Poll: Bush increasing lead on Kerry - 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 04-20-2004, 09:55 PM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,355
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


Lieberman might as well join the Republican Party, and, thus, it really would have been an election between two Republicans.

(Likewise, Swartzenegger, Pataki, and Bloomberg might as well defect to the Democratic Party.)

Ultimately, it is too early to be presumptuous here. The American public has a painfully low attention span, and Kerry hasn't been in the news much lately. Media attention always favors the incumbent, because he can "campaign" even when he isn't doing it officially. Right now, we're in the lull between the end of the primaries and the start of the party conventions. A lot can still happen between now and November.

Melon
agree with you on the second part... disagree with the top part. you know... it is possiable for someone to have an allegance to one party, but not agree with every single issue just because it's the overall feeling of said party. it's called thinking for yourself... more people should try it.
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-20-2004, 10:03 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
it's called thinking for yourself... more people should try it.
Yet, conservative, moderate, liberal Republicans...at the end of the day, they still rally around their leader like a bunch of lap dogs. I should think that Bush absolutely repulses more moderate and liberal Republicans. McCain, perhaps the most visible moderate-to-liberal Republican utterly sickens me by the fact that he doesn't stand up more for himself and still rallies around Bush.

Of course, Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to Democratic presidents, and I'm not going to deny that. I guess I really do wish more people, particularly politicians, in this case, really would think for themselves.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-20-2004, 10:23 PM   #18
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,355
Local Time: 08:19 PM
agreed... very few politicians jump party lines and support someone from the opposite party. last major politician i can remember doing just that was giuliani siding with cuomo over pataki back in '94... and ironicly, it looks as if pataki's gonna have to not run for a 4th term and let rudy run for gov in 2006 if the republicans want to keep albany.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-22-2004, 09:03 AM   #19
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 09:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
i've said it before... if the left wanted to defeat bush, they shouldn't have nominated a guy on the far left, like kerry or dean, rather one more towards the center-left... like lieberman. but i can still be proven wrong...
This statement is key, not in its accuracy, but rather what it represents, and that is the success of conservatives in the US to re-define what "center" is.

Kerry is not of course, by any stretch of the imagination, a left-winger. In fact, very few of the democrats in the primary were left-wingers (see below). The problem the democrats are having isn't that they're running candidates who are too far left, but rather too far right. We've seen before (i.e. 2002) that when you run a republican-lite against a republican, the republican wins. That's because the republicans *always* vote for their guy, the fed-up progressives will vote 3rd party (or not at all), and there aren't enough moderates to elect the repub-lite. Additionally, the conservatives will still label the repub-lite a "far left liberal" (i.e. Kerry), thus the perception of what center is is shifted to the right.

But the republicans didn't re-define what center is on their own. Nope. They had help from the democrats, namely the DLC. In 1992, after losing 2 elections, the democrats decided to run their first republican-lite, Bill Clinton. Bill won, but not because he was a republican-lite, but because he was in the right place at the right time. I won't go into all the things that sank Bush 41 because there were too many, but Clinton ended up in the whitehouse, and the DLC won with their first republican-lite.

Well, it's not working this time around. The republican-lites aren't doing so well, and the democrats are too blind to notice. I'm around 90% convinced that we're in for another 4 years of Bush (and that's 4 years without the inhibition of worring about being "re"-elected). If you loved the last 4 years of Bush, you're in for a thrill this time around. If you didn't like Bush, you're in for 4 years of hell.

Back to the subject of the democratic candidates, here's an interesting chart by a political group that I've found very enlightening:

Quote:
The US Presidential Primaries 2004

We've scrutinised the statements and, more tellingly, the voting records of the hopefuls of the two major parties, in response to requests from many of our American visitors.

Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

Despite drop-outs along the way, we've left in all the initial players as their differences (and similarities) remain of interest.




http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Canada is looking better and better everyday.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 04-22-2004, 09:30 AM   #20
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,355
Local Time: 08:19 PM
so a person who votes with ted kennedy 95% of the time isn't considered to be on the left anymore? interesting.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-22-2004, 11:00 AM   #21
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 09:19 PM
That snippet (from the 2001 Senate voting record) has been making its rounds, hasn't it? They use it because if you pick a different year, the percentage is less, and thus the anti-Kerry ammo has less punch.

But let's take the 2002 record. Kerry voted with Kennedy 85% of the time. But so did Lieberman. So by your "voting record" standard, Kerry and Lieberman are equally as liberal. But wait, you said in a previous post that Lieberman was more toward the center.

Could it be that voting records don't tell the whole story? Hmmmm...

Heck, you should love Kerry. He voted for Bush's war and his tax cut. In fact, he even wants to escalate the war. What's not to like?
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 04-22-2004, 11:27 AM   #22
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:19 PM
This writer has a little different take on the next few months.

http://tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10271

Losing Control

Thomas R. Asher is a lawyer and president of The American Council, a policy research organization based in Washington, D.C. and Amherst, Mass. Until 1998, he was the board chair of the Center for Responsive Politics.


Echoes of Watergate fill the air: a president is charged with misdeeds. He is besieged by plans gone awry, betrayed by underlings blowing whistles, harassed by a once-compliant press and barraged by querulous demands for data, documents and testimony.

George W. Bush, who reveres power, is losing his own as events in Washington and Iraq, and their public portrayal, slip from his grasp. His predicaments are rooted less in Lord Acton's adage that "power corrupts" than its corollary that power seduces its holders into overestimating their strength and ignoring its limits. Bush has an inflated sense of several variants of power: bending others to one's will, be they subjects, messengers, adversaries or enemies; silencing dissent; protecting secrets; and building and preserving credibility. The latter is especially important in an election year.

The rising visibility of major White House miscalculations before and after 9/11, including the deteriorating situation in Iraq, have unleashed a skunky whiff of Watergate into Washington's springtime air. Bush's credibility is sinking as did Richard Nixon's when caught covering up the misdeeds of his "plumbers;" his clandestine re-election campaign crew that spied on Nixon's opponents. Bush faces a wider range of potential scandals, which include:

Iraq: the rationale for, cost of, and occupation plans following America's conquest (DOS, DOD, CIA, FBI);
Suppressed Medicare costs (HHS) and bioterrorism studies (DOD);
Insufficient terrorism preparedness and prevention, domestic and international, before and after 9/11 (CIA, FBI, DOD, etc.);
Mounting fiscal deficits and tax relief only for the wealthy (Treasury, OMB); and
Skewed or suppressed scientific research and policies (NIH, HHS, FDA, EPA).
Furthermore, criminal jeopardy may lurk beneath headlines in the "outing" by senior White House officials of a CIA spy (Valerie Plame) married to an Iraq-issue defector (former Ambassador Joseph Wilson III). In that case, any Bush-Ashcroft effort to delay or derail the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, will evoke memories of Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre" when he fired a prosecutor who was closing in on him.

Nascent scandals also lie in energy policy (including the vice president's list of advisors, on the Supreme Court's current docket), the environment (relaxing arsenic and mercury rules), frayed relations with allies and the United Nations, and on and on . . . In each trouble spot are current and former officials with information and documents that will, almost surely, further tarnish Mr. Bush and his closest advisors.

With so many problems and news from Iraq growing steadily more grisly, Mr. Bush's presidency, like Nixon's, is developing a troubled aura. This will likely beget further difficulties because, as a president's power wanes, the loyalty and obedience of his inner circle and lower-level public employees tends to shrink apace, with each major leak leading to more and larger spurts, like when pressure increases within a frayed hose.

With so many problems, no wonder Watergate references are escalating. Veteran journalist Daniel Schorr suggests that Richard Clarke's evidence of administration laxity toward terrorism has "exploded" Mr. Bush's control of his destiny, as did "former White House counsel John Dean, who started President Nixon down the road to ruin." Mr. Dean himself, meanwhile, just published a litany of Bush abuses of power titled Worse than Watergate. And Sen. Ted Kennedy now calls Iraq "George Bush's Vietnam," charging that "this president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon."

A newspaper editorial about Shiite-Sunni collaborations in Iraq is headlined: "U.S. enemies list grows in Iraq." Those who remember Nixon's chicanery recall his "enemies list" of critics, and how he abused the IRS and other government agencies to harass them. Given the Bush administration's fierce assaults against its critics, from former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill to Ambassador Wilson to Bush's own former terrorism "czar" Clarke, it would be no surprise to find that he, like the paranoiac Nixon, keeps a similar list, which is likely to grow as his aura of invincibility fades.

The president and his administration, in Watergate mode, already find themselves focusing more on damage control than new initiatives, both in Washington and Baghdad. They spend time with lawyers and spinmeisters, rather than policy advisors, and are bogged down in old problems, which prevents them from focusing on the cascade of new ones. Their power to "embed" or bully the skeptical media is diminishing. And Mr. Bush's re-election campaign is increasingly shrill, scattered, partisan and reactive—not the image of serene confidence and control he hoped to project.

Watergate words like "credibility gap," "cover-up," "stonewall," and "crisis" abound. As for Iraq, we now hear Vietnam echoes like "chaos," "quagmire" and "nightmare" instead of "liberation," "freedom" and "democracy."

As Clarke and others before him warned, the Iraq "liberation" is proving a double blunder, creating more problems than it solved, while diverting resources needed to capture and shut down Al Qaeda's leadership and give Afghanistan and its people the recovery, hope, security and democracy America promised them. The Iraq invasion was launched and celebrated on mighty words and gestures ("liberation," "national security," "Mission Accomplished"). However, reality was quite different, largely because the ideological Mr. Bush confused words with facts and also confused two types of power: the military might to kill and conquer with the very different strengths needed to rebuild a shattered society, establish order and security, and impose democracy upon its mutually mistrustful citizens.

So, as Iraq continues to spew bad news and Watergate mode prevails in Washington, Mr. Bush will face a growing chorus of highly credentialed detractors, revealers, accusers and questioners. For example, the Defense Department now concedes that it may require many more troops to "pacify" Iraq. There are new reports of prewar warnings by skeptical generals who were pushed around or pushed aside by Donald Rumsfeld. Nothing has been heard for many months from General Edward Shinseki, the Army Chief of Staff sidelined by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for maintaining before the Iraq invasion, quite correctly, that many more U.S. troops than were allocated were needed to maintain control after Saddam was dispatched.

Mr. Bush's multiple misrepresentations and misjudgments put him in position to break a key Watergate speed record. From the Watergate burglary on June 17, 1971 to Nixon's resignation on Aug. 8, 1974, it took some 38 months. In between, Nixon managed to keep the tawdry facts and circumstances under sufficient control to win re-election in 1972. In contrast, from the first "new product" announcement of the Iraq invasion in early September, 2002, to election day November 2, 2004, is a mere 26 months, which would beat Nixon's record by 33 percent.

Iraq also may eclipse the presidential war blowback record set by Vietnam. Of course, no civilized exit strategy for American hegemony and troops currently exists and the likelihood of an international takeover is diminished because of (a) little support among our NATO allies, (b) a timorous United Nations, further weakened by the Bush administration's lack of respect and support, and (c) Bush's continued refusal to relinquish effective control. It took six years, from 1962 to 1968, for Vietnam to undo a president, Lyndon Johnson; five years if you count only his time as president. In contrast, the Iraq war began in March, 2003, fewer than 19 months before Election Day 2004.

So, Mr. Bush, ever precocious in his reach for and use of power, is being quickly undone, in part, by chronically miscalculating its potency and limits. Call it hubris, the blind pride and arrogance that often precipitates a fall from power. Mr. Bush sees himself as Ronald Reagan's heir—the cheerful and Teflon-coated conservative. Instead, he may find deeper and stickier genetic ancestry in the dark and ultimately disgraced Nixon.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-22-2004, 11:50 AM   #23
Refugee
 
cydewaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 1,256
Local Time: 09:19 PM
While I agree with the jist of that article, I still think it may be wishful (for some of us) thinking. We're dealing with an electorate with a negligible attention span and an even worse short-term memory. It seems that with each new scandal or revelation, Bush's approval rating actually goes up.

I'm not sure what it'll take to unseat Bush, but I do wish there was someone better than Kerry to go against him. Choosing between the lesser of two evils has never been my cup of tea.
__________________
cydewaze is offline  
Old 04-22-2004, 09:48 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:19 AM
There is no doubt that liberal democrats will swamp the voting booths this November to vote Bush out, but that will be far from enough to help Kerry win the election.

Thomas R. Asher has a lot of idea's about what Bush has done wrong but they are his idea's and those of liberal democrats. Moderates and Republicans would disagree with most of it.

The polls support this where the majority of Americans continue to say that invading Iraq was the right thing. George Bush's approval rating continues to hover above 50% despite all the attacks the liberals have tried against him. No incumbent President has ever been defeated when they had an approval rating of 50% or greater.



Democrats decided to nominate Kerry because they felt Dean was to far to the left. In politics, the candidate that can win the moderate's and those not aligned with either party usually wins. The political extremes always vote even if their #1 guy is not in the running. Dean supporters will definitely be voting for Kerry in November. The far right and the far left don't sit at home. The people that stay home are typically the moderates and those not aligned with either party.

I took the test from Political Compass web site and guess which quadrant they put me in, the Libertarian Left with Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich! I admit though I was almost directly in the center and not in any quadrant. The test is fun, but I have doubts about how accurate it really is.



As to why Kerry is a liberal, simply look at his record on Defense. When Kerry ran for the US Senate in 1984, he campaigned against the Reagan defense build up and wanted brand new and vital weapon systems to be cut, such as the M1 Tank, Apache Attack Helicopter, Patriot Missile System, The MLRS Multiple Launch Rocket System, and the M2 Bradley, to name a few. All of these weapon systems have been key to making the US Military the best military in the world over the past 20 years.

Then there is Kerry's voting record on Defense which mirror's his opposition to defense spending and vital weapon systems in his 1984 election campaign.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990, Kerry was against using military force to remove Saddam forces from Kuwait. Instead Kerry wanted to use SANCTIONS to remove Saddam from Kuwait. We all know how effective Sanctions have been in getting Saddam to do anything.

Kerry just recently voted against 87 Billlion dollars package for rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting US troops in those countries.

There is more, but Kerry's record on foreign policy is not good and his record on defense spending is even worse. His record on these issues is more in keeping with the extreme left of his party than moderates in his party or outside it.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-23-2004, 08:48 PM   #25
New Yorker
 
Scarletwine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside it's Amerika
Posts: 2,746
Local Time: 08:19 PM
An interesting poll - especially the moderates reactions.
Course it's only Cal.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/po...itics-pointers

Bush Approval Hits a Low Point in State
His handling of Iraq gets poor marks. California would back Kerry, even with Nader in the race.

President Bush's popularity in California has dropped to the lowest level of his presidency amid rising public concern over his handling of Iraq and the economy, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll that found dislike of Bush driving support for his Democratic rival.

At a time of mounting American casualties in Iraq, the survey found a sharp turnaround in attitudes toward Bush's management of the war: 56% of California voters disapprove, up from 44% in July.
...
Overall, the survey found, 54% of California voters disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, while 44% approve.

On the economy, 53% disapprove of Bush's performance and 42% approve.
...
If the election were held today, the poll found, California voters would choose Kerry over Bush, 53% to 41%, in a two-way race.

With independent Ralph Nader on the ballot, Kerry would still defeat Bush in a romp, 49% to 39%, with Nader at 6%.

Either way, just 6% of voters are undecided — remarkably few for an election still more than six months away.
...
In the two-way match-up with Kerry, Bush wins strong support from Republicans (80%), conservatives (74%) and whites who attend religious services at least once a week (60%). Despite Bush's appeals to Latino voters, just 36% of them favor Bush over Kerry. That is close to the 38% support he garnered among Latinos in 2000.

Kerry's base is broader. He is heavily favored by Democrats (82%), liberals (86%), blacks (75%), Latinos (58%), union members (67%), voters between the ages of 18 and 29 (58%) and whites who never attend religious services (58%).
...
In a state dominated by Democrats, the poll also found distinct trouble spots for Bush beyond the built-in disadvantage that any Republican faces in California. Most striking: 32% of moderate Republicans favor Kerry over Bush. And independent voters, now more than 16% of the state's electorate, also prefer Kerry over Bush, 50% to 42%.
__________________
Scarletwine is offline  
Old 04-24-2004, 03:10 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:19 AM
I find that California Poll to be positive actually for Bush. Bush has much more support in California than I thought.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 04-24-2004, 03:28 AM   #27
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,256
Local Time: 07:19 PM
Heh, one thing Bush supporters might want to remember-his father also had a high approval rating for a while there, too. And we all know what happened to him in '92.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is online now  
Old 04-24-2004, 01:49 PM   #28
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I find that California Poll to be positive actually for Bush. Bush has much more support in California than I thought.
And ever since the California recall, the way the L.A. Times conducts polls have been kind of suspect...
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 04-24-2004, 03:17 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel
Heh, one thing Bush supporters might want to remember-his father also had a high approval rating for a while there, too. And we all know what happened to him in '92.

Angela
Bush Sr. had an approval rating of only 42% 6 months out from the election while his son has a 52% approval rating 6 months from the election. An incumbent President has never lost a re-election bid when their approval rating was above 50%.

Another big reason for Bush Sr. defeat was the campaign by Ross Perot. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote. Perot voters by a 2 to 1 margin would have voted for Bush if Perot had not run back in 1992.

This year, it is the democrats that face a drain on votes from a 3rd party vote with Ralph Nadar.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

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 08:19 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