"Bush's rating are sssooo low..."

[TexasTiger 12,958]

5/4-8/06

Bush  Approve:31 Disapprove:63 DK/NA:6 (Page two of pdf)

Congress  Approve:24 Disapprove:64 DK/NA:13 (Page ten of pdf)

Economy Very Good:6 Fairly Good: 47 Fairly Bad:31 Very Bad:15 DK/NA:1 (page 12)

2006 Election For Bush:13 Against Bush:36 Not about GWB:45 DK/NA:6 (page 15)

GWB         Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55 Undec:13 Dont Know Enough:  3 Refused:1

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35 Undec:23 Dont Know Enough:9 Refused:0

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38 Undec:21 Dont Know Enough:13 Refused:1

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39 Undec:25 Dont Know Enough:8 Refused:0

(Pages 2-23)

The NYT piece was quoted by me as written and you have to really split some hairs to push the difference between "job approval" and "favorable." Tenets are still the same however and within errors.

My main point is still: GWB is within reason/error of being able to win re-election against the three leading/primary candidates for the Dems.

235693[/snapback]

Okay! Now we are at least dealing with the same set of numbers. I'm not sure this poll supports your assertion. Check out the "not favorables." Bush and Kerry and Gore are within the margin of error on favorable, but Bush far and away has the highest negatives. People have given up on Bush. He would have trouble beating anybody, even candidates as weak as these.

Here's another poll:

Kerry 48% Bush 41%

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters

May 10-11, 2006

Bush v Kerry

John Kerry (D) 48%

George W. Bush ® 41%

 

May 15, 2006--A polling rematch of the 2004 Presidential Election shows that John Kerry leads George W. Bush 48% to 41% (see crosstabs). In the real election, Kerry never held a lead that big in any of the nightly polls we conducted from January 2 through Election Day.

http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/May%20Dai...ush%20Kerry.htm

I also saw a series of polls that put Gore's favorables in the 47-49% range.

235733[/snapback]

Weren't there similar numbers out there before the last two election? Kerry and Gore didn't fare too well then, what has either done that would make you think he would win this time around?

235739[/snapback]

No, there weren't. As mentioned above:

In the real election, Kerry never held a lead that big in any of the nightly polls we conducted from January 2 through Election Day.

And Gore was trailing right up until election day. But I don't think either Gore or Kerry has done anything to improve their chances against a stronger Republican candidate. For example, McCain would easily beat either of them if the election were held today. So would Guiliani. But, frankly, if he could run again, Dubya would be one the weakest choices the Repugs would have. Kerry's ahead in the Rasmussen poll by virtue of standing still and watching Dubya fall.

[DKW 86 7,429]

GWB        Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39

The sad state of American politics is that ALL FOUR have negatives higher than their positives. ALL FOUR! The "smear your opponent" stuff has taken hold as the #1 tool of both parties.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

GWB         Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39

The sad state of American politics is that ALL FOUR have negatives higher than their positives. ALL FOUR! The "smear your opponent" stuff has taken hold as the #1 tool of both parties.

235747[/snapback]

That's true. But, all four of these folks are also lousy politicians, IMHO. They don't help themselves and give their enemies quite a bit to work with.

[DKW 86 7,429]

GWB         Favorable:29 Not Favorable: 55

HRC          Favorable:34 Not Favorable:35

John Kerry Favorable:26 Not Favorable:38

Al Gore      Favorable:28 Not Favorable:39

The sad state of American politics is that ALL FOUR have negatives higher than their positives. ALL FOUR! The "smear your opponent" stuff has taken hold as the #1 tool of both parties.

235747[/snapback]

That's true. But, all four of these folks are also lousy politicians, IMHO. They don't help themselves and give their enemies quite a bit to work with.

235770[/snapback]

Amen....

[tiger88 934]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

235069[/snapback]

Rove stirred up the homophobes on the Republican side in 2004 and managed to eek out an electoral win against a weak Dem. Now they will try it again with gay adoption.

I haven't seen the media say 2008 is a walk by any stretch of the imagination. Where have you seen that?

They have said 2006 looks more promising for Dems in Congress. That's still months away though, and I have enormous confidence in the Dems ability to blow it.

235070[/snapback]

Whatever, the fact is they couldn't beat him so everytime you bash him remember that. It's not like plenty of people didn't think he was an idiot back during the re-election.

Media may have been an overstatement. I saw a cartoon or two and have heard it mentioned elsewhere. Definitely not in the mainstream media although they are certainly going to do all they can to help before its over.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

235069[/snapback]

Rove stirred up the homophobes on the Republican side in 2004 and managed to eek out an electoral win against a weak Dem. Now they will try it again with gay adoption.

I haven't seen the media say 2008 is a walk by any stretch of the imagination. Where have you seen that?

They have said 2006 looks more promising for Dems in Congress. That's still months away though, and I have enormous confidence in the Dems ability to blow it.

235070[/snapback]

Whatever, the fact is they couldn't beat him so everytime you bash him remember that. It's not like plenty of people didn't think he was an idiot back during the re-election.

Media may have been an overstatement. I saw a cartoon or two and have heard it mentioned elsewhere. Definitely not in the mainstream media although they are certainly going to do all they can to help before its over.

236113[/snapback]

I know you guys like to call everything a "Bush Bash", but read the thread and the post that originated it. Countering misleading arguments isn't necessarily a Bush Bash. Yeah, at least 57 million voters thought he was idiot, and he won anyway. I didn't know that was in dispute. But there are different perpectives on it. One is that the Dems had a lousy nominee who ran a lousy campaign. That's true, IMO. Another is that he had the smallest margin of victory of any incumbent in modern times, which is true, too.

[Shug2003 1]

No, No, No Texas Tigher---don't you know all of what you've said is lies, lies, lies. Just ask TigerOne and DKW......

[TexasTiger 12,958]

No, No, No Texas Tigher---don't you know all of what you've said is lies, lies, lies. Just ask TigerOne and DKW......

236120[/snapback]

I keep forgetting how the truth has been turned on it's head.

[tiger88 934]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

235069[/snapback]

Rove stirred up the homophobes on the Republican side in 2004 and managed to eek out an electoral win against a weak Dem. Now they will try it again with gay adoption.

I haven't seen the media say 2008 is a walk by any stretch of the imagination. Where have you seen that?

They have said 2006 looks more promising for Dems in Congress. That's still months away though, and I have enormous confidence in the Dems ability to blow it.

235070[/snapback]

Whatever, the fact is they couldn't beat him so everytime you bash him remember that. It's not like plenty of people didn't think he was an idiot back during the re-election.

Media may have been an overstatement. I saw a cartoon or two and have heard it mentioned elsewhere. Definitely not in the mainstream media although they are certainly going to do all they can to help before its over.

236113[/snapback]

I know you guys like to call everything a "Bush Bash", but read the thread and the post that originated it. Countering misleading arguments isn't necessarily a Bush Bash. Yeah, at least 57 million voters thought he was idiot, and he won anyway. I didn't know that was in dispute. But there are different perpectives on it. One is that the Dems had a lousy nominee who ran a lousy campaign. That's true, IMO. Another is that he had the smallest margin of victory of any incumbent in modern times, which is true, too.

236119[/snapback]

My point is that the dems/liberals are just beyond pathetic and it is funny to see them hurl stones at bush for any reason no matter how small the stone or for whatever reason, because it is so easy to see the pettiness behind it and the child like frustration.

They are just enraged about "what an idiot" bush is or whatever and the fact remains that their weak a$$ed little party couldn't even field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. John freaking skerry is the best they could do after the dean fiasco. And how scary is dean anyways?

Well, get you anger button ready for overload because it doesn't look any better for your "party of the people" in the next election with billary and whoever else.

[TexasTiger 12,958]

And to think, the dem's still couldn't field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. Shows how pathetically weak the dem's are.

It is funny how the media is trying to play this up as a walk in opportunity for the dem's in the next presidential race.

235069[/snapback]

Rove stirred up the homophobes on the Republican side in 2004 and managed to eek out an electoral win against a weak Dem. Now they will try it again with gay adoption.

I haven't seen the media say 2008 is a walk by any stretch of the imagination. Where have you seen that?

They have said 2006 looks more promising for Dems in Congress. That's still months away though, and I have enormous confidence in the Dems ability to blow it.

235070[/snapback]

Whatever, the fact is they couldn't beat him so everytime you bash him remember that. It's not like plenty of people didn't think he was an idiot back during the re-election.

Media may have been an overstatement. I saw a cartoon or two and have heard it mentioned elsewhere. Definitely not in the mainstream media although they are certainly going to do all they can to help before its over.

236113[/snapback]

I know you guys like to call everything a "Bush Bash", but read the thread and the post that originated it. Countering misleading arguments isn't necessarily a Bush Bash. Yeah, at least 57 million voters thought he was idiot, and he won anyway. I didn't know that was in dispute. But there are different perpectives on it. One is that the Dems had a lousy nominee who ran a lousy campaign. That's true, IMO. Another is that he had the smallest margin of victory of any incumbent in modern times, which is true, too.

236119[/snapback]

My point is that the dems/liberals are just beyond pathetic and it is funny to see them hurl stones at bush for any reason no matter how small the stone or for whatever reason, because it is so easy to see the pettiness behind it and the child like frustration.

They are just enraged about "what an idiot" bush is or whatever and the fact remains that their weak a$$ed little party couldn't even field a candidate to beat him a very short time ago. John freaking skerry is the best they could do after the dean fiasco. And how scary is dean anyways?

Well, get you anger button ready for overload because it doesn't look any better for your "party of the people" in the next election with billary and whoever else.

236126[/snapback]

Just curious-- do you think any criticisms of Bush are valid, and if so, which ones?

[Shug2003 1]

Tiger88, give me a break pu-leeeeeeeeeeeze! You Republicans act as if "attacks" on a stitting President was something the Democrats invented.....well trust me....it WASN'T! I can remember vicious attacks on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and yes, even John Kennedy. Fact is, for generations, the Republican Party was know as a party of the RICH and could not quite attain the White House, Congress and the House at the same time. I watched their frustration level grow for decades and when they finally attained power, it was like a kid in a candy store. Oh how they rejoiced! Then came their great "savior Lord Ronald the Fair" and his "trickle down, supply side economic theories along with rebottled and relabeled "family values, anti-abortion, prayer in school and apple pie" for all americans. Trouble was, all this buzz words and spins were simply means to be elected and get power. Yes, America has undergone some giant changes over those decades and the Country has definately shifted to the left when it comes to religious values, patriotism, freedom of religion, and in some segments, a distaste for abortion, among other t hings. The Republicans were quick to pick up on this and have exploited it as much as possible to acquire and maintain power. Beyond that, they haven't done much but attack Democrats as LIBERALS, pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-minority and pro gay, etc. Truth is, there are many in the Democratic Party who deeply resent the direction the Party has taken in past years and are working to change it while the Repubics just hang onto those old Ronald values and theories and continue to turn out a new generation of little "yes people" who are like robuts marching in tune to the GOP without question! That shall be their undoing! The primary objective is never let go of the POWER!

For someone to criticize Democrats for "attacking" Bush is not only childish and immature is is also veeeeeeeeeeeeery narrow minded. TIGER88, if you haven't learned but one thing it should have been that such behavior is POLITICS and your people DO IT TOO!

[tiger88 934]

Pushing buttons is easy ain't it. lol.

[DKW 86 7,429]

If I may...

The Republicans were quick to pick  up on this and have exploited it as much as possible to acquire and maintain power. Beyond that, they haven't done much but attack Democrats as LIBERALS, pro-abortion, anti-religion, pro-minority and pro gay, etc. (I actually agree, Conservatives now see the Reps as having turned into Country Clubbers and basically Dem-lite.)

Truth is, there are many in the Democratic Party who deeply resent the direction the Party has taken in past years and are working to change it... (Please give any, all, even one example of even one Dem working to turn the party back toward the middle. I am very interested to hear this because I truly believe that the Dems have jerked so far to the Left they canno find their way home anymore.)

...while the Repubics just hang onto those old Ronald values and theories and continue to turn out a new generation of little "yes people" who are like robuts marching in tune to the GOP without question! That shall be their undoing!  (Actually the truer conservatives want to continue the Reagan Revolution. The Country Clubbers just want the power base. I would be happy with a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto, consistently low taxes, etc. However I do want some social programs to be altered and some increased.)

The primary objective is never let go of the POWER! ( True, The Country Clubbers now in power look more and more like a Tip O'Neill Congress by the day. They arent fooling the Conservatives anymore. Our patience is wearing thin and we can just sit home like we did on 1992 for Bush 41.)

236133[/snapback]

[Tigermike 3,039]

I can remember vicious attacks on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and yes, even John Kennedy.

236133[/snapback]

And all three of those were above reproach weren't they. None of those three ever deserved criticism did they?

[TexasTiger 12,958]

I can remember vicious attacks on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and yes, even John Kennedy.

236133[/snapback]

And all three of those were above reproach weren't they. None of those three ever deserved criticism did they?

236152[/snapback]

And you obviously don't think Bush does.

[Tigermike 3,039]

I can remember vicious attacks on Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and yes, even John Kennedy.

236133[/snapback]

And all three of those were above reproach weren't they. None of those three ever deserved criticism did they?

236152[/snapback]

And you obviously don't think Bush does.

236154[/snapback]

That is not the first lie you have told today is it?

I would be willing to bet there are more post (in this forum) by me critical of President Bush than there are from you critical of any dimocrat.