November Elections - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-09-2006, 11:05 PM   #16
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

yes Truman was a loser


and in Nov 52 election, Ike GOP, handily won.
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

in Nov 60 election Nixon GOP got about the same and lost

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht



-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968



These are W numbers, in Nov 68 Nixon GOP blew out Dem Humprey

Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974



with the Dems controlling congress Nixon was on the ropes for doing far less than Bush and Cheney have done
he left office on August 8? 1974


Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


-George W. Bush: 31%* May, 2006

-George W. Bush: 40% late July, 2006

these numbers indicate that he is a loser in the eyes of the American people

if the GOP did not controlled congress he would have been driven from office, just like Nixon by now


by posting W with this group
it only proves that he no longer deserves to be in office

and that his supporters are not to swift
__________________

__________________
deep is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 01:09 AM   #17
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



but that is the lowest each has ever gone, at comparable points in each term of each 2nd term president over the past 50 years, Bush is by far the lowest.



[q] Bush could go back down, but he could also improve to the point that his approval number is just ahead of his disapproval number. If that happens, then one of the Democrats talking points will be gone. Its entirely possible that Bush could be where Eisenhower was in July 1960 by July 2008, the same period in his Presidency. [/q]

republicans have been saying this since December 2004. it's hard to imagine that they'll get much worse, i agree, barring any sort of exceptionally bad news.



which will be very intersting, i agree.
Actually those numbers were all during the 2nd term, which shows that Bush's 31% rating was far from being the lowest. Truman had by far the lowest at 22% 11 months before he left the office.
__________________

__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 01:14 AM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



and that his supporters are not to swift
nor are some of his detractors not knowing the difference between the words "to" and "too".

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 01:26 AM   #19
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


yes Truman was a loser


and in Nov 52 election, Ike GOP, handily won.


in Nov 60 election Nixon GOP got about the same and lost



These are W numbers, in Nov 68 Nixon GOP blew out Dem Humprey



with the Dems controlling congress Nixon was on the ropes for doing far less than Bush and Cheney have done
he left office on August 8? 1974




these numbers indicate that he is a loser in the eyes of the American people

if the GOP did not controlled congress he would have been driven from office, just like Nixon by now


by posting W with this group
it only proves that he no longer deserves to be in office

and that his supporters are not to swift
Truman did not run against IKE and while he has the record for the lowest approval rating for a President ever, history regards him as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

The 1960 election was one of the closest elections in history, much closer than the 2000 election.

The 1968 election was anything but a blow out with Nixon receiving 43.4% of the popular vote to Humphrey's 42.7%.


If Bush is indeed the loser you claim he is, then we should see at a minimum Democratic Control of the House and Senate starting in January. Its hard to define someone as a loser from a political standpoint when they have won two elections, and had their party retain control of both houses of congress for 6 straight years. The fact is, November is the last chance the Democrats have to make good on any of their political claims of the past 6 years. If they fail to take back even the House in November, Bush will have been undefeated politically in office for 8 years, unless you include the 2008 elections in that game.

When was the last time a President of any political party was elected, re-elected, and had his party control both houses of congress for the whole time he was in office? It was probably when FDR was President.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 01:38 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Truman did not run against IKE and while he has the record for the lowest approval rating for a President ever, history regards him as one of the greatest Presidents ever.

The 1960 election was one of the closest elections in history, much closer than the 2000 election.

The 1968 election was anything but a blow out with Nixon receiving 43.4% of the popular vote to Humphrey's 42.7%.


Ike beat Stevensen
I said the American people rejected him (his party)

just like all the other losers on the list

1968 was 301 to 191 Electoral vote! 56% to 35%!

1960 was closer than 2000?

well, that just shows you believe some bullshit and haven't even bothered to look up 1960

it was not as close as you have been lied to
__________________
deep is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 03:01 AM   #21
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


Ike beat Stevensen
I said the American people rejected him (his party)

just like all the other losers on the list

1968 was 301 to 191 Electoral vote! 56% to 35%!

1960 was closer than 2000?

well, that just shows you believe some bullshit and haven't even bothered to look up 1960

it was not as close as you have been lied to
1960 Popular Vote:

John Kennedy 34,220,984 49.72%
Richard Nixon 34,108,157 49.55%


1968 Popular Vote:

Richard Nixon 31,783,783 43.42%
Hubert Humphrey 31,271,839 42.72%


2000 Popular Vote:

Albert Gore Jr. 51,003,926 48.38%
George W. Bush 50,460,110 47.87%


As you can see based on the percentages of the popular vote, the 1960 election was a much closer election than the 2000 election. The way the electoral college turned out in 2000 made it seem closer than it was and also led to the victory of the candidate who did not win the popular vote.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:01 AM   #22
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht
If Bush is indeed the loser you claim he is, then we should see at a minimum Democratic Control of the House and Senate starting in January.


garbage. that sets up precisely the expectation you've warned the Democrats against. people aren't voting on Bush, they are voting on their specific representative to Congress. close association to Bush, in many states, will severely harm the candidates, as in CT -- when i lived there, i routinely voted for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, because Republicans in the northeast aren't religious fanatics like Republicans from many southern and heartland states. and she's now doing all she can to distance herself from Bush.

Bush is indeed a lose for the myriad failures of his presidency, the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, his utter cluelessness in the greatest American natural disaster since Gavleston, his standing as an international embarassment, and the fact that his approval ratings have been suck well below 40% for well over a year and show no signs of climbing much higher especially as the Civil War in Iraq will start to escalate.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:02 AM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Actually those numbers were all during the 2nd term, which shows that Bush's 31% rating was far from being the lowest. Truman had by far the lowest at 22% 11 months before he left the office.


how long was Truman below 40%?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 10:11 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2democrat
As much as I would love to see Sen. Allen lose the senate race here in Virginia, he just has SO much more money and name recognition than Jim Webb. Who knows, people may get to the polls and want to change direction, but it's doubtful. I have hope in other areas though.
I'm registered to vote and it won't be for Allen.
__________________
"I can't change the world, but I can change the world in me." - Bono

sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 06:54 PM   #25
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




garbage. that sets up precisely the expectation you've warned the Democrats against. people aren't voting on Bush, they are voting on their specific representative to Congress. close association to Bush, in many states, will severely harm the candidates, as in CT -- when i lived there, i routinely voted for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, because Republicans in the northeast aren't religious fanatics like Republicans from many southern and heartland states. and she's now doing all she can to distance herself from Bush.

Bush is indeed a lose for the myriad failures of his presidency, the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, his utter cluelessness in the greatest American natural disaster since Gavleston, his standing as an international embarassment, and the fact that his approval ratings have been suck well below 40% for well over a year and show no signs of climbing much higher especially as the Civil War in Iraq will start to escalate.
Thats your opinion, not the opinion of the entire country. The fact of the matter is, most people do not regard Bush to be the loser you claim him to be which is precisely why Democrats should be lowering their expectations for November, contrary to the landslide everyone seems to be expecting.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 06:55 PM   #26
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




how long was Truman below 40%?
I'm not sure, but dropping to as low as 22% suggest that Truman was below 40% longer than any President in history.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-10-2006, 07:01 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Thats your opinion, not the opinion of the entire country. The fact of the matter is, most people do not regard Bush to be the loser you claim him to be which is precisely why Democrats should be lowering their expectations for November, contrary to the landslide everyone seems to be expecting.


that's the opinion of nearly 60% of the country if we are to look at his strikingly high disapproval ratings which are every bit as important as his still anemic approval ratings.

and it seems to me that the only people "expecting" a landslide are Republicans so they can spin anything less than the total takeover as a crushing disappointment.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-10-2006, 07:15 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 12:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




that's the opinion of nearly 60% of the country if we are to look at his strikingly high disapproval ratings which are every bit as important as his still anemic approval ratings.

and it seems to me that the only people "expecting" a landslide are Republicans so they can spin anything less than the total takeover as a crushing disappointment.
Its the Democrats who are predicting a landslide when they should be predicting an incredibly tough fight in order to mobilize volunteers to get out and work and get other more casual voters to the polls on November 7. If its, the President is lost, The Republicans are out of power already, there will be little motivation for the more casual supporters to volunteer and get to the polls in November. Mid-term elections are notorious for low voter turnout, so in an election like this, its even more important to motivate people to get out and vote.


If the Democrats really want to be a relevant party as opposed to a bunch of sidelined whiners, they need to end much of the division in their own party, and finally come out with a political victory in November. Polls, no matter how you interpret them, won't do that for you.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:03 AM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 07:37 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


Its the Democrats who are predicting a landslide when they should be predicting an incredibly tough fight in order to mobilize volunteers to get out and work and get other more casual voters to the polls on November 7. If its, the President is lost, The Republicans are out of power already, there will be little motivation for the more casual supporters to volunteer and get to the polls in November. Mid-term elections are notorious for low voter turnout, so in an election like this, its even more important to motivate people to get out and vote.


If the Democrats really want to be a relevant party as opposed to a bunch of sidelined whiners, they need to end much of the division in their own party, and finally come out with a political victory in November. Polls, no matter how you interpret them, won't do that for you.


no, it is not the Democrats who are predicting a landslide -- it's various media pundits, fueled by Republicans who are pitching the *exact* same lines/Rove talking points that you've posted. i think it would be a mistake to view this election as a referendum solely on Bush. voters are choosing candidates and generally evaluate the candidates not just on party affiliation, but on a variety of issues, and in many states, close association with George Bush, whether by a Republican or Democrat, is political poison.

and let's not forget, the system has been gerrymandered to the extreme, by both parties.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 08-11-2006, 10:59 AM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 07:37 PM
You know, any time Republicans start massively giving out advice to the left about what they should do if they want to win as if from the goodness of their heart, it's a pretty good sign they're starting to smell the coffee brewing.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com