Republican Says Bush's High Poll Numbers Can't Last (DejaVu 1991?)

The Washington Post ^ | 24 April, 2003

[Happy2BMe]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's lofty poll numbers are certain to decline, his pollster warned supporters on Wednesday, as the Democratic voter base solidifies ahead of the 2004 presidential election campaign.

Bush's approval ratings have risen into the low to mid-70 percent range after the successful conclusion of the war in Iraq, well short of the 90 percent ratings his father earned after the Gulf War in 1991 but still destined for a fall.

[Happy2BMe]

George Bush Sr. was a shoe-in for reelection right after Desert Storm.

Too many assumptions were made - too many people went back to sleep.

Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992.

[LavaDog]

Don't forget about a certain little man who screwed #41. Clinton never received a majority, '92 or '96

[Only1choice____Freedom]

>>"Too many assumptions were made - too many people went back to sleep."

Read my lips, no new taxes. Bush sr. comprimised with the Dem's and they used it as a mantra. How many times did you hear that on TV.

Big differences now.
W has learned from the past, Dem's have not, they still live in it.
There are many alternative news sources active and available now.
People are not going back to sleep.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Democrats have blamed Bush's 2001 tax cuts for reducing jobs and turning budget surpluses into record deficits, and Bush's second $726 billion tax cut package is tied up in Congress.

Yeah, cutting taxes reduce jobs. Not. I just wish cutting taxes could reduce government jobs.

[dwilli]

If the Dow gets back to 10,000 and the unemployment rate
falls to 5.5 or so He will walk in. If the dow stays in the 8,000 range and unemployment stays above 6.0, GWB is probably in trouble.

[wideawake]

(1) We're coming out of a recession not going into one.

(2) The only third party candidate with any following is Ralph Nader.

[Happy2BMe]

"Don't forget about a certain little man who screwed #41. Clinton never received a majority, '92 or '96"

Poot on Perot. (He was right about the "Giant Sucking Sound" though.)

Too many variables for a false sense of security.

[W04Man]

Not if we have anything to say about it. PROMOTE BUSH NOW!! DON'T WAIT! SPREAD THE WORD!

http://w-04.com

[Redbob]

Never forget x-41's first "read my lips":
"No new gun laws" - right before he banned imported semi-auto rifles.

Dubya of course can easily repeat both his Daddy's screw-ups:
first, by caving in on the tax cut - with Sen.Frist's able assistance! - then by renewing the assault-weapons ban.

He'll be a one-termer for sure, and the next President will be one of those one-word-name celebrities...

[MissAmericanPie]

Rino's and Demoncrats in congress will do everything they possibly can to make sure the economy drops. Those Freeper's living in states with a Rino congressman must put the pressure on and keep it on with calls and faxes.

They don't pay much attention to those that live outside their voting area, but letters and calls from the home team get their attention. They must be made to understand that their time in D.C. will be short lived if they don't back Bush on the economy.

[finnman69]

W is not his father. Plus, I think Karl Rove is light years ahead of James Carville in terms of planning political strategy and campaigns.

[roses of sharon]

OK...so the right refuses to vote for Bush on taxes and guns.

And...A Dem who will raise taxes, and ban all guns wins!

Makes sense to me.

[finnman69]

Meanwhile you have RAT candidates like howard Dean saying things like this....(from Drudge)

Dean: 'We Don't Know' If Iraqi People Are Better Off Without Saddam
Thu Apr 24 2003 10:09:22 ET

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean was asked on CNN Wednesday if he feels differently about the war now that it has ended.

Dean said, "Not really. I don't think anybody could reasonably suspect we weren't going to win. The problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road.

"The hardest part is still ahead of us, and I think the events that we were watching on CNN showed that. The Shi'a in the south would like in some cases fundamentalist religious state or province, that would be much worse than Saddam Hussein in terms of a threat to the United States it would allow al Qaeda to move in.

"We seen chaos in Baghdad with the proclamation of somebody claims he's the mayor. And this is going to go on and on. So we've really got to now build a Democratic society."

Asked if the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under Saddam, Dean said, "We don't know that yet. We don't know that yet, Wolf. We still have a country whose city is mostly without electricity. We have tumultuous occasions in the south where there is no clear governance. We have a major city without clear governance."

END

[gulfcoast6]

Grassley needs to be told this for sure. He is the problem.

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have a major city without clear governance

Yeah, at least Saddam made the trains run on time.

[myself6]

Of course his poll numbers are going to go down. The media will see that they do. Anyone remember the poll numbers during Reagan's elections?

[ohioWfan]

You seriously think anyone on the Bush team is asleep??

[ohioWfan]

I think Reagan's approval numbers were around 56% when he won the huge landslide victory of 1984.

The media and those on the extreme right (some around FR?) might like to think that 2004 will be a repeat of 1992, but it won't. We're dealing with different circumstances, and different players.

[Happy2BMe]

"You seriously think anyone on the Bush team is asleep??"

The immediate Bush Team - no.

The average voter - almost. A deep sleep will set in shortly. People want to forget about the war, forget about 9/11, and go back to "life as usual."

That will be the DNC's best hope for 2004 - "Life as Usual."

Pie in the sky, free medicine, free college, wide-open immigration, pandering minorities will be among the usual Democratic come-on mass-hypnotic lies.

They have worked for the past hundred years or so - habits are a hard thing to break.

[LS]

How about this "assumption?" 9/11.

I you don't understand the difference this makes between 2004 and 1992 (and the Dems SURE don't), then you understand nothing of American politics.

And for a pollster to say that a guy won't stay at 70% approval? DUH! Guess what? Political landslides are based on 55% election victories. Anything over 60% is miraculous.

I think Reagan won in 1984 with about 56%.