The President’s Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared

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

[ASA Vet]

Just what pubbie president had to deal with world war III and a Democrat party
that would rather see the country go down in flames than support the USA?
Dems are fighting hard to make us reach 3rd world nation status.

Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush.

[Coop]

I don't hold discussions with immature children and paranoid adults, and you belong to one of these categories.

You don't hold discussions period. You're a rather petty, shallow coward. But thank you for stopping by the thread. I hope you find something more to your liking on another. Perhaps a visit to DU will cheer you up.

[WOSG]

Latest poll 9/30/1983

John Glenn 54%
Ronald Reagan 40%

Conclusion: Reagan is a one-termer!!!

(oops not so - Reagan swept and Mondale won only DC and his home state)

[NYC Republican]

Bush 48% Dean 35% Bush 52% Lieberman 35% Bush 45% Clark 38% Every pollster asks different questions and the people answering may may not express their actual intent

This is the same exact poll that the media is parading around- you know, the one where Bush is at 49% approval?

Oh, I forgot... They didn't even allude to the head-to-head matchups... This wasn't worthy of even a mention

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

[WOSG]

Right... it's about the dynamic -

Bush needs to show the economy is going in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
- Lower unemployment and big growth numbers for the next 12 months is key.

He needs to show that national security and war on terror is going in the RIGHT DIRECTION.
- Winning in Iraq and shutting down Al Qaeda also key.

It's that simple. IMHO, he will win by about 8 points since he is doing the right things in both areas and can make the case on both. Likely the Dems will try to hang WMDs and cost of Iraq on him, and drag out job losses etc. If Bush can get good economic #s to get over 50% on that issue, IMHO he will be unbeatable, since there is no way America will trust Democrats over Bush on the war on terror issue.
(Recall Clinton's "it's the economy stupid" - that was a way for CLinton to avoid making the 1992 about national security which Bush would have won in a landslide.)

[WOSG]

"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."

Nah... GOP beat Dems in 2002 by about 3-4% in an off-year when the president usually loses not gains. And since then the Dimcrats have acted only more and more irresponsible.
Party affiliation polls have trended Republican.

If the economy is so-so/fair, Bush can and should still win, with maybe 4-8% margin.

A blowout for Bush if the economy picks up big and/or the Democrats prove wobbly on war on terror (eg Dean).

Only hope for Democrats imho is a double-dip or large setback to Bush of some sort. (WMDs not found is an embarrassment that Dems will try to spin into scandal, imho it wont take since we had plenty of other good reasons to go after Iraq and the WMD programs were active even if WMD stocks were not found.)

[WOSG]

"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."

Let's not get carried away here... in 1983 we sent troops to Lebanon to "protect" a peace (that was no real peace) -over 200 were killed in one bombing attack. We skeedaddled out of there.

That was Reagan.

In response to 9/11, G W Bush has managed to TAKE OVER TWO COUNTRIES and our military casualties overall have been on par with that single 1983 bombing attack.

I'd take GWB's mideast approach over Reagan's any day.

[F.J. Mitchell]

We definately sent our troops there to fight, with as few dying as is possible.

The ten brains of those ten democrat candidates, is almost equal to one fully functional brain, so it is to be expected that between the ten of them an occassional semi rational suggestion is thrown out. Take that statement that we have sent too few if we sent them to fight, that is true of course. No war should be initiated against a country unless we send enough troops that they can go one on one with every man, woman and child in the country. THat would cure our unemployement problem in a hurry too.

THe only down side is that when they return from war, illegal aliens will have taken their civilian jobs.

[WOSG]

"5) Money money money. You will see stories from now on about rat plans to spend zillions to beat W win back the Senate and win back the House. Ha ha ha ha ha, when the dust clears after next Nov. the rats will be saying the same things that they have been saying for ten years " we need to do a better job of getting our message out and; "I pledge to you that the fight for Congress 2006 starts here and now!!!" Lots of crying and cheering rats will then leave their counting rooms and go home, tails between their legs."

That reminds me .... we forget that Clinton won in 1996 on soft money ... soft money has been the lifeblood of the Clinton spin machine.

Well, the Democrats cut their own throats with Campaign Finance reform bill. They cut off their own air supply and now have only the media to make their case, while the GOP has a hardmoney edge.

Bush is raising a lot of money - I suspect he will have some advantages on that score and it will make a difference.

[WOSG]

Bush leads by 8 - 10 points?

How does this jibe with the poll that was Bush 48% Clark 49%????

[WOSG]

if Bush is really doing that badly, you can bet Hillary would be overtly in the race.

Good point!

[Arrowhead1952]

Read the thread I reference here. Totally different numbers.

Posted on 09/25/2003 9:00 AM PDT by areafiftyone

[Mr. Silverback]

Gosh, where have I seen that approach before. :-)

Heh-heh!

[WOSG]

I agree on all points except the chemical weapons. the lack of even a single cannister somewhere suggests saddam scrubbed his country clean, either exporting,burying or destroying what he had... time will tell, but it is by no means likely that stuff will be on CNN.

I do agree that the left "shot their wad" this past few months hoping to get ahead of a 'derailed victory in Iraq'. They were hoping for bush to wobble and/or things to go wrong. Its not happening but we need to watch out for setbacks.

[petercooper]

"Bush 48% Clark 49%"

this poll is totally bogus. it was adults only - not likely voters, and it consisted of 48% dims meaning 52% were reps and indys. this skews toward dims. what do you expect form a cnn poll anyway

[NYC Republican]

That all depends on which poll you look at for numbers. Here is one that was posted today: Posted by NYC Republican On 09/25/2003 7:24 AM PDT Bush 48% Dean 35% Bush 52% Lieberman 35% Bush 45% Clark 38% Every pollster asks different questions and the people answering may may not express their actual intent.

These poll numbers are from the WSJ/NBC News poll published yesterday, the one that has Bush at 49%. Thanks for the Zogby poll #s. I can't wait to see the media hype that one up... Riiiiight.

[Mr. Silverback]

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.

First, I don't believe that Coop meant that Dubya is Ronaldus Magnus, I think he just meant that their pre-election situations are eerily similar. Coop, care to comment?

Secondly, let's remember what we're talking about here. If Reagan woke up tomorrow with his health back and twenty years younger, I'd vote for him over Dubya in a second. But what we've got before us now is not a choice between Reagn and Bush, we have a choice between Bush and a bunch of people who like big government even more than he does, love the baby-killing industry, and have absolutely zero clue how to handle the War on Terror. There is no doubt in my mind that if any of the current crop of Democrat candidates (or any of the buz candidates, like Biden or Hillary) serves as President during this war, it will cost us American lives, and they probably won't be soldier's lives, and it might just make 9/11 look like pattycake.

By all means, let's whine about Dubya until we have a nice fiscal conservative like Howard Dean in the Oval Office. That'll be good stuff.

[BSunday]

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity

[Arrowhead1952]

I can't wait to see the media hype that one up...

That will be a cold day in hell.... They could not bear to show these numbers. Think if Perky Colon would have to put that out on the morning show. She would BARF.

[Publius6961]

I doubt this seriously but, in any event, I know that this president will be remembered kindly, and his legacy will be one of resolve, honesty, integrity and honor.

A huge and refreshing change, and quite welcome.