Posted on 08/07/2003 7:25:55 PM PDT by DrDeb
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:41:02 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
The big question is.....who is 'WE?'
You and Pat Buchanen......you and Harry Browne......or you and your alter ego?
George W. Bush is going to win the election in 2004.......whether 'WE' approve of him or not.....
The democrats think most Americans are stupid and don't pay attention, but they are wrong. Americans appreciate a strong leader and that's just what George W. Bush is.
Consider the fact that Reagan had a 58 percent approval rating when he won 49 states in 1984. Do you think Reagan would have won all fifty states if he had had an approval rating above 60?
What 60 percent approval means is a huge Bush win in 2004. Fifty one percent approval means victory. Anything over 55 is landslide. Over 60 is ... best in history.
If you go back to 2000 you will find the Democrats voted for Gore and the Republicans voted for Bush. The independents split down the middle. With those who vote for the most lockable candidate voting for Bush and the those who were voting to continue the good times they had under Clinton voting for Gore.
What we have now is Bush has almost 3/4 of the center and the remaining 1/4 of the center is undecided. The Democrats are left with only Democrats supporting a Democrat for president.
YOu will recall in 1984 Reagan had no coattails. He carried 49 states but the Democrats won a majority of the house seats. The Democrats had the house seats Gerrymandered in enough states to win the house when they should have lost it. But even with the Gerrymandering the Republicans should have won the house with a 49 state presidential win.
The Republicans have the house seats Gerrymandered and their is no way the Democrats can take the house in 2004. It will soon be a decade since the Democrats have had a majority in the house. It looks like the Republicans will hold the house until at least 2012. It may very well be an 18 year stretch of unbroken Republican control.
The Republicans may pick up at least 4 more seats in the senate. If the economy is booming next year it may be six seats. As the Democrats continue to lose Senate seats rebellion among the ranks will break out.
What we will see in 2004 that we did not see in 1984 is a President really trying to win a big victory in the Senate and House. Reagan in his third year had a 44 percent approval rating. There was a lot of concern that he would be just a one term president. Presidents with a 44 percent approval rating rarely get reelected. You may recall that there were fears of a Reagan defeat in 1983. The Democrats and the media smelled blood.
No political observer thinks Dubya will lose in 2004. With 60 percent approval instead of 44 percent, he can devote time to helping Republican candidates win. Reagan had to spend the last year getting from 44 to the mid 50s needed to insure a win. Bush does not need to do that. He is there. He has the time and the money to make some coattails.... just like he did in 2002.
Plus Bush will have way more money than he needs for 2004. He is very likely going to fund a lot of Republican races. Dubya is going to raise the money to win senate races. That has a big advantage for Dubya. When someone gets elected on Dubya's nickel they will find it hard to tell him NO when he asks for their vote.
The media is trying to play attack dubya. But dubya has a supportive base. He has two thirds of the center. There is just not much of a way they can take him down. The Democrats hate George Bush. You see they had supported Bill Clinton and saved his presidency.
Don't you think Democrats know that had they convicted Bill Clinton in the senate and as a result made Gore President in 1998, Gore would have defeated Bush in 2000? Think of Gore with all the powers of the presidency in his hands during the 2000 election. He could have bought Florida and Ohio too as well as several ohers...
Clinton stayed popular during the impeachment hearings and trial. The Democrats felt they could save Clinton and elect Gore in 2000. But they did not. In his last year Clinton had approval ratings as good as Reagan did in his last year. Gore should have won as easily in 2000 as Bush Sr did in 1988. But Bush won the likability vote and that was all it took.
The Democrats fought to get two more years of Clinton/ It resulted in 8 years of Dubya. Yet there are people here on Free Republic who would have gladly have gotten rid of clinton for 2 years even at the cost of 10 years of Gore.
Reagan got less then 51 percent of the vote in 1980. He got 58 percent in 1984. Bush will do better than Reagan did and that is what has the Democrats really angry at Dubya.
Assuming they have the same dating format, you are right. I misread that to mean August first too.
I'm kinda wondering which forma of approval they are referring to. For Clinton, since he was polling so badly, they split the job approval and personal approval ratings. If they did not give people the hance to disapprove of him personally earlier in the questioning, then his job approval rating dove by about 15%. His personal approval rating was always in the 20 and 30s.
Bush, on the other hand, has always had higher personal approval ratings than job approval ratings...but I haven't heard them stated seperately recently. I wonder what the polling "standard" is now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.