34%

[STING2]

and you're sidestepping the most crucial piece of data -- the 65% strong disapproval.

but continue to select whatever information you wish.

as for the Republicans who control all branches of government, Congressional approval ratings are around 22%. with Congressional Republicans quaking in their boots about their reelection chances, we're already seeing shifts in policy more favorable to democrats (Bush's overall immigration policy where he has basically proposed Amnesty) that in turn angers his base despite all the tawdry political stunt of calling up the National Guard.

of course, there's some gay bashing on the horizon in June with a vote on the FMA, and while that might give a few fundie bigots gigantic hard-ons, it simply makes Bush look less and less appealing to the mainstream which is increasingly in favor of marriage-like alternatives such as civil unions.

so hat's off to you all.

The most important issues which are US Foreign Policy, international trade, and the US economy are still firmly under control of Bush and the Republicans. Even if the Democrats were to win back the House Of Representitives in November, its unlikely they could change anything about the above issues. The Democrats had their opportunity in 2004 and they were soundly defeated for the Presidency, the Senate, and the House in a way this country has not seen in half a century when looking at all branches of elected government.

The ABC poll only goes back 25 years, and 65% disproval number in that poll can only be compared in that time frame. Its also a general disaproval, not a "strong disaproval".

Gallup is by far the most accurate polling group and they have been doing this sort of thing longer than any other existing polling group. I remember Democrats throwing shit at Gallup during 2004 claiming that it was a "Republican polling group" and that their results were inaccurate. On election day though, it was discovered that Gallup had been right on the money leaving.
Dem's favorite pollsters like Zogby in shock.

 

[STING2]

Still doing super-duper!!!

That immigration idea of his that all his xenophobic bigots in the GOP are so supportive of is going marvelously.

Heckuva job!

Explain to me how Bush has not been able to set and implement his policy in Iraq, on Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan because of political opposition in the United States?

 

[anitram]

Explain to me how Bush has not been able to set and implement his policy in Iraq, on Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan because of political opposition in the United States?

Seriously?

When you find in my post, which referenced ONLY the immigration issue, commentary on this strawman you've erected, we can talk.

Until that time...

Still doing super-duper!

 

[Irvine511]

The most important issues which are US Foreign Policy, international trade, and the US economy are still firmly under control of Bush and the Republicans. Even if the Democrats were to win back the House Of Representitives in November, its unlikely they could change anything about the above issues. The Democrats had their opportunity in 2004 and they were soundly defeated for the Presidency, the Senate, and the House in a way this country has not seen in half a century when looking at all branches of elected government.

The ABC poll only goes back 25 years, and 65% disproval number in that poll can only be compared in that time frame. Its also a general disaproval, not a "strong disaproval".

Gallup is by far the most accurate polling group and they have been doing this sort of thing longer than any other existing polling group. I remember Democrats throwing shit at Gallup during 2004 claiming that it was a "Republican polling group" and that their results were inaccurate. On election day though, it was discovered that Gallup had been right on the money leaving.
Dem's favorite pollsters like Zogby in shock.

no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, STING, Bush has become a political liability and history will not be kind. most conservative commentators have jumped ship on Bush, and potential GOP candidates like Sen. Allen are likening themselves to Reagan, and not Bush. this is a failed presidency, and the continued implementation of his policies due to the Republican control of all branches of government (including the SCOTUS) is driving this nation deeper and deeper into a black hole of massive spending hikes, exploding debt, a grotesque expansion of executive power, the biggest new entitlement in a generation, and unprecedented sleaze. this is why his polls are so low. it's not as if liberals or libertarians have become more opposed to Bush. it's that conservatives are abandoning him.

and i love "Dem's favorite pollsters." whenever you're backed into a corner, you pull out the political swipes and whine about bias and "liberals."

and btw, Gallup has Bush at 33% approval and 61% disapproval.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

 

[aislinn]

The Democrats had their opportunity in 2004 and they were soundly defeated for the Presidency,

Here's how I remember it. Bush got 55 million votes; Kerry, 51 million. That's a difference of only 4 million votes. How is that a "sound" defeat?

Or am I forgetting something?

 

[anitram]

STING, sometimes I wonder if you read your own posts and then I realize you probably aren't aware of how they come across. So allow me to tell you. Reading your posts, one can come only to a single conclusion - no other party in your country should even bother fielding candidates. Even in the event they win some seats, they will still be lame, powerless and so why bother putting for the energy and the money. We should also crown McCain king and get it over with.

Well, you know what, don't be so distraught. If the world could survive 6 years with a manifestly insane lunatic you call your president "leading" your nation, then you will survive November, when you lose the House, a chunk of your Governorships and a couple of Senate seats. And you'll still have your lying sack of shit in the White House, so cheer up.

 

[U2democrat]

STING's talking points kind of remind me of Stephen Colbert.....

 

[trevster2k]

STING's talking points kind of remind me of Stephen Colbert.....

But Colbert isn't as funny as STING.

 

[U2democrat]

Stand by our President

 

[STING2]

no matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, STING, Bush has become a political liability and history will not be kind. most conservative commentators have jumped ship on Bush, and potential GOP candidates like Sen. Allen are likening themselves to Reagan, and not Bush. this is a failed presidency, and the continued implementation of his policies due to the Republican control of all branches of government (including the SCOTUS) is driving this nation deeper and deeper into a black hole of massive spending hikes, exploding debt, a grotesque expansion of executive power, the biggest new entitlement in a generation, and unprecedented sleaze. this is why his polls are so low. it's not as if liberals or libertarians have become more opposed to Bush. it's that conservatives are abandoning him.

and i love "Dem's favorite pollsters." whenever you're backed into a corner, you pull out the political swipes and whine about bias and "liberals."

and btw, Gallup has Bush at 33% approval and 61% disapproval.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Polls don't determine whether a presidency is a failure or not. You can't accurately analyze the situation if you have 100% Amnesia to what has happened in every election since 2000. The Budget Deficits and National Debt are no higher as a percentage of GDP than they were in the peacetime of the 1980s. The country is at war, and as a result, there is going to be an increase in the both.

This Presidency has removed one of the biggest threats in history to the planets energy supply and the global economy with the removal of Saddam's regime and the enforcement of 17 UN Security Council Resolutions. Iraq has successfully elected its first government and approved a constitution. The Iraqi military continues to get stronger every day, unforunately not at the disneyland pace some believe it should. In Afganistan, the Taliban government was swiftly removed and there is now a growing Democracy. Al Quada's camps in Afghanistan were destroyed and much of its leadership captured or killed. Two countries with governments that threatened the United States and the planet have been removed and replaced with Democracies in the space of 4 years.

On the economy, the country is currently enjoying one of the lowest unemployment rates in its history. ABC news reports that the job opportunities for recent college graduates are the best they have ever been. GDP growth is solid and close to 5%. The poverty rate as of 2004 was the 17th lowest in the countries history and once statistics become available for 2006 will likely rank in the top 10 of the lowest rates ever.

All this has happened with a Republican president and republican control of the house and senate. Democrats love the polls and analyze them daily as if its required medication for something. But polls are not election results and are not having any impact on the above issues. The Democrats will have to wait until November to see if they can win the House. Even if they do, its unlikely they will be able to do much do to the lack of unity within their own party.

I don't get backed into corners, but its always interesting when you start to discuss members of the forum as opposed to the issues.

 

[STING2]

Here's how I remember it. Bush got 55 million votes; Kerry, 51 million. That's a difference of only 4 million votes. How is that a "sound" defeat?

Or am I forgetting something?

Its called a majority, something a candidate has not received in a presidential election since 1988.

 

[STING2]

STING, sometimes I wonder if you read your own posts and then I realize you probably aren't aware of how they come across. So allow me to tell you. Reading your posts, one can come only to a single conclusion - no other party in your country should even bother fielding candidates. Even in the event they win some seats, they will still be lame, powerless and so why bother putting for the energy and the money. We should also crown McCain king and get it over with.

Well, you know what, don't be so distraught. If the world could survive 6 years with a manifestly insane lunatic you call your president "leading" your nation, then you will survive November, when you lose the House, a chunk of your Governorships and a couple of Senate seats. And you'll still have your lying sack of shit in the White House, so cheer up.

Do you read your own post, or the vast majority of the post in here? I would think you would welcome post from the tiny minority of people in here that support Bush, or would you prefer to have a forum where there are only opinions that agree with your own on the issue?

 

[BVS]

Polls don't determine whether a presidency is a failure or not.

Neither do elections.

 

[nbcrusader]

Unfortunately, it will take a couple of decades before an evaluation free from partisan momentum can take place.

Even FDR faced criticism over involvement in WWII from academians, unions, communists, and partisan foes (even after Pearl Harbor).

 

[STING2]

Neither do elections.

They are a hell of a lot more relevant than polls, plus be re-elected when the public has had four years to judge your performance is enormously significant. You can't say that about polls.

 

[Diemen]

Really? So you can't take polls as significant data when those taking them have had 6 years to judge his presidency?

 

[STING2]

Really? So you can't take polls as significant data when those taking them have had 6 years to judge his presidency?

Elections involve millions of people voting! Polls involve hundreds of people answering questions over the phone. There is a difference.

 

[anitram]

Elections involve millions of people voting! Polls involve hundreds of people answering questions over the phone. There is a difference.

So then if the Republicans lose the House in November, will that be a sign the country is sick of them or will it somehow still be super-duper for the GOP?

I mean, so that we're clear.

 

[STING2]

So then if the Republicans lose the House in November, will that be a sign the country is sick of them or will it somehow still be super-duper for the GOP?

I mean, so that we're clear.

That will indeed be a sign. What the Democrats will actually accomplish with control in the House though would probably not be what their supporters hope for because of the lack of unity within the Democratic party.

 

[BVS]

That will indeed be a sign. What the Democrats will actually accomplish with control in the House though would probably not be what their supporters hope for because of the lack of unity within the Democratic party.

Is the Republican party more united or just more sheepish and follow the herd?

 

[phanan]

Its called a majority, something a candidate has not received in a presidential election since 1988.

Unfortunately for Bush, he will be more remembered as the first candidate to win the Presidency without winning the popular vote in 112 years, rather than the first candidate to win a majority in 16.

 

[deep]

Cheney's national favorability ratings are even lower than Bush's.
Twenty percent of respondents viewed him favorably in a May survey
for CBS and The New York Times, compared with 29 percent for the president.

 

[Irvine511]

[q]Backing Away From Bush

Some Republican Candidates Avoid
Ties With Unpopular President
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
May 23, 2006; Page A4

President Bush goes to Pennsylvania tomorrow to campaign for embattled Republican House members in the Philadelphia suburbs. But one of the candidates isn't expected to be there.

Mr. Bush "is really doing poorly in our state," says Rep. Curt Weldon, explaining why he won't be on hand and hasn't asked for the president's help. "I've got to win this by myself."

Well, almost. Mr. Weldon did invite Arizona Sen. John McCain to his district last month to help him campaign and raise money, and he is thinking about doing it again.

It isn't easy leading your party to victory when a lot of people aren't eager to follow. With Mr. Bush's job-approval ratings skidding as low as 30% in national polls, more Republican candidates face risks in associating closely with him. That is forcing the White House and Republican advisers to improvise a strategy for success.

So far, they are putting Mr. Bush on the road to raise huge amounts of cash -- the $100 million-plus he has raised exceeds the amounts he generated at this point in the past two election cycles -- much of it for state and national committees that can, in turn, contribute to endangered candidates. Republican strategists are also making more use of popular first lady Laura Bush. And they are seeking to boost the president's standing on his most troublesome issues -- notably Iraq, but also immigration and energy -- while highlighting their differences with Democrats and underscoring the importance of local issues.

Still, as Mr. Weldon's case shows, the plan has built-in limitations. While many lawmakers continue to request presidential visits, there are more and more places where an appearance by Mr. Bush could hurt the Republican candidate. While control of Congress remains theirs to lose, for Republicans the situation is certainly complicating matters, particularly as the focus shifts from early-season fund-raisers to late-season barnstorming.

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...P_INXOwol23CiRe7UAUWM_20070522.html?mod=blogs

[/q]

 

[nbcrusader]

Same thing happened to Clinton in his second term. Politics is all about self interest.

 

[Irvine511]

Same thing happened to Clinton in his second term. Politics is all about self interest.

can you point to examples, other than the obvious one -- Gore (which most likely harmed him as a candidate)?

also, Clinton had a sex scandal hanging over him. there's distancing oneself from the man himself, versus distancing oneself from the policies. in 1998, for example, most Dem candidates were happy to stand by the Clinton record, if not the man himself.

the opposite appears to be true for Bush.

instead of a piddling sex scandal, we have candidates distancing themselves from a series of failed policies, bungled foreign policy adventures, and an inability to perform even the most basic functions of government.

 

[verte76]

There's something about second term presidents. Nixon had to resign, Reagan had Iran-Contra, Clinton had the impeachment, and now Bush is very unpopular because he can't stop screwing up. He could turn into a lame duck president.

 

[nbcrusader]

can you point to examples, other than the obvious one -- Gore (which most likely harmed him as a candidate)?

also, Clinton had a sex scandal hanging over him. there's distancing oneself from the man himself, versus distancing oneself from the policies. in 1998, for example, most Dem candidates were happy to stand by the Clinton record, if not the man himself.

the opposite appears to be true for Bush.

instead of a piddling sex scandal, we have candidates distancing themselves from a series of failed policies, bungled foreign policy adventures, and an inability to perform even the most basic functions of government.

By the end of Clinton's second term, the phrase "Clinton fatigue" was frequently used.

And Clinton's troubles were not just a sex scandal. In addition to the various other troubles that plagued him, the economic policies that let the dot com boom turn into recession were also evident at that time.

 

[Irvine511]

By the end of Clinton's second term, the phrase "Clinton fatigue" was frequently used.

And Clinton's troubles were not just a sex scandal. In addition to the various other troubles that plagued him, the economic policies that let the dot com boom turn into recession were also evident at that time.

yes, but Bush has three years left. and the dot com bubble didn't burst until well into 2000, it was in March, i believe.

much of the bursting of the dot com bubble had more to do with overzealous Wall Street hysteria and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, by the Republican Congress, that had separated investment and commercial banking and enabled the creation of bohemoths like Citigroup that gave us Enron, WorldCom, etc.

 

[YBORCITY]

I think Dubya would probably love to have 34% now - don't you all think? I read one poll last night that his rating was 28%

 

[Bluer White]

much of the bursting of the dot com bubble had more to do with overzealous Wall Street hysteria and the repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act, by the Republican Congress, that had separated investment and commercial banking and enabled the creation of bohemoths like Citigroup that gave us Enron, WorldCom, etc.

Eh, the Glass-Steagall laws had been increasingly relaxed for 20+ years in financial services before President Clinton signed the act overturning it. No need to blame a single political party on the accounting shenanigans of a few renegade companies. The Republican Congress and Clinton were both right, Glass-Steagall was outdated.

To me, it was the blurred line between audit/compliance and "consulting" services provided by accounting firms like Arthur Andersen that allowed Enron and WorldCom to cook the books. I absolutely agree with your first point about overzealous investors, large and small alike. When people like you and me quit our jobs to day-trade, that was a disaster waiting to happen.