For the most part you're right. However, when you start pissing seniors off (huge voting population BTW) you start really heading down a troubled road. My mom and Dad hate the medicare reform because as my mom puts it "Why should my grand-babies pay for my medicine?" Both of my parents are retired senior citizens BTW. They both see the reform as pandering and don't like it. Also, seniors tend not to sway easily aas voters.
More and more people are becomind emboldened and voicing their disagreement with WH policies. Its hard to change those policies now and not look like panderers. The WH has held Kerry up as a flip-flopper. Well low and behold the WH flip-flops also. The WH tried to minimize Kerry's ability to defend this nation when out of left field McCain says "Hold on there frat-boy Dick, Kerry knows what to do to defend this country."
There is a long way to before we get to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but as political pressure builds I feel (my opinion hence the use of the personal pronoun) the nation will turn from the fearless leader and look elsewhere for guidance.
As has been pointed out the seniors are a huge voting block now that the baby boomers ( the largest part of the US population ) have joined their ranks. Pissing them off is not a good idea.
"What's good for Democrats is bad for America". Anyone?
jimmac, how about you post your opinion, rather than try to do so implicitly by posting just links. What's your argument? The economy's not improving? And btw: Why is it that you always link to CNN? Hmmm. I'm sure CNN would run a story about Kerry's flip-flops, and then only "mention" that "Kerry accuses Bush of flip flopping, but...". Riiiiiight.
For the most part you're right. However, when you start pissing seniors off (huge voting population BTW) you start really heading down a troubled road. My mom and Dad hate the medicare reform because as my mom puts it "Why should my grand-babies pay for my medicine?" Both of my parents are retired senior citizens BTW. They both see the reform as pandering and don't like it. Also, seniors tend not to sway easily aas voters.
More and more people are becomind emboldened and voicing their disagreement with WH policies. Its hard to change those policies now and not look like panderers. The WH has held Kerry up as a flip-flopper. Well low and behold the WH flip-flops also. The WH tried to minimize Kerry's ability to defend this nation when out of left field McCain says "Hold on there frat-boy Dick, Kerry knows what to do to defend this country."
There is a long way to before we get to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but as political pressure builds I feel (my opinion hence the use of the personal pronoun) the nation will turn from the fearless leader and look elsewhere for guidance.
Oh good...a personal anecdote and I'm convinced. Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush. From a purely political standpoint, it makes great sound bytes. As for your prediction, I wouldn't count on it.
Have you dropped your support for Bush? Ie, won't vote for him. If you haven't, what makes you different from other would be Bush-supporters?
Approval ratings are a second order indicator of voting trends. I'd think party loyalty is the number one thing. Witness the number of Republicans who had to hold their nose and vote for the Medicare bill. As today and in November, Republicans will hold their nose and support the President. It's better to do that than support and vote for Kerry, who in the end may be better for them.
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Party loyalty really isn't in question, is it? If anything, there are fewer undecided voters than in 2000 and prior elections. As far as what distinguishes me, I'm not really sure why you ask that. I support Bush for various reasons, but also disagree with him on other issues. That's really all there is to it.
"What's good for Democrats is bad for America". Anyone?
jimmac, how about you post your opinion, rather than try to do so implicitly by posting just links. What's your argument? The economy's not improving? And btw: Why is it that you always link to CNN? Hmmm. I'm sure CNN would run a story about Kerry's flip-flops, and then only "mention" that "Kerry accuses Bush of flip flopping, but...". Riiiiiight.
1. Because I don't think my opinion is the way everyone should think.
2. Because the facts on CNN should speak for themselves.
3. Because I have voiced my opinion in the past but you always gloss over or dismiss it.
You've really got to stop these " The news is a conspiracy against Bush " tactics. It's pathetic.
If the man can't stand up to the truth maybe he should get out ( hint, hint ).
1. Because I don't think my opinion is the way everyone should think.
2. Because the facts on CNN should speak for themselves.
3. Because I have voiced my opinion in the past but you always gloss over or dismiss it.
You've really got to stop these " The news is a conspiracy against Bush " tactics. It's pathetic.
If the man can't stand up to the truth maybe he should get out ( hint, hint ).
Jimmac:
Links should be used to SUPPORT arguments, not make them. As usual though, you won't take a position. It's the same debate with you EVERY time. I say the economy is in recovery, cite data to support my conclusion, and you respond by posting "uh-oh" and a link to a one day snapshot of the market with an editorial headline. If you can counter my claims, than I suggest you use some REAL data to do so.
I dismiss your opinion because it's usually nothing but rhetorical nonsense like "I've seen this before". As for the news media, the major TV outlets are extemely biased to the left (except for FNC, of course). It's irrefutable.
Oh good...a personal anecdote and I'm convinced. Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush. From a purely political standpoint, it makes great sound bytes. As for your prediction, I wouldn't count on it.
Wow, good retort. You put me in my place. I mean you addressed the issues that I raised in a well laid out, researched manner. You countered my arguments and assertions that older folks (notice my links from the page before) are disgruntled with Bush policies in a way that leaves me satisfied. Heck, thanks for the counter discussion and links to support your standpoint. I especially like how you say "Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush" yet you supply no backing for your claims while I took the time to dig up some Gallup polls (you can go to Harris or any other polster and find the same results) to back my assertions. Kudos.
I especially like how you honed in on the one miniscule detail while leaving the rest unaddressed.
Call me crazy, but I'd say your response is--dare I say it-- a troll.
Links should be used to SUPPORT arguments, not make them. As usual though, you won't take a position. It's the same debate with you EVERY time. I say the economy is in recovery, cite data to support my conclusion, and you respond by posting "uh-oh" and a link to a one day snapshot of the market with an editorial headline. If you can counter my claims, than I suggest you use some REAL data to do so.
I dismiss your opinion because it's usually nothing but rhetorical nonsense like "I've seen this before". As for the news media, the major TV outlets are extemely biased to the left (except for FNC, of course). It's irrefutable.
You know my position. Get real.
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
Wow, good retort. You put me in my place. I mean you addressed the issues that I raised in a well laid out, researched manner. You countered my arguments and assertions that older folks (notice my links from the page before) are disgruntled with Bush policies in a way that leaves me satisfied. Heck, thanks for the counter discussion and links to support your standpoint. I especially like how you say "Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush" yet you supply no backing for your claims while I took the time to dig up some Gallup polls (you can go to Harris or any other polster and find the same results) to back my assertions. Kudos.
I especially like how you honed in on the one miniscule detail while leaving the rest unaddressed.
Call me crazy, but I'd say your response is--dare I say it-- a troll.
The polls you linked to don't support your claims. As for me ignoring it initially, to be honest I didn't see your first post. But by all means, assume I'm so dumfounded that I had to ignore them. While your links do show significant opposition to the plan, the question is "Will seniors choose not to vote for Bush as a result?". That's not at all clear. I still say that overall it's going to be more of a help than a hinderance. The fact is, he got the bill passed. It's certainly not perfect, and honestly I'm not sure I support it. Either way, your data doesn't show huge opposition. If anything many of the numbers are pretty evenly split.
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
When we've talked about this before I have heard you use the term " surging ".
You know that things aren't back to normal at all. Also as I've said this has been on going since last year ( and it's April 1rst already no joke ).
Typical CNN. "Manufacturing grew, but...." As for unemployment, what is your point? 5.6% is low. You have no argument there. And, of course CNN tows the line by stating "there have 2.35 million jobs lost in the US since....". That's patently false. Say it with me: FALSE.
There are two million MORE jobs than there were when Bush took office. Period.
Should be interesting if Bush is brave enough to step up to the plate.
So if Bush doesn't want 6 debates, he's "not brave"? That will be your next statement. Bush more than proved himself in debate after he held his own with, then defeated Gore. I'd love to see him debate Kerry more than say, three times.
Comments
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
None of this means much right now.
For the most part you're right. However, when you start pissing seniors off (huge voting population BTW) you start really heading down a troubled road. My mom and Dad hate the medicare reform because as my mom puts it "Why should my grand-babies pay for my medicine?" Both of my parents are retired senior citizens BTW. They both see the reform as pandering and don't like it. Also, seniors tend not to sway easily aas voters.
More and more people are becomind emboldened and voicing their disagreement with WH policies. Its hard to change those policies now and not look like panderers. The WH has held Kerry up as a flip-flopper. Well low and behold the WH flip-flops also. The WH tried to minimize Kerry's ability to defend this nation when out of left field McCain says "Hold on there frat-boy Dick, Kerry knows what to do to defend this country."
There is a long way to before we get to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but as political pressure builds I feel (my opinion hence the use of the personal pronoun) the nation will turn from the fearless leader and look elsewhere for guidance.
NYT story on Fallujah Slaughter
There's also a very disturbing pictorial that goes along with it. Sick.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
edit: moogs fixed it.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
None of this means much right now.
As has been pointed out the seniors are a huge voting block now that the baby boomers ( the largest part of the US population ) have joined their ranks. Pissing them off is not a good idea.
Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, oh!
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/31/mark...york/index.htm
I really like this one......
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/....ap/index.html
"What's good for Democrats is bad for America". Anyone?
jimmac, how about you post your opinion, rather than try to do so implicitly by posting just links. What's your argument? The economy's not improving? And btw: Why is it that you always link to CNN? Hmmm. I'm sure CNN would run a story about Kerry's flip-flops, and then only "mention" that "Kerry accuses Bush of flip flopping, but...". Riiiiiight.
Originally posted by faust9
For the most part you're right. However, when you start pissing seniors off (huge voting population BTW) you start really heading down a troubled road. My mom and Dad hate the medicare reform because as my mom puts it "Why should my grand-babies pay for my medicine?" Both of my parents are retired senior citizens BTW. They both see the reform as pandering and don't like it. Also, seniors tend not to sway easily aas voters.
More and more people are becomind emboldened and voicing their disagreement with WH policies. Its hard to change those policies now and not look like panderers. The WH has held Kerry up as a flip-flopper. Well low and behold the WH flip-flops also. The WH tried to minimize Kerry's ability to defend this nation when out of left field McCain says "Hold on there frat-boy Dick, Kerry knows what to do to defend this country."
There is a long way to before we get to the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November but as political pressure builds I feel (my opinion hence the use of the personal pronoun) the nation will turn from the fearless leader and look elsewhere for guidance.
Oh good...a personal anecdote and I'm convinced. Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush. From a purely political standpoint, it makes great sound bytes. As for your prediction, I wouldn't count on it.
Originally posted by THT
Have you dropped your support for Bush? Ie, won't vote for him. If you haven't, what makes you different from other would be Bush-supporters?
Approval ratings are a second order indicator of voting trends. I'd think party loyalty is the number one thing. Witness the number of Republicans who had to hold their nose and vote for the Medicare bill. As today and in November, Republicans will hold their nose and support the President. It's better to do that than support and vote for Kerry, who in the end may be better for them.
I'm not really sure what you're saying. Party loyalty really isn't in question, is it? If anything, there are fewer undecided voters than in 2000 and prior elections. As far as what distinguishes me, I'm not really sure why you ask that. I support Bush for various reasons, but also disagree with him on other issues. That's really all there is to it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
"What's good for Democrats is bad for America". Anyone?
jimmac, how about you post your opinion, rather than try to do so implicitly by posting just links. What's your argument? The economy's not improving? And btw: Why is it that you always link to CNN? Hmmm. I'm sure CNN would run a story about Kerry's flip-flops, and then only "mention" that "Kerry accuses Bush of flip flopping, but...". Riiiiiight.
1. Because I don't think my opinion is the way everyone should think.
2. Because the facts on CNN should speak for themselves.
3. Because I have voiced my opinion in the past but you always gloss over or dismiss it.
You've really got to stop these " The news is a conspiracy against Bush " tactics. It's pathetic.
If the man can't stand up to the truth maybe he should get out ( hint, hint ).
Originally posted by jimmac
1. Because I don't think my opinion is the way everyone should think.
2. Because the facts on CNN should speak for themselves.
3. Because I have voiced my opinion in the past but you always gloss over or dismiss it.
You've really got to stop these " The news is a conspiracy against Bush " tactics. It's pathetic.
If the man can't stand up to the truth maybe he should get out ( hint, hint ).
Jimmac:
Links should be used to SUPPORT arguments, not make them. As usual though, you won't take a position. It's the same debate with you EVERY time. I say the economy is in recovery, cite data to support my conclusion, and you respond by posting "uh-oh" and a link to a one day snapshot of the market with an editorial headline. If you can counter my claims, than I suggest you use some REAL data to do so.
I dismiss your opinion because it's usually nothing but rhetorical nonsense like "I've seen this before". As for the news media, the major TV outlets are extemely biased to the left (except for FNC, of course). It's irrefutable.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh good...a personal anecdote and I'm convinced. Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush. From a purely political standpoint, it makes great sound bytes. As for your prediction, I wouldn't count on it.
Wow, good retort. You put me in my place. I mean you addressed the issues that I raised in a well laid out, researched manner. You countered my arguments and assertions that older folks (notice my links from the page before) are disgruntled with Bush policies in a way that leaves me satisfied. Heck, thanks for the counter discussion and links to support your standpoint. I especially like how you say "Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush" yet you supply no backing for your claims while I took the time to dig up some Gallup polls (you can go to Harris or any other polster and find the same results) to back my assertions. Kudos.
I especially like how you honed in on the one miniscule detail while leaving the rest unaddressed.
Call me crazy, but I'd say your response is--dare I say it-- a troll.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Jimmac:
Links should be used to SUPPORT arguments, not make them. As usual though, you won't take a position. It's the same debate with you EVERY time. I say the economy is in recovery, cite data to support my conclusion, and you respond by posting "uh-oh" and a link to a one day snapshot of the market with an editorial headline. If you can counter my claims, than I suggest you use some REAL data to do so.
I dismiss your opinion because it's usually nothing but rhetorical nonsense like "I've seen this before". As for the news media, the major TV outlets are extemely biased to the left (except for FNC, of course). It's irrefutable.
You know my position. Get real.
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
Originally posted by faust9
Wow, good retort. You put me in my place. I mean you addressed the issues that I raised in a well laid out, researched manner. You countered my arguments and assertions that older folks (notice my links from the page before) are disgruntled with Bush policies in a way that leaves me satisfied. Heck, thanks for the counter discussion and links to support your standpoint. I especially like how you say "Overall, the medicare bill will help Bush" yet you supply no backing for your claims while I took the time to dig up some Gallup polls (you can go to Harris or any other polster and find the same results) to back my assertions. Kudos.
I especially like how you honed in on the one miniscule detail while leaving the rest unaddressed.
Call me crazy, but I'd say your response is--dare I say it-- a troll.
The polls you linked to don't support your claims. As for me ignoring it initially, to be honest I didn't see your first post. But by all means, assume I'm so dumfounded that I had to ignore them. While your links do show significant opposition to the plan, the question is "Will seniors choose not to vote for Bush as a result?". That's not at all clear. I still say that overall it's going to be more of a help than a hinderance. The fact is, he got the bill passed. It's certainly not perfect, and honestly I'm not sure I support it. Either way, your data doesn't show huge opposition. If anything many of the numbers are pretty evenly split.
Originally posted by jimmac
You know my position. Get real.
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
Originally posted by jimmac
You know my position. Get real.
I've told you what I think of Bush and his the way he handles things. Get real.
I've also told you that the economy's not so rosy as Mr. Bush believes and data to support my conclusion but you don't want to hear it. Besides if I've been able to do this linking business on the economy so many times then it's not a snap shot is it? Get real.
On the other hand you've been saying the economy's strong and recovering since last year and here we are almost in the middle of this year and still having problems. Hmmmmm?
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Knock it off, you two.
Well since I haven't been here since last night I can only guess that you're referring to SDW talking to himself in the last couple of posts.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The data is on my side. GDP growth is strong. The markets are in decent shape. Unemployment is historically very low. Manufacturing data is generally good. The problems remain job creation and the deficit. I agree with you there.
2. The economy HAS been recovering since last year. It's a fact. Is it "booming" yet? No. Though some SECTORS have been.
<jimmac>"Oh please! Let's make sure things aren't good for the election!".
When we've talked about this before I have heard you use the term " surging ".
When you see things like this : http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis..._unemployment/
or this : http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/31/news...ries/index.htm
You know that things aren't back to normal at all. Also as I've said this has been on going since last year ( and it's April 1rst already no joke ).
Should be interesting if Bush is brave enough to step up to the plate.
Originally posted by jimmac
When we've talked about this before I have heard you use the term " surging ".
When you see things like this : http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lis..._unemployment/
or this : http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/31/news...ries/index.htm
You know that things aren't back to normal at all. Also as I've said this has been on going since last year ( and it's April 1rst already no joke ).
Typical CNN. "Manufacturing grew, but...." As for unemployment, what is your point? 5.6% is low. You have no argument there. And, of course CNN tows the line by stating "there have 2.35 million jobs lost in the US since....". That's patently false. Say it with me: FALSE.
There are two million MORE jobs than there were when Bush took office. Period.
Originally posted by jimmac
This http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ain/index.html
Should be interesting if Bush is brave enough to step up to the plate.
So if Bush doesn't want 6 debates, he's "not brave"? That will be your next statement. Bush more than proved himself in debate after he held his own with, then defeated Gore. I'd love to see him debate Kerry more than say, three times.