media is no longer the prime source of information for a great number of voters. Talk radio, cable news, and the internet are not becoming the information sources of choice for likely voters. Liberal hosts have the largest audiences. Liberal web sites have the most hits.

CBS will air President Reagan’s biography.

Catherine Harris is not considering running for the Senate.

The truth is the liberals among us are hoping President Bush’s policies are successful.

Sarcasm...cute. Too bad that GOP spin is still spin. The right-wing has misrepresented Wesley Clark's statements: without those misrepresentaions, he is certainly more coherent than Bush. The right-wing media is a source of misrepresentation, as a poll someone posted showed. The people who watch the Fox Propaganda channel are the least informed people in America when it comes to Iraq, for instance.

Go on, I guess we need you posting here for balance.

 

[Zero]

Anyhoo, let's get back on topic...*grins* I'm as bad or worse about getting sidetracked as anyone else, I guess![b(]

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Boy, keep trotting out the GDP, like it matters. It is spin, and it is, in a way, a lie. If people can get a tax refund every month, the GDP can keep growing. It is a 'fake' number, in that it is not indicative of any actual change in the economy. If everyone gets $1000 more credit, it could also increase GDP without signalling any real change in the economy.

Quite frankly Zero, based on that post it would appear you have no idea what the GDP is.

In any case though, the GDP is only one of a half dozen major indicators - only one of which is low (but improving). Inflation, interest rates, the housing market, the stock market, etc. are all in very good shape.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Quite frankly Zero, based on that post it would appear you have no idea what the GDP is.

Uh huh...based on what the GOP says, you and Bush have no idea what it means. Then again, Russ, you seem to falsely believe that unrestrained capitalism can work for everyone without regulation, which shows how little you know about economics.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Zero
Uh huh...based on what the GOP says, you and Bush have no idea what it means. Then again, Russ, you seem to falsely believe that unrestrained capitalism can work for everyone without regulation, which shows how little you know about economics.

Whoah, cool down there, killer.

 

[amp]

Alright GENIERE, RUSS... I'll be nice

1. GWB isn't in 'touch' with the citizens of the U.S., unless of course your net worth is > one million.(exception: Bush probably couldn't relate to Oprah although she's a billionaire(Their backgrounds are much different as well as their values)). Because of (1) above, Bush has not been able to cover/hide his disdain for the ecology of the U.S. much less the planet. He is likely the worse president we have had on the enviornment since it was shown how dependent the lives of everyone on Earth is with regard to the planetary ecology.
2. I reiterate 'an Enron' type style of cooking will be found to have been used after the election to bolster what appeared all year to be a sagging economy.(<--Prediction)
3. Iraq is going to haunt Bush throughout the coming elections. He would have been impeached already if he were a former Kansas governor who was ELECTED president because a)he lied to congressabout a matter that placed the lives of many US citizens in jeapordy. b)His admin has modified and degraded the constitution NOT enforced it. c)His admin has openly defied the congress(which consists mostly of Republicans). Revisiting Iraq breifly, he has succeeded in identifying Iraq with Vietnam in the minds and hearts of a large and growing percentage of the populace. Let's see... anything else
oh yeah... He is not the most skillfull of liars, I think a lot of people can discern his deceptions when he opens his mouth to speak, They are not by and large granting him carte blanche in the trust department as they did when he fooled them on Iraq.

 

[Ganshauk]

Lets see.

Bush or... Al Sharpton.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ganshauk
Lets see.

Bush or... Al Sharpton.

You're kidding, right?

You must be kidding, huh?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
You must be kidding, huh?

I may just switch my votor registration so I can vote for Sharpton in the primary.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I may just switch my votor registration so I can vote for Sharpton in the primary.

Are you a goose?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by amp
""

Missed this one before.
1. No high level politician - republican or democrat - is in 'touch' with the citizens in that way. So that's an irrelevancy for the current discussion.
2. Cooking of the books by whom exactly? Economic health data does not come from the White House nor does it all come from the same place. I guess maybe you could say that all of the Fortune 500 companies are part of the same conspiracy to inflate the economic outlook (thats about what it would take), but that doesn't seem all that realistic to me.
3. is kinda rambling, but a few key points: how exactly did he openly defy Congress? Congress gave him approval for his action in Iraq. I will agree however that Iraq will be an important issue and what it looks like 10 months from now will be key.

 

[amp]

Hiya Russ,

As to (1) there are a number of high level politicians who relate to the people on such a mutual level. (ie: Rangel, Corzine, Powell).  these politicos I am familiar with, there may be others I have a passing familiarity with, but just about all of them are more in tune than Bush. There are politicos who like Bush were born to the silver spoon and even most of them are more in touch with the general populace than Bush… but I shouldn’t keep beating that poor bush because Rumsfeld as well as Cheny demonstrate the same lack of interest in the welfare of the ordinary citizenry . I noticed and suppose by your lack of comment that you agree that Bush is the worst President on the ecology etc, etc.

2. Cooking of the books by whom exactly? Economic health data does not come from the White House nor does it all come from the same place. I guess maybe you could say that all of the Fortune 500 companies are part of the same conspiracy to inflate the economic outlook (thats about what it would take), but that doesn't seem all that realistic to me.

No (?), since you know how and where a good deal of it is compiled then you of course realize how the executive branch could or in Bushs’ case would influence or distort the truth behind the numbers. Case in point, after the investigation into 9/11, the Bush admin blocked out a substantial portion of the findings… specifically the parts finding we were not so much attacked by terrorist but by Saudi Arabians. In fact, I find it most passing strange that when all other aircraft were grounded, privately chartered jets were zipping around the country picking up family members of the notorious Osma who were then flown out of the US, I tell you there were furious FBI officials who questioned the motives behind such action by the Bush admin. I guess the family members of Tim McVeigh were given the same regard.

a)he lied to congress about a matter that placed the lives of many US citizens in jeapordy.
b)His admin has modified and degraded the constitution NOT enforced it.
c)His admin has openly defied the congress(which consists mostly of Republicans).

Ramblings or facts, a) Bush lied about Iraq ... how many military service people have died or been injured because of that deception? (which is how he got the congressional approval for the actions in Iraq)... (TO BE COTINUED)