"Unnamed Democrat" leads Bush in Polls

[Dreadsox]

In new poll, 'unnamed Democrat' is ahead of Bush



THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON ? The ?as-yet-unnamed? Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.
Almost half of those surveyed ? 48 percent ? said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among those identified as independents, 46 percent favored the Democratic Party nominee while 39 percent chose the Republican president.

Bush fared better when matched head-to-head against Democratic candidates in a national poll last month, running almost 10 points ahead of some of the better known candidates such as Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt, as well as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has said repeatedly that she is not running in 2004.

Among the Democrats questioned in the Quinnipiac poll, Clinton received the strongest support ? 37 percent. That was more than the next three candidates ? Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry ? combined.

Without Clinton in the race, Lieberman was at 21 percent, followed by Gephardt at 17 percent, Kerry at 12 percent and all others in single digits.

Overall, Bush?s job approval was at 53 percent, with 39 percent disapproving. Only 9 percent said they were ?very satisfied? with the country?s direction, while 26 percent were ?very dissatisfied.?

Originally published on March 6, 2003

 

[melon]

That shows that people are ready for a strong Democratic candidate, but don't like the current options presented to them. In other words, I think they want a candidate who isn't entrenched in "politics as usual."

Melon

 

[Dreadsox]

Who can it be? This unnamed candidate?

Hmmmmmm

 

[U2Lynne]

Who can it be? This unnamed candidate?

They don't mean unnamed as in they are hiding the identity of the person, they just mean that people would pick the as-yet undetermined democratic candidate over Bush.

But really, they only polled a little over 1200 people which to me doesn't say much when the population of the US is around 280 million (I believe).

 

[Dreadsox]

As I said, Who could it be????

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

Overall, Bush?s job approval was at 53 percent, with 39 percent disapproving. Only 9 percent said they were ?very satisfied? with the country?s direction, while 26 percent were ?very dissatisfied.?

i like the sounds of this article.

i too am curious to find out who this democrat is. maybe it's me.

 

[deep]

If that is the case then the Democrates should find a candidate with the name "Unnamed Candidate"


That is exactly how the Republicans chose their last candidate.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

is the unnamed democrat hiding in al gore's lockbox?

 

[Salome]

the second s/he does have a name it will probably have a negative effect for him/her in the polls

 

[verte76]

I wonder who this "unnamed Democrat" is. I'm liking this news.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

that poll number's bound to go down once the people who voted in this poll realize that there aren't any strong democratic candidates.

 

[Zooropa]

In some ways, although I am a Bush supporter, it's good to see this. A presidential election should be contested closely. Blind support for either side/candidate is dangerous.

 

[tiny dancer]

Best news I heard all day. I want to know who it is!!!!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i'm a registered republican and i voted for bush, because i felt he was the far better candidate. that being said, even this hardcore republican would have voted for bill bradley if he had been the democratic nominee.

 

[Gickies Gageeze]

great news indeed.

what people havent mentioned yet is just how far bush has slipped since 9/11's increase.

does anyone know how large of a margin this is?

and how can bush feel when he knows not only is most of the world pissed off at him, but his own people arent exactly unified behind his back either?

oh wait, the dude's an android.

 

[verte76]

Well, since Election Day is not for awhile, I don't want to start my involvement in any campaign or whatever now. I hate these two year campaigns. If I start this crud now I'll be so sick of politics come Election Day I'll scream. It's overkill.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

yeah his approval ratings have slipped since his post 9/11 highs... but despite all these angry pissed off protesters who supposedly make up the american majority, bush's approval ratings still hold steady in the 53-56% range... jumping up towards 60 every time he gives a major speach, and jumping back down towards the 53 whenever the french say no again.

 

[verte76]

I don't think the polls right now are that important as per Election Day 2004 results are concerned. Things could change. George Bush Sr. had a 90% approval rating after Desert Storm, and then lost the election less than two years later. It's too early to tell what the heck will happen this time.

 

[BVS]

I don't think the polls right now are that important as per Election Day 2004 results are concerned. Things could change. George Bush Sr. had a 90% approval rating after Desert Storm, and then lost the election less than two years later. It's too early to tell what the heck will happen this time.

We can only hope...

I think this election may be one of the most important voting opportunities I've had in my voting life. Of course I live in Texas where unless you vote Republican, you have no voice. But I'll wisper as loud as I can.

 

[diamond]

it goes to show u one thing.
that one thing is this-
once you attatch a name to a face of the current democratic party and what they represent....

you
sink
in
reality

keep hope alive
our main man
knows the score
it'sGeorge Walker Bush
in the year 2004

thank u-

diamond


ps-
WHOS
YOUR
DADDY

 

[deep]

Playing Texas poker, Bush bets all on Iraq

March 6, 2003

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST








A senior Bush official privately admits what his administration cannot declare publicly. The stagnant economy, a dagger aimed at the heart of George W. Bush's second term, will not immediately respond to the president's economic growth program. The economic engine will not be revived until the war against Saddam Hussein is launched and won.

Military victory is anticipated inside the Bush administration as the tonic that will prompt corporation officers and private investors to unleash the American economy's dormant power. Although it is impolitic to say so, the fact that the United States will be sitting on a new major oil supply will stimulate the domestic economy. That puts a high premium on quickly gaining control of Iraq's oil wells before they can be torched--a major uncertainty in an otherwise strictly scripted scenario.

''This is Texas poker, with the president putting everything on Iraq,'' a Republican senator (who thoroughly approves of this policy) told me. The extraordinary gamble by Bush leads to deepening apprehension by Republican politicians as they wait for the inevitable war. They consider the Democratic Party divided, drifting to the left and devoid of new ideas. Yet, Bush's re-election next year is threatened by two issues: the economy and the war on terrorism. Success on both is tied to war with Iraq.

Few Republicans discuss even in private whether the president had to make this bet. The usually unasked question: Was it really necessary to focus on Saddam's removal from power? With U.S. troops ready to head into harm's way, patriotic politicians do not want to speculate whether this war was avoidable. Any suggestion that the present course largely echoes policies of the Israeli government risks accusations of anti-Israeli and, indeed, anti-Semitic bias.

Ever since the Six Day War of 1967, my late partner Rowland Evans and I have faced such accusations whenever we questioned the wisdom of a joint U.S.-Israeli policy. Most recent was the column in the Washington Post of Feb. 18 by Lawrence F. Kaplan, a New Republic senior editor. He cited me and several other journalists in alleging that ''invoking the specter of dual loyalty'' (to the United States and Israel) by Jewish Americans was ''toxic,'' polluting and even nullifying ''public discourse.''

Two days later on CNN's ''Crossfire,'' I asked Kaplan to name one instance when I had suggested dual loyalty by anybody. He could not, because I had not. But more than misrepresenting me is involved. Origins of the decision to wage the war against terrorism by removing Saddam has nothing to do with the ethnic origins of its supporters, but constitute something that should be explored without being attacked.

On July 7, 1996, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies issued a paper by six ''prominent opinion makers'' laying out ''a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership'' that urged an end to ''land-for-peace'' concessions. Among many suggestions was to ''focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.''

The ''study group leader'' preparing the report was Richard Perle, who as chairman of the Pentagon's part-time Defense Policy Board has put priority, ever since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, on changing the regime in Baghdad.

The group also includes two current full-time administration officials: Douglas Feith, the undersecretary for policy at the Iraq-first Pentagon, and David Wurmser, a State Department senior adviser.

While removing weapons of mass destruction from Iraq was always cited as the primary reason for Saddam's ouster, the broader vision of Democratic Arab states throughout the Middle East--laid out in the 1996 report--was painted in Bush's speech last week to the American Enterprise Institute. Endorsing Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's repeated contention, the president predicted ''the passing of Saddam Hussein's regime'' will dry up financing of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The senator who told me the president is playing ''Texas poker'' is delighted to march with Bush in a crusade for democracy in the Arab world, a goal that colleagues well-versed in diplomacy view as unrealistic. That is the heart of George W. Bush's gamble, with his presidency and the course of the nation at stake.









Copyright ? The Sun-Times Company

 

[diamond]

 

[Screaming Flower]

keep hope alive
our main man
knows the scene
melon
in
2016



thank u -

SF10


ps-
YOU
AREN'T
MY
DADDY

 

[diamond]

 

[Screaming Flower]

 

[nbcrusader]

By 2016, Melon will be a Republican

 

[deep]

Will the party have given up their current views?
or will Melon have been cured by prayers?

 

[nbcrusader]

I am not aware of any "curing" needs for Melon. I'd reserve prayers for things other than political persuasions.

 

[deep]

nbcrusader,

I compliment you on your true 'Christian' attitude.

I am just frustrated with the intolerance of many in the party.

It would be nice if Melon's orientation was of no significance.

 

[diamond]

Log
Cabin
Republicans..?