The President’s Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared

Varied Internet sources, via Google ^ | 9/25/03 | Coop

[Coop]

Why?

-We’re engaged in a long-term war against an enigmatic enemy, with no end in sight

-American military members are suffering and dying at the hands of terrorists on foreign soil

-The media makes a concerted effort to only portray the President in a negative light

-The President’s job approval numbers are well under 60%, with just over a year left until the election

-The President scores well under 50% on polls asking if he should be re-elected

-The economy is struggling to emerge from a recent recession

-Defense spending is way up

-Budget deficits are a serious concern

-National unemployment is over 6%

-The Democrats have assembled a formidable, diverse group of contenders that criticize the President constantly, including one quote: "If [our soldiers] were sent there to fight, they are too few. If they were sent there to die, they are too many."

[SONbrad]

Wow! member since September 18th, 2003! Wonder what YOU are doing here?

Nice try disrupter. Now begone!

[general_re]

What?

Allow me to translate, m'lady - that poster is thoughtfully alerting the forum to the fact that he/she is a total a**hole.

[apillar]

-We’re engaged in a long-term war against an enigmatic enemy, with no end in sight.

I don't think anyone disputes that, President Bush himself said it after the september 11th attacks. But, whats the alternative? Sit back and wait for the next group of terrorists to kill a few thousand people... Or maybe president Dean could have the Department of Peace have a nice long talk with the terrorists so we can understand why they are so angry...

-American military members are suffering and dying at the hands of terrorists on foreign soil.

Unfortunately true... the reason? See above...

-The media makes a concerted effort to only portray the President in a negative light.

Yes, but they have been doing that since Reagan... At least now we have Fox News and Conservative talk radio.

-The President’s job approval numbers are well under 60%, with just over a year left until the election.

So were President Reagan's and Bill Clinton's for that matter, and Bush 41's Numbers were well above 60%. The point is that poll numbers don't mean a darn thing a year from an election.

-The President scores well under 50% on polls asking if he should be re-elected

Answer same as previous question....

-The economy is struggling to emerge from a recent recession.

Actually the economy has recovered quite well, with growth projected to be 3-4% for the year... And the stock market up nearly 20% from the beginning of the year...

-Defense spending is way up

You'll have that when your at war...

-Budget deficits are a serious concern

Budget deficits are only a serious concern if are large in comparison to the overall budget. The current deficits are about 5% which is what they were in the early 1990's. That being said fiscal reponsibility should be a priority over the next few years. I.E. No new big goverment programs

-National unemployment is over 6%

The only weak spot in the current economic recovery, most economists don't see this being an issue as hiring will eventually catch up with other economic indicators -- well before the next election.

-The Democrats have assembled a formidable, diverse group of contenders that criticize the President constantly, including one quote: "If [our soldiers] were sent there to fight, they are too few. If they were sent there to die, they are too many."

HA!!! HA!!! If you say so....

[Pest]

Actually, Hannity talked about this on his show yesterday. Clinton had lower approval ratings, Reagan had lower, Nixon had about the same, and Bush 1 had higher. Look at who was re-elected. All but Bush 1.

I actually see it as a good sign.

[dogbyte12]

He has alienated me, but I will still vote for him. I think the president is going to end up pissing off both conservatives and liberals. My fear is that liberals will vote in droves to defeat him, and conservative turn out will be lower.

Democrats are going to push for things that will piss the base off. Medicare bill, and assault weapons ban. The President said he will sign both. The weapons bill is a non loser for the dems. The raving liberals will not care if he signs it, even if they agree with it, and hard core 2nd amendment supporters will be disgusted.

There are alot of single issue people here. There are the open borders crowd. The President went out of his way to insult Tom Cancredo, (R) colorado, for being opposed to open borders. Tom might take his ball and go home if the White House bashes him some more. Supporters of his might follow.

The economy is iffy. Unemployment is still lagging the recession, durable goods just took a hit today, indicating people are slowing down on spending on high ticket items.

However, never question a democrat's ability to snatch defeat from victory. They could toss a hardcore basketcase liberal against Bush and he would mop the floor with him.

My genuine belief is that there will be a replay of election 2000. It will be extremely tight. 49 to 49 with 2% going to third parties. Whoever wins will end up pissing off half the nation.

[cincinnati65]

One of my all-time favorite Dennis Miller lines: "Hey, that's only 3 more than I got, and I didn't even run."

[ravingnutter]

FYI, the troll can't answer you back...from his profile...

This account has been banned or suspended.

[ravingnutter]

FYI, the troll can't answer you back...from his profile...

This account has been banned or suspended.

I suspect the comment will disappear real soon.

[Coop]

Not only you insist on stupidity, but you are also becoming presumptuous.

Stop posting excrements of your "thought" process. That would be a terrific start.

:-D

Well, since I'm being "presumptuous," it's rather easy to presume that you showed up on this thread expecting to dance gleefully over Bush's struggle, and you're now PO'd that I tricked you. ROTFLMAO!

[Coop]

While I agree with your two points, I do not think it's possible to say that Bush is in a more precarious position. That will only come with hindsight, which was really the entire point of this thread. :-)

[SONbrad]

Wow! I didn't realize that when I said "begone" to him that it would really work! Awesome!

[krb]

It was 525 to 13. Mondale got Minnesota (barely) and DC.

[Mr. Silverback]

1. It's hard to understand the point you are making.

His point is that all of the things on his list could be said about Ronald Reagan in 1983, and Reagan won in the biggest landslide in electoral college history. These things can also be said about GWB today.

Citing unnamed Google.com sources is a rather low standard.

Why hold him to a higher standard than a professional newspaper columnist or editorial board? How often do you see footnotes in the op ed pieces of the WSJ? Heck, some of these facts he cites are so widely known that you probably wouldn't have to footnote them in an academic paper. In fact, I was only 12 in 1983 and I remembered all but one of them first-hand. So why be anal about it?

[Coop]

Based on your lengthy response, I'm guessing you never read my comment below the thread? :-)

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

There are two key points that put President Bush's re-election hopes in a more precarious position than President Reagan's.

Don't forget the obvious 3rd point: Reagan was a communicator par excellence that spoke directly to the Republican base. GWB spends his time slapping the base with the Rove strategy of pandering to the Illegal alien vote and ranting about "Islam is a religion of peace". Had the Gipper been in office during 9/11, Saudia Arabia would be territory of the USA, and the their oil revenues would be flowing into the US treasury as reparations.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

;)

As I read your initial post, I knew where you were heading. But, I pay attention!

[Mo1]

FYI, the troll can't answer you back...from his profile...

I'm shocked .. NOT

They seems to be coming out of the woodwork these days

[1Old Pro]

related: Wall St Journal Poll Results (Bush Continues to Crush 3 Leadiong Democrats)

[Orbiting_Rosie's_Head]

His point is that all of the things on his list could be said about Ronald Reagan in 1983, and Reagan won in the biggest landslide in electoral college history

GWB is no Reagan. Reagan spoke to the conservative base. GWB is Big Government and PC shakedowns of little old American white ladies at the airport.

[Coop]

So why be anal about it?

Because our friend TQ was most likely expecting something entirely different on this thread (sneaky, aren't I?), and then rather than address issues TQ chose to rather weakly try to dismiss the entire thread as irrelevant. Gosh, where have I seen that approach before. :-)