[Coop]

If there had been a Free Republic back in late 1983, I have no doubt that at least one thread like this one would have popped up and subsequently been filled with handwringers and those itching to see the incumbent go down. Because these were the realities with which that particular President was dealing.

Does anyone recall how the President did in his 1984 re-election bid?

(And for those who are wondering, my enigmatic war comment was a reference to the Cold War. And unemployment back then was about 9%.)

[69ConvertibleFirebird]

Hmmm... Sounds like Reagan's first term. Maybe that's why he wasn't re-elected...

NOT!!!!!

[Blood of Tyrants]

1984. Hmmmm, I seem to remember that Ronald Reagan won by a total electoral college vote of 535 to 3.

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores.html#1984

[Don Carlos]

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

Doom and Gloom. Sigh!

BTW, anyone recall what BJC's approval numbers were at the same point in his first term?

[TopQuark]

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

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

[Coop]

Flag

[vin-one]

Hey, Coop, I actualy heard a guy on WMAL last night address the same things
the only President recently with good numbers at this point in the Presidency was Bush 1
and look what happened.

[BlackRazor]

Because these were the realities with which that particular President was dealing. Does anyone recall how the President did in his 1984 re-election bid?

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

1.) While Reagan's approval rating at this point in 1983 was at 48% (similar to Bush's in some recent polls), his rating had already been steadily rising for eight months. He had already hit his low in January, 1983 and was well into the ascent that culminated in a landslide re-election. By contrast, Bush is declining at the same point in time. We don't know whether he's bottomed out yet or not.

2.) I've done a lot of correlations between unemployment rates and re-election outcomes of presidents. I've found that the key component is the direction of the unemployment rate from the middle of the year before the election to the middle of the year of the election. Though unemployment was considerably higher during Reagan's first term compared to Bush's, the rate had dropped about 3 percentage points during the key time-frame I've cited. We'll just to wait and see how it will look for Bush next summer.

[Mo1]

Where did you find this info .. The DNC website?

[conservativecorner]

14 months out and folks are discounting the prospects for the re-election of Prez Bush. LOL! Way too early since he hasn't actually started campaigning yet and much can happen in 14 months.

[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....

[1Old Pro]

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

[jmaroneps37]

To anybody who says W will not kick huge ash next year, I say: 1) If the economy is so bad, why have the rats stopped crying about it? Answer its not that bad, the unemployment number will lose it's power because the a larger number of unemployed than ever before, are openng their own small businesses. Its called the kitchen table business index.
2) Why is lil wessie so "popular"? Because he represents security. W wins hands down on security. This country simply will not hand responsibility for our very survival to a rat. Period case closed. None of them can make a dent here.
3) By May 1, 2004 when we reach the one year anniversary of the end of fighting in Iraq, and I do mean the end of fighting, the one year report will be so filled with great, not good but; great news that not only will it put all of this horse shiite from the rats to rest but; it will severely and permenently damage the lemming's willingness to believe the rat media. When the lemmings get a chance to peek under the rug and see how much they have been lied to by the rat media, it will be very hard to get them to swallow their lies about the rat candidate and lies about W.
4) The crazies in the rat party are down a bit now but; they will be back. how-odd? dean has not lost a single supporter because he is the champion of the hate America, hate Bush movement. lil wessie is in the race because the clinocchios told him to get in to split the non crazy rat primary vote. This will give them what they want: how-odd wins the nod and loses 46 states, then the beast comes in to "save us all" in '08.
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.

[Arrowhead1952]

Taht 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.

[NEWwoman]

Does anyone recall how the President did in his 1984 re-election bid?

I recall President Reagan won in a landslide - 49 out of 50 states.

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

[johnny7]

No president has been defeated with a job approval above 50%.

It's early yet. The American electorate is dumber than its ever been. It took years before the Democrats and media turned sour on Vietnam. In Iraq they were against it from day one. Kennedy verbally spits on Bush and hardly anyone complains that it's baseless and reeks of sedition. While President Bush is totally deserving of re-election and will get the thinking mans vote in 2004, that alone does not mean he will win.

[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.

[Constitutional Patriot]

Hmmmm...Amazing how all this transpired over the past couple weeks....

I am sure that W's numbers are down a bit from the time he swept Saddam away, but I am also sure that a lot of these negative polls are the work of the left wing machine.

The left is desperate and it is becoming more obvious with every passing day.

[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)

[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.

[BSunday]

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity