G.W. Bush, aka The Loser

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
http://www.msnbc.com/news/956458.asp?0cv=CB20



Wording aside (re-selected, not re-elected),



Quote:

Against this backdrop, President George W. Bush?s approval ratings continue to decline. His current approval rating of 53 percent is down 18 percent from April. And for the first time since the question was initially asked last fall, more registered voters say they would not like to see him re-elected to another term as president (49 percent) than re-elected. Forty-four percent would favor giving Bush a second term; in April, 52 percent backed Bush for a second term and 38 percent did not.



With a margin or +/- 3%, Bush is trailing without a doubt. Keep in mind that all polls of registered voters tend to lean towards conservatives because many liberals tend to register in get-out-the-vote drives just before the election (Gore won the popular vote in 2000 even though he was trailing in the polls by 2-3%).



This bombshell for Bush comes four days after the LA Times poll calling Gray Davis' recall into question with results showing only 50% supporting the recall when greater than 50% of the vote is required to recall him.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 60
    edit: never mind.
  • Reply 2 of 60
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,676member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/956458.asp?0cv=CB20



    Wording aside (re-selected, not re-elected),







    With a margin or +/- 3%, Bush is trailing without a doubt. Keep in mind that all polls of registered voters tend to lean towards conservatives because many liberals tend to register in get-out-the-vote drives just before the election (Gore won the popular vote in 2000 even though he was trailing in the polls by 2-3%).



    This bombshell for Bush comes four days after the LA Times poll calling Gray Davis' recall into question with results showing only 50% supporting the recall when greater than 50% of the vote is required to recall him.




    You are a real piece of work my friend. Your thread title should read "G. W. Bush: Luckiest Man Alive". As in "lucky the election isn't this year".



    And that's the whole point. A LOT can happen in the 15 months until Election 2004. The Democrats would love for this to be 1992 all over again (and it might of the election were this year), but that's not going to happen. Keep dreaming, though.
  • Reply 3 of 60
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You are a real piece of work my friend. Your thread title should read "G. W. Bush: Luckiest Man Alive". As in "lucky the election isn't this year".



    And that's the whole point. A LOT can happen in the 15 months until Election 2004. The Democrats would love for this to be 1992 all over again (and it might of the election were this year), but that's not going to happen. Keep dreaming, though.




    Yes, I'm sure we will be invading Syria right before the election and how can we have regime change here while in the process of changing regimes elsewhere?



    Of course, calling someone a real piece of work is SOOOOOO following posting guidelines and it's SOOOOOOOO not insulting.
  • Reply 4 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You are a real piece of work my friend. Your thread title should read "G. W. Bush: Luckiest Man Alive". As in "lucky the election isn't this year".





    This is certainly true.



    He became President even though he polled 56,000 fewer votes than Al Gore.
  • Reply 5 of 60
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    You are a real piece of work my friend.



    I'm surprised you still post here SDW. I'd put you on ignore except that is so fun watching you make an ass of yourself over and over and over and over again. Carry on...go on being a jerk.
  • Reply 6 of 60
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah

    This is certainly true.



    He became President even though he polled 56,000 fewer votes than Al Gore.




    Is this really a college paper?



    Whatever. A middle road solution to the problem I have never heard of could be this:



    The members of the Electoral College should be elected directly and not in the "winner takes it all" way. They should tell how they would vote in different situations in say 100 word that everybody could read in the booth. It should be legally binding for them to vote as they have described. One could say "first choice is the Green party, then democrats aso.", another "first republican, then communists aso."



    Then the Electoral College should first vote for all the presidential candidates and one by one be removed from the list untill one gets more than 50%.



    Not perfect but would combine the Electoral College system with a hint of parliamentarism.



    What would be wrong with this model?
  • Reply 7 of 60
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    The problem with the electoral college is that your vote does not decide who gets to be president. You are not directly voting some one (odd kind of democracy) in.



    I'd go for single transferable vote, which gets round the plurality / majority thing: you get to vote for everyone on the list in order of preference. If someone gets more then 50% of the vote, he's in. If no-one's got 50%, then everyone's second vote gets added on until someone's got more then 50%.
  • Reply 8 of 60
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Good news I guess. But: First, polls with a specific individual against an unnamed challenger are virtually meaningless. Second, polls will have virtually 0 predictive validity for about another year.



    As an aside: Bush's approval ratings were in the low 50s in the first 9 months of his presidency. Then, the day after several thousand Americans were killed on 9/11, his poll numbers shot up to the 80s.





    Now they're back in the low 50s again.
  • Reply 9 of 60
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    The problem with the electoral college is that your vote does not decide who gets to be president. You are not directly voting some one (odd kind of democracy) in.



    I'd go for single transferable vote, which gets round the plurality / majority thing: you get to vote for everyone on the list in order of preference. If someone gets more then 50% of the vote, he's in. If no-one's got 50%, then everyone's second vote gets added on until someone's got more then 50%.




    I agree. But the locals on the land under the setting sun seems to be rather fond of not being able to decide directly for themselves. And the proposed model would do the same as yours without confusing the locals with multiple boxes needed to be checked.
  • Reply 10 of 60
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    The problem with the electoral college is that your vote does not decide who gets to be president. You are not directly voting some one (odd kind of democracy) in.



    I'd go for single transferable vote, which gets round the plurality / majority thing: you get to vote for everyone on the list in order of preference. If someone gets more then 50% of the vote, he's in. If no-one's got 50%, then everyone's second vote gets added on until someone's got more then 50%.




    The electoral college does two things. One it attempts to give more of a mandate to the winner. (We don't like wimpy prime ministers who have coalitions fall apart and suddenly the government is in crisis and elections have to be called.)



    The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.



    The issue with the Bush vs. Gore election has happened before. What had never happened before is Gore dragging it out like he did with "selective" recounts and "selective" petitioning of getting certain votes tossed out. The Supreme Court ruled that if Gore had requested hand recounts in all counties, and it had been done with a uniform rules, all would have been fine. Instead he only petitioned for three counties and we had the "dimpled vs. hanging chad" debate.



    Nick
  • Reply 11 of 60
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The electoral college does two things. One it attempts to give more of a mandate to the winner. (We don't like wimpy prime ministers who have coalitions fall apart and suddenly the government is in crisis and elections have to be called.)



    So you rather have the wrong candidate win big time than the right win with a smaller margin? Hmm...



    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    The second thing is it balances the big states against the smaller states. I'm sure the folks in Idaho wouldn't appreciate it when California via there large population and majority voted to make Idaho a gigantic landfill. Our system of checks and balances always places some sort of hedge on the tyranny of the majority.



    This argument doesn´t hold up in the courts of reason. For every example you can give I would be able to give an example that goes the other way.



    A candidate could simply ignore states that was a lost cause and only swing states would get the attention. What would you do as an democrat candidate if you saw this?



  • Reply 12 of 60
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    The electoral college is the stupidest thing ever invented. I'm serious. I voted in 2000 in Georgia. A state that I knew without a doubt Bush would win handily. My vote for Gore would have been meaningless because the electors would give all of their votes to Bush.



    Instead I did the only thing that I could have done to make a difference: I voted for Nader. Not that I thought he would be a good president, but I was hoping he would get 5% of the popular vote so the Greens would be entitled to some campaign money in 2004. :/



    Back on topic, this poll result has got to be disturbing to Bush. Good. Maybe next time, he'll listen to the people.
  • Reply 13 of 60
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Anders

    I agree. But the locals on the land under the setting sun seems to be rather fond of not being able to decide directly for themselves. And the proposed model would do the same as yours without confusing the locals with multiple boxes needed to be checked.



    Once you, Harald, and the rest of Yurrup get it figured out for us, you let us know.
  • Reply 14 of 60
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    I am from a small, very small state. Vermont. I go to URI. And with this in mind I say the electoral college must end. It was to give smaller states more say. But why should they get more say? Sure they are usually right and the bigger states like *puke* Texas are always wrong and ruled by companies, but it still doesn't make sense. Most Americans don't even know it exists or how it works. Ask a regular Joe on the street he won't even know what it is. It must go. It should be replaced by majority rule..or...even better! What Europe does. If 20% of the people in a European country vote for the Green Party then damnit 20% of Congress is Green Party. That makes sense!
  • Reply 15 of 60
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Harald

    The problem with the electoral college is that your vote does not decide who gets to be president. You are not directly voting some one (odd kind of democracy) in.



    I'd go for single transferable vote, which gets round the plurality / majority thing: you get to vote for everyone on the list in order of preference. If someone gets more then 50% of the vote, he's in. If no-one's got 50%, then everyone's second vote gets added on until someone's got more then 50%.




    The problem isn't the electoral college but the way the congressional districts are cut up to give the election to one party or another. EC member always vote the way they are "supposed" to.
  • Reply 16 of 60
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Yeah they loved him when he was here up in Portland last week. I haven't seen anti presidential visit demonstrations like this since the 60's! I heard someone was sending Bush a bill for the damage done by the demonstrators.



    I don't think this is going to get better as we get closer to election time in 2004 ( about 5 months until the fun starts ). I don't think Bush can pull another war out of his hat by then.
  • Reply 17 of 60
    alexisalexis Posts: 82member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by torifile

    Back on topic, this poll result has got to be disturbing to Bush. Good. Maybe next time, he'll listen to the people.



    And what exactly did the people say that he should have listened to?



    --Alexis
  • Reply 18 of 60
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Alexis

    And what exactly did the people say that he should have listened to?



    --Alexis






    It's not so much any one thing. Fix our broken economy that's been that way since you took office. Don't fight unnecessary wars. Be honest with us. Work for us ( us meaning the majority not the elite small percent of rich people ) not yourself. You know the drill.
  • Reply 19 of 60
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Yeah they loved him when he was here up in Portland last week. I haven't seen anti presidential visit demonstrations like this since the 60's! I heard someone was sending Bush a bill for the damage done by the demonstrators.



    I don't think this is going to get better as we get closer to election time in 2004 ( about 5 months until the fun starts ). I don't think Bush can pull another war out of his hat by then.




    No, he has to pull Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein out his ass by then...and I guarantee...that's where they're hiding.



    The reason his pop polls spiked after 9|11 was all a public's emotional grip onto a leader after a major crisis. "OH! Please help us GW! GET them bastards!"



    Well, seems many are seeing the light...or the dark tunnel ahead.



    What a country...we used to be...
  • Reply 20 of 60
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,676member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    It's not so much any one thing. Fix our broken economy that's been that way since you took office. Don't fight unnecessary wars. Be honest with us. Work for us ( us meaning the majority not the elite small percent of rich people ) not yourself. You know the drill.



    Hold on folks, jimmac has his manual out again.
Sign In or Register to comment.