Skip to comments.
The President’s Re-election Prospects Have Nearly Disappeared
Varied Internet sources, via Google ^
| 9/25/03
| Coop
Posted on 09/25/2003 6:59:03 AM PDT by Coop
Why?
-Were 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 Presidents 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."
TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: president; reelection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-167 next last
To: dalebert
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.
61
posted on
09/25/2003 8:27:22 AM PDT
by
ASA Vet
(1st Vietnam KIA: ASA Sp/4 James T. Davis)
To: TopQuark
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.
62
posted on
09/25/2003 8:31:10 AM PDT
by
Coop
(God bless our troops!)
To: Coop
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)
63
posted on
09/25/2003 9:07:33 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: Arrowhead1952
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 intentThis 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
To: BlackRazor
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.)
65
posted on
09/25/2003 9:13:19 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: dogbyte12
"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.)
66
posted on
09/25/2003 9:22:31 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head
"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.
67
posted on
09/25/2003 9:26:39 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: Coop
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.
68
posted on
09/25/2003 9:28:57 AM PDT
by
F.J. Mitchell
(Where will refugees find sanctuary, when the one world government dream, turns nightmare?)
To: jmaroneps37
"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.
69
posted on
09/25/2003 9:31:26 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: Arrowhead1952
Bush leads by 8 - 10 points?
How does this jibe with the poll that was Bush 48% Clark 49%????
70
posted on
09/25/2003 9:32:43 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: NEWwoman
if Bush is really doing that badly, you can bet Hillary would be overtly in the race. Good point!
71
posted on
09/25/2003 9:33:43 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: NYC Republican
Read the thread I reference here. Totally different numbers.
Posted on 09/25/2003 9:00 AM PDT by areafiftyone
72
posted on
09/25/2003 9:33:48 AM PDT
by
Arrowhead1952
(I am ashamed the dixie chicks are from Texas!)
To: Coop
Gosh, where have I seen that approach before. :-) Heh-heh!
73
posted on
09/25/2003 9:36:04 AM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(You want freedom fries with that?)
To: KC_for_Freedom
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.
74
posted on
09/25/2003 9:39:51 AM PDT
by
WOSG
(DONT PUT CALI ON CRUZ CONTROL)
To: WOSG
"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
To: Arrowhead1952
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.
To: Orbiting_Rosie's_Head; Coop
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.
77
posted on
09/25/2003 9:47:08 AM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(You want freedom fries with that?)
To: Coop
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity
78
posted on
09/25/2003 9:53:36 AM PDT
by
BSunday
To: NYC Republican
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.
79
posted on
09/25/2003 9:58:06 AM PDT
by
Arrowhead1952
(I am ashamed the dixie chicks are from Texas!)
To: Coop
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.
80
posted on
09/25/2003 10:15:09 AM PDT
by
Publius6961
(californians are as dumb as a sack of rocks.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100 ... 161-167 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson