Are you better off than you were two years ago?
You can bet Democrats will hammer this question down everyone's throats one year from now. This along with other factors will make Bush's bid for 2004 sucessful as likely as snow in Hawaii.
Some factors that voters will consider:
- The Economy
- Erosion of civil liberties by Ascroft (The terrorists "won")
- Deficits and useless tax cuts for the rich
- Trent Lott
- Corporate scandals such as Enron
- Wasteful and useless war with Iraq (still no WMD found!)
- Deals for Iraq related to Cheney
- Mediocre War on Terror
- No help for states when Bush's polices force down unfunded mandates
- Poor stance on the environment
Some of you will say that the economy was already in a downturn when Bush took office and it isn't his fault. I say it is his fault it's so bad today. His economic and tax policies don't work. He basically threw an anvil to a drowning economy instead of a lifesaver--he's made it worse, not better.
Some factors that voters will consider:
- The Economy
- Erosion of civil liberties by Ascroft (The terrorists "won")
- Deficits and useless tax cuts for the rich
- Trent Lott
- Corporate scandals such as Enron
- Wasteful and useless war with Iraq (still no WMD found!)
- Deals for Iraq related to Cheney
- Mediocre War on Terror
- No help for states when Bush's polices force down unfunded mandates
- Poor stance on the environment
Some of you will say that the economy was already in a downturn when Bush took office and it isn't his fault. I say it is his fault it's so bad today. His economic and tax policies don't work. He basically threw an anvil to a drowning economy instead of a lifesaver--he's made it worse, not better.
Comments
Bush will get reelected barring any stupid ...and I mean really stupid gaffes.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Bush will get reelected barring any stupid ...and I mean really stupid gaffes.
I don't think so. He and the people he associates himself with have made enough mistakes and draconian policies so that he won't win in 2004. His policies capitalize on fear.
I think the war on Iraq is an example of a pretty big and stupid gaffe as they still haven't found WMD. If we know all the suspected weapons sites, surely we'd have found something? The "more time" excuse won't work here--Bush wasn't willing to give the inspectors more time so why should we let him have more time?
BTW, he can't get reelected since he wasn't elected the first time around.
Originally posted by Existence
BTW, he can't get reelected since he wasn't elected the first time around.
Jesus, come off it. No wonder he'll win again in 2004. I don't like him, but come on do you think that saying that is going to at all effect his chances of winning?
BTW, he can't get reelected since he wasn't elected the first time around.
nothing like a party based entirely on whining about the past to lead a nation to the future.
in all seriousness, i would love to see legitimate competition from Democrats this time around. it makes both parties better if they actually have to try to win. this stupid crap isn't going to cut it. the entire Democratic party needs to get hit upside the head with a clue bat.
as a side note, why not have the poll consider the option "no"
just plain ordinary no.
oh wait, the Democratic party also moonlights as the "it's someone/something else's fault party.
Originally posted by alcimedes
oh wait, the Democratic party also moonlights as the "it's someone/something else's fault party.
Yeah, it's Saddam's fault Bush bombed all those civilians!
Talk about blind, deaf and dumb.
Originally posted by Argento
Jesus, come off it. No wonder he'll win again in 2004. I don't like him, but come on do you think that saying that is going to at all effect his chances of winning?
Never underestimate the truth. No Republican in a presidential race has recieved more votes than a Democrat since 1988.
This has been the case ever since the dot.com bust. The influx of $$$ from venture capitalists dried up. The dow, once at a high and mighty +1300, sank below 1000. Major corporations stopped spending $ on advertising. Small companies stopped spending $ on advertising. People stopped their rampant buying. The inventories were overstocked due to demand which suddenly plummeted. Inventories stagnated. New products, introduced to spark interest and buying sprees joined the unbought previous versions on the shelves. Greenspan lowered interest rates. Again. And again and again and again. Denial of recession. Again. And again. It hasn't gone away. We overhyped this economy and it's imperviousness and got fuct.
This happens all the time. It's a cycle. Soon enough we'll all be happy and 970s will be flying off the shelves. As will new cars and refrigerators and microwaves and then advertising in force will resume and risks will be taken once again and picnics will be had and new fortunes will be made, and I will finally get a f@#king advertising job and everyone will be happy and Bush will be out of office and we'll all be hard pressed to remember the "bad" days while we're enjoying so much prosperity, and we'll laugh about what a dumass Bush was, and how much we wished he let Tony Blair do all the talking in the days leading up to the "iraq conflict".
I agree that Bush is a total renob, and I also cringe whenever I hear him "speak". I will be relieved when he has been elected out of office, when there is a voice of reason reverberating from the oval office ( can we please get a phD, an MD, someone with an advanced degree and a real affection for this country and for causes and for the future and not someone so shortsigthted or so selfish or so violent or so intolerant or so horny - just someone who's really a lot smarter than the most of us who has a vision for the future of this country and for the world and can start heading us in the right direction? (insert Steve Jobs analogy here)
too much russian potato spirit
I would like someone with the brains and balls, who is NOT a politician and not a pervert, to lead this country into real prosperity.
Originally posted by son of Gib
...I really miss [Bill's] ability to shoot from the hip....
I just thought this could be read in more ways than one.
Talk about blind, deaf and dumb.
i would but you wouldn't be able to hear me.
Originally posted by tonton
Bush's lies and incompetence will certainly be called to attention during the debates. And he won't have very much defense short of Groverat's "Iraq is better off" straw-man. But is the economy better off? No. Is the budget better off? No. Will terrorirsm have been "nipped in the bud"? No. Is health care better off? No. Is the Education system better off? No. Are Social Security and invested retirement better off? No. Is anything better off besides Iraqi's freedom? This question will be asked.
Would you really expect Bush or any president of US to have improved YOUR living conditions where you are? Is economy better off in HK now than it was 2 years ago? + repeat all questions above concerning HK.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice unbiased, fair poll there.
Wait, am i / are we better off now than 2 years ago?
Why there is no "yes, thanks to what i have done", "no, thanks to personal problems or incapacities" etc?
All my being better or worse could be only "yes" "no thanks to saudi-arabian suicide pilots" "no thanks to bush" and "who cares". Yes, great, continue blaming the society ...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Nice unbiased, fair poll there.
Show me an unbiased poll.
Please do.
Most good pollsters realize that the wording used in a poll can get certain answers whereas contrary wording can get different answers. This idea is used to feel out how strongly those polled believe the answers they give or the reasons behind them...
Originally posted by alcimedes
i would but you wouldn't be able to hear me.
I am not an animal...I am a human being!
Originally posted by Existence
Never underestimate the truth. No Republican in a presidential race has recieved more votes than a Democrat since 1988.
Care to see how long it has been since a Democrat has actually had 50%+1 of the votes cast?
If having the "majority" of the votes made you president, then Clinton would have never been elected because he got 43% of the vote in 1992.
Isn't it amazing how the Democrats never complained about the majority of the vote then or the electoral college?
I suppose if we had a prime minister like many governments in Europe the Perot voters and Bush/Dole voters would have combined to... never let him get elected in the first place.
Get over it. If you don't like the system change it, until then make sure you declare 43% Clinton just as "illegitimate."
Oh, but keep up the criticism and living in the past because then your party will have no plans nor bold initiatives and will be.. wiped out in 2004.
Nick
Yes, for reasons not related to the issues of that thread.
1. yes
2. no
3. who cares
there you go. no bias. it's when you have a choice (yes) that's unbiased, then the only negative choices are biased that i have a problem with it.
It really proves how powerful the U.S. economy really has become.
Likewise if some of these folks considered that regardless of if their take home salary is better, they have more net worth in their homes and likely more affordability/money in pocket thanks to refinancing.
U.S. homeownership is at an ALL TIME HIGH.
Democrats need some issues. Health care might be a good place to start but they likely would muck it up worse. They should go after free trade/fair trade as a means of reducing the burden on the American people and possibly as a way of funding some infrastructure initiatives.
Nick