• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job (especially Republicans)

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Man, if only the presidental elections were held tomorrow, it would be a landslide for the Democrats!

Can you believe this latest poll?

Even the Republicans are deserting the ship in droves, a whopping 70% think civil war will break out in Iraq and 70% think we are on the wrong track, take that Navy Pride!

Sheesh, I almost feel sorry for President Bush. How sad. :(






http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-03-10-bush-poll_x.htm

Bush's approval rating drops

WASHINGTON (AP) — More and more people, particularly Republicans, disapprove of President Bush's performance, question his character and no longer consider him a strong leader against terrorism, according to an AP-Ipsos poll documenting one of the bleakest points of his presidency.

In addition to asking about Bush, the poll found that by a 47-36 margin, people favor Democrats over Republicans when they are asked who should control Congress.
By Ron Edmonds, AP

Nearly four out of five Americans, including 70% of Republicans, believe civil war will break out in Iraq — the bloody hot spot upon which Bush has staked his presidency. Nearly 70% of people say the U.S. is on the wrong track, a 6-point jump since February. (On Deadline: Pick apart the poll)

"I'm not happy with how things are going," said Margaret Campanelli, a retiree in Norwich, Conn., who said she tends to vote GOP. "I'm particularly not happy with Iraq, not happy with how things worked with Hurricane Katrina."

Republican Party leaders said the survey explains why GOP lawmakers are rushing to distance themselves from Bush on a range of issues — port security, immigration, spending, warrantless eavesdropping and trade, for example.

The positioning is most intense among Republicans facing election in November and those considering 2008 presidential campaigns.

"You're in the position of this cycle now that is difficult anyway. In second term off-year elections, there gets to be a familiarity factor," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a potential presidential candidate.

"People have seen and heard (Bush's) ideas long enough and that enters into their thinking. People are kind of, 'Well, I wonder what other people can do,'" he said.

The poll suggests that most Americans wonder whether Bush is up to the job. The survey, conducted Monday through Wednesday of 1,000 people, found that just 37% approve of his overall performance. That is the lowest of his presidency.

Bush's job approval among Republicans plummeted from 82% in February to 74%, a dangerous sign in a midterm election year when parties rely on enthusiasm from their most loyal voters. The biggest losses were among white males.

On issues, Bush's approval rating declined from 39% to 36% for his handling of domestic affairs and from 47% to 43% on foreign policy and terrorism. His approval ratings for dealing with the economy and Iraq held steady, but still hovered around 40%.

Personally, far fewer Americans consider Bush likable, honest, strong and dependable than they did just after his re-election campaign.

By comparison, Presidents Clinton and Reagan had public approval in the mid 60s at this stage of their second terms in office, while Eisenhower was close to 60%, according to Gallup polls. Nixon, who was increasingly tangled up in the Watergate scandal, was in the high 20s in early 1974...
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
KidRocks said:
Man, if only the presidental elections were held tomorrow, it would be a landslide for the Democrats!
Well, not being happy with the current Republican president does not really mean you will vote for a Democrat next time!:rofl

Can you believe this latest poll?
I believe much of it has to do with the port fiasco.

Even the Republicans are deserting the ship in droves, a whopping 70% think civil war will break out in Iraq and 70% think we are on the wrong track, take that Navy Pride!
Disapproving of Bush doesn't mean you're now a democrat! Not liking the direction the current administration is going does not mean you think the democrats will do a better job.

However I do agree that this is a great opportunity for Democrats to step up and start putting their different ideas and agendas forward. What direction do they think we should go in now? Just bashing Bush isn't enough to get me to vote for you. What will you do that Bush isn't doing that will make things better. Can Democrats solve current problems or are they just good at pointing out that Bush isn't solving them?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
KidRocks said:
Man, if only the presidental elections were held tomorrow, it would be a landslide for the Democrats!
Yes, I am almost certain that if the election were held tomorrow, Bush would not win a third term.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
talloulou said:
Well, not being happy with the current Republican president does not really mean you will vote for a Democrat next time!:rofl

I believe much of it has to do with the port fiasco.

Disapproving of Bush doesn't mean you're now a democrat! Not liking the direction the current administration is going does not mean you think the democrats will do a better job.

However I do agree that this is a great opportunity for Democrats to step up and start putting their different ideas and agendas forward. What direction do they think we should go in now? Just bashing Bush isn't enough to get me to vote for you. What will you do that Bush isn't doing that will make things better. Can Democrats solve current problems or are they just good at pointing out that Bush isn't solving them?



I agree, the Democrats had better step up and define themselves and now is the time, I did my job bashing Bush as often as one would allow, I must admit it was easier than I thought, Bush really did all the hard work of setting himself up to often.

The Democrats should get a message and stay on message and just let Bush dangle in the wind.

I did not mean to imply that you were a Democrat, I realize there are non-Dems/Repubs out there but to few to deal with.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
talloulou said:
Disapproving of Bush doesn't mean you're now a democrat! Not liking the direction the current administration is going does not mean you think the democrats will do a better job.
Correct. Bush poll numbers do not make strong conservatives jump ship. I look forward to the crop of candidates for 2008. In the meantime, I am glad that President Bush ignores the polls and continues to do what I elected him to do.

Until the dems find a direction and a viable cadidate, they will continue to be seen as the party with the "Get Bush" platform. Intelligent people won't fall for that.
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Yes, I am almost certain that if the election were held tomorrow, Bush would not win a third term.
^Finally! After reading this same response from you KCC on topics where it didn't apply, I read it in a place where it means something in CONTEXT.
Now.....its funny (and appropriate).
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
Intelligent people won't fall for that.
It should be obvious from the current "leadership" in the whitehouse and congress that "intelligent" people don't vote.
 
R

reaganburch

disneydude said:
It should be obvious from the current "leadership" in the whitehouse and congress that "intelligent" people don't vote.
Wait, I get it... Republicans... :rofl are stupid...:rofl ... :rofl

I've only been hearing that for 20+ years since Ronald Reagan was in office...

Gore just had to carry his own home state and Bush would have never been President... How the hell do you lose your home state? Even Mondale won Minnesota in 1984...
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
disneydude said:
It should be obvious from the current "leadership" in the whitehouse and congress that "intelligent" people don't vote.
Did you? :roll:
 

disneydude

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2006
Messages
25,528
Reaction score
8,470
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
^ If you want the obvious answer it is because Minnesota is much more moderate/liberal than Tennessee.
But the bigger answer to your question is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway because as has been demonstrated in the past two presidential elections, GWB and his cronies were going to find a way to "win" the election regardless. And I don't need to remind you that every legitimate study demonstrated that Gore won the state of Florida in 2000 had the Supreme Court not stepped in and stopped the recount annointing King George.

And....by the way.....I don't think all Republicans are stupid, I do believe that King George is and a number of the current house/senate are. But I support a number of Republicans.
As an example, I am eagerly awaiting the Governor election here in California. If Angelides beats Westley for the Democratic ticket, I will vote for Arnold.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
disneydude said:
...as has been demonstrated in the past two presidential elections, GWB and his cronies were going to find a way to "win" the election regardless. And I don't need to remind you that every legitimate study demonstrated that Gore won the state of Florida in 2000 had the Supreme Court not stepped in and stopped the recount annointing King George.
I await your evidence.
:lol: This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.

By the way, you didn't answer the question. Did you vote in the last Presidential election? Remember, according to you, intelligent people didn't.
 
R

reaganburch

disneydude said:
^ If you want the obvious answer it is because Minnesota is much more moderate/liberal than Tennessee.
But the bigger answer to your question is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway because as has been demonstrated in the past two presidential elections, GWB and his cronies were going to find a way to "win" the election regardless. And I don't need to remind you that every legitimate study demonstrated that Gore won the state of Florida in 2000 had the Supreme Court not stepped in and stopped the recount annointing King George.

And....by the way.....I don't think all Republicans are stupid, I do believe that King George is and a number of the current house/senate are. But I support a number of Republicans.
As an example, I am eagerly awaiting the Governor election here in California. If Angelides beats Westley for the Democratic ticket, I will vote for Arnold.
Clinton still won his home state twice and Minnesota is much more liberal than Arkansas. Trust me, I live in Arkansas.

As for Bush V. Gore...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

If you read this, it says that 7 of the 9 judges found constitutional issues with the recount, even Ginsburg agreed with the majority. It was only the remedy that they dissented greatly on.

That whole Bush cheated thing is played, the horse has been beaten and it's old.. and worse, it's wrong...

And I haven't read anything substantive regarding 2004 and cheating in THAT election...
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
disneydude said:
^ If you want the obvious answer it is because Minnesota is much more moderate/liberal than Tennessee.
But the bigger answer to your question is that it wouldn't have mattered anyway because as has been demonstrated in the past two presidential elections, GWB and his cronies were going to find a way to "win" the election regardless. And I don't need to remind you that every legitimate study demonstrated that Gore won the state of Florida in 2000 had the Supreme Court not stepped in and stopped the recount annointing King George.

And....by the way.....I don't think all Republicans are stupid, I do believe that King George is and a number of the current house/senate are. But I support a number of Republicans.
As an example, I am eagerly awaiting the Governor election here in California. If Angelides beats Westley for the Democratic ticket, I will vote for Arnold.
I can't believe there are those who still slop this down as truth...

In any case, here's the deal...Sorry it's from that bastion of Conservatism...The New York Times...

New York Times said:
November 12, 2001

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote

By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations...

...The study, conducted over the last 10 months by a consortium of eight news organizations assisted by professional statisticians, examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting the Florida ballots. Under some methods, Mr. Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, Mr. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537- vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Mr. Bush.

For example, if Florida's 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida court on Dec. 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Mr. Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes. Florida officials had begun such a recount the next day, but the effort was halted that afternoon when the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-to-4 vote that a statewide recount using varying standards threatened "irreparable harm" to Mr. Bush.

But the consortium's study shows that Mr. Bush would have won even if the justices had not stepped in (and had further legal challenges not again changed the trajectory of the battle), answering one of the abiding mysteries of the Florida vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/recount/12VOTE.html?ex=1142139600&en=5216644cd15ad469&ei=5070
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you want the obvious answer it is because Minnesota is much more moderate/liberal than Tennessee.
Or maybe its because Tennesseans know Gore better than most other folks. Gore never really was a true Tennessean - he spent the majority of his time in DC (you may recall that his father was a long-time Senator). He**, Gore didn't spend enough time in Tennessee to get a decent accent!
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
talloulou said:
Well, not being happy with the current Republican president does not really mean you will vote for a Democrat next time!:rofl

I believe much of it has to do with the port fiasco.

Disapproving of Bush doesn't mean you're now a democrat! Not liking the direction the current administration is going does not mean you think the democrats will do a better job.

However I do agree that this is a great opportunity for Democrats to step up and start putting their different ideas and agendas forward. What direction do they think we should go in now? Just bashing Bush isn't enough to get me to vote for you. What will you do that Bush isn't doing that will make things better. Can Democrats solve current problems or are they just good at pointing out that Bush isn't solving them?
I agree with this. Other parties need to step up the rhetoric on their own platforms and stop concentrating so much on bashing. I hear a lot of putting down the other guy but it does not come with any solutions to the issues that are being bashed. This is a great opportunity for other parties to get attention in the right way. There isn't too much I like about the current administration but that does not mean I will vote for a candidate that I know little about just because they are considered the opposite of the current administration.
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
alex said:
I agree with this. Other parties need to step up the rhetoric on their own platforms and stop concentrating so much on bashing. I hear a lot of putting down the other guy but it does not come with any solutions to the issues that are being bashed. This is a great opportunity for other parties to get attention in the right way. There isn't too much I like about the current administration but that does not mean I will vote for a candidate that I know little about just because they are considered the opposite of the current administration.
It used to be "Vote for me...I'll tell you why I'm better than my opponent."...

Now it's "Vote for me...I'll tell you why my opponent is worse than me"
 

Alex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
2,963
Reaction score
855
Location
Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
cnredd said:
It used to be "Vote for me...I'll tell you why I'm better than my opponent."...

Now it's "Vote for me...I'll tell you why my opponent is worse than me"
Exactly. Is anyone else getting sick of all the negative ad campaigns during elections? I stop watching television all together every other November.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
And suddenly, Mickey the Dude from Disney, disappears.
 
Top Bottom