New poll is out... Guess what folks, most americans dont even know 3/4 of the dems running for office!

Now bubba is out and about saying the constitution should be changed to allow more terms... doesnt matter anyway.. bushie would beat him.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88691,00.html

Ah, polls... how many 'Murricans knew the current Thief Executive 17 months before his selection? Including the half of the public that doesn't VOTE, not many.

And Bill (Who?) Clinton vs Poppy (88% Approval) Bush in mid-1991? Do you really want to draw this parallel, my 19th Century Fox-lovin' postliterate adversary?

We all know when "most" Americans will begin paying attention to the presidential race ... the day after the 2004 World Series ends.

I agree at this point that there's very little chance anyone will beat Bush. I think the important focus is to turn at least one of the House or Senate over to Democratic control. It's not good for the system for one ideology to control both legislative and executive branches. Especially when the split between the ideologies is so close nationally.

I think W. is definitely beatable; he lost the last time and could lose again, but the Democrats have got to stick to their message, hammer the lying bastard on his and his administrations mistruths and failures, and talk clearly and without theoretical jargon, as they are wont to do, about major domestic and international issues, such as the economy, which, even after two of his stupid, disastrous tax cuts, is still in bad shape. That first one did ZILCH, and the second one will make things worse. The jobless rate, and unemployment claims, are are their highest level in 9 years. He can lose again.

Well if you want to talk about polls Phillyfan, its interesting to me, and I read Arianna Huffingtons column yesterday, that most polls, show the American people are far more in alignment with the Democrats regarding everything from the tax cuts for the wealthy to just about everything else. Shrub is beatable, and the Demos need to draw a line in the sand, and separate themselves as far as possible from this current disaster, known as the Bush Administration. Speaking of them, I would love to hear their response to the news that the unemployment rate is the highest in nine years. There is at least one Demo who is speaking loudly and clearly about the issues, and how they can be corrected. His name? Howard Dean.

History lessons:

1975 - Jimmy who?

1991 - Bill who?

2003 - Howard who?

Anyone else see a trend?

Dean is completely UNELECTABLE. He'll be hammered on his war stance...

Unemployment is also a lagging indicator as to how the economy is going.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...4-2003Jun6.html

Another positive sign in the report was the hiring increase of 58,000 at temporary employment firms. Economists closely watch that industry because it can signal if companies may begin to hire permanent, full-time workers.

Funny how "lagging indicator" has been so high under Shrub for so long now, no? wink

When the polls are broken down into issues -- fantomas is correct --the public sides with the Democrats. PhillyFan -- I would be very reluctant to gloat at this point. There are so many variables which will come into play. And as we all know -- polls don't count -- and neither does the popular vote. Look at the electoral map and be afraid -- very afraid.

I did read an article recently that pointed to the fact that many influential electoral states went Democratic last fall. The author of the piece postulated that this is a good indicator for the Democrats performing stronger next fall than most Republicans want to believe. Toss in the sheer arrogance of people like Tom Delay, Don Rumsfeld, etc., and there is a strong possibility of a backlash.

I do think the Bush administration has a leg up for next fall, which is appalling to consider. However, their bumbling and unwillingness to represent all of the American people will catch up with them. Whether it is next fall or not will depend on lots of unknowns.

I do want to point out that Bush Sr. was already setting up his second cabinet when a po-dunk Governor from a backwoods state came out of nowhere and hijacked his election. There is absolutely no reason that will not happen again. Especially as more and more groups around the country organize for combat next fall.

Just remember a few key phrases:

Where are the WMDs?
Where is Osama?
Where is Saddam?
Where is the meat of the tax cuts?
Why are US corporations still living in the tax loopholes?
When will the administration stop lying to the world?
When will someone other than affluent, white people get a meeting with the President?
How many allies will we have to lose before we stop this madness?

And we could go on and on. All of them make great campaign placards to carry around and put in our lawns.

and don't forget the election is more than a year away. Alot can happen in a year now, eh? I think come next spring and summer, the Dems names will look a lot more familiar.

At least we have the Free Medical Care Bill and Hillary promised.

a lot can happen between now and the election. I think its still open for the democrats to win the election. just hope they can unite behind one good candidate. I think the key is the economy and theres still a lot of unrest in iraq. ive got a few friends over there now and they feel less safe now than during the war.
My choice is John Kerry, unless of course Hillary decides to run but i dont think she will

Remember the day Clinton got elected and Cher and all the Hollywoods' were on t.v. crying (I can still remember that) because they thought things would drastically change for the better ? Boy were they in for a rude awakening !

I think the wording of the poll (vague if not slanted, not surprising since it's referenced by FOX News), the timing (long before most people have gotten to know the candidates) and the fact that the person getting the most positive rating is not running (Laura Bush) all make the results somewhat meaningless.

It looks like a political beauty contest with the least harmless person with the "prettiest" politics "winning".

Addtionally, voter turnout is an unpredictable factor. Though there don't seem to be substantive reforms on the horizon that might encourage or allow the apathetic to vote, many unforseen circumstances will influence how people vote and who they will actually vote.

I prefer to be an optimist and hope that people will have both the opportunity and desire to take a stand in the next presidential election. I hope they will also appreciate the gravity of their decision regardless of whether they vote.

One bellweather is that the Green party is reconsidering placing a candidate in the next presidential election. Does anyone know where that stands so far?

Outer space.

Here's something I found that pretty much sums up my feelings on the '04 contest -

Liz Langley (from her column at alternet.org):

“I'm starting my own political afterparty. That's a political party that doesn't exist until after someone gets nominated. It has a single issue: unity. My party is called ABBA: Anyone But Bush Again. ABBA is an SOS to those who didn't want George W. Bush the first time, which was most of us, and those who don't want an encore. It has no Democratic disorganization: the focus of ABBA is sharp enough to shave a pig. All you have to do is one thing: vote for the one guy running against Bush who has a shot of winning. One guy. Case closed.” (“I'm all for your right to express yourself,” Langley chides Nader types, “but for chrissakes, make a quilt.”)

Phillyfan, you may be right, we may indeed have four more years of Bush. I am sure those who would rather drill in the artic than raise the fuel standard are all for Bush. And perhaps that is the majority of Americans. I find that profoundly sad.

http://truthout.org/docs_03/060603D.shtml

Thoughts?

Thank you that was worth reading and forwarding.
I also read where mr Nader said the Greens may not field a presidential contenter this time to allow a focused campain against Darth & co

Nine years, you say? Hmmm. I wonder who was president nine years ago whe joblessness was so high.

Speaking of Clinton -- because I transparently am -- any of you lefties think that Bill will (subtly) sabotage any Dem nominated in 2004 for the ulterior purpose of giving Hillary a clear shot in 2008? Don't say that the Clintons are incapable of such shenanigans because you know they are. And none of the candidates running in '04 are people to whom the Clintons would feel any special loyalty (as if ...).

Hillary smartly does not want to run against an incumbent who's got the homeland security issue working for him in 2004. But if a Dem somehow sneaks though in 2004, she wouldn't be able to run until 2012, and even then she wouldn't be the frontrunner because (1) the Dem President's VP from 2004 and 2008 will be the favorite for the nomination (even if the Dem loses in 2008, a la Mondale in '84) and (2) the Clinton years will be ancient history by 2012. If the Dems lose in 2004, then there should not be a Republican incumbent running in '08. So it's better to be the Dems '08 nominee than it is to be the '04 nominee.

[ June 07, 2003, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

CintTrees, I think it was the unemployment rate Mr Clinton inherited from the Regan/Bush1 12 collective years.
Regarding Mr Clinton, interesting thought. But I do not think so, I would think he would push for Hillary to be on this ticket as VP, she never said she would not run as VP

All you prognosticators make me laugh. Philly, I can't believe you're in here citing polls that mean as much as a Clinton promise. And to the rest of you Bush-haters, comparing him to his father is a big mistake. The entire political and societal landscape is far different from 1991/1992, when Bush the Elder lost his big approval rating.

For one thing, even the limping economy is far better relative to what it seemed to be then. With many economic factors looking up, the big puzzling thing is the depressed job market. Does this mean Bush will lose because of it? No. But it doesn't mean he'll win, either.

Domestic security/terrorism WILL be a major overriding factor in the voters' minds come November 2004. Does this mean Bush will win because of it? No. But it also doesn't mean it will be completely trumped by the economy, either. I WILL prognosticate by saying one thing: Unlike numerous times before, the economy will not be nearly as big a factor as the Left thinks it will be. I'd bet the farm on that. Plus, military might & terrorism will not be as big a factor as the Right thinks it will be. There will be another major factor that comes into play, and it has nothing to do with policy. I'll leave that to the masses here to figure out.

Also, I'll add one other prognostication related to Congress. The House will remain in Republican control, perhaps even adding seats. In the Senate, a couple (if that) current seats might change parties, but the Republicans will retain control and might even add to their net numbers by a couple.

To believe Bush is definitely going down is as stupid as believing he's going to win in some landslide or something.

[ June 08, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]

MIB I do not compare Bush Sr to Bush jr,, I at least respected if disaggreed with the Sr.
I agree with you that neither the economy nor security will be the only factor. I also think the side that best frames the issues will win.

Great posting PhillyFan, we all know how accurate polls are a year and half before the event, good goin'!!