Bush's Re-Election Bid Looking Good: A Look at the Numbers

[russ_watters]

Bush Wins!

Well, not yet, but I wanted to reiterate my prediction by linking a NEW STORY saying his numbers look good. Considering that the economy is still not at 100% (pretty much all that's left is unemployment, all other indicators are up), and the Iraq situation is not resolved, he's doing quite well. And his numbers will continue to improve as the economy and Iraq improve (and btw, anyone see that Afghanistan has a new constitution...).

I've said it before, I don't think he's a great president (his dad was better and I voted for McCain in the primary), but I do think he's a decent one. Much better in any case than any of the Democratic candidates.

edit: good quote

Still, by key measures of the economy and the polls, Bush is in a stronger position at this point than President Clinton in 1996, who won a second term, and the elder Bush in 1992 and President Carter in 1980, who lost. Bush's situation is competitive with that of President Reagan in 1984, who won 49 states. Since World War II and the advent of modern polling, no president with high approval ratings on the economy and an optimistic public at the beginning of the election year has lost his bid for re-election.

Landslide anyone?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by russ_watters


I've said it before, I don't think he's a great president (his dad was better and I voted for McCain in the primary), but I do think he's a decent one. Much better in any case than any of the Democratic candidates.

Fully agree

 

[Zero]

If Bush wins, America loses...and you folks should be smart enough to know that. What sort of quasi-religious thinking keeps you from knowing it is completely beyond me.

 

[amp]

Zero, Bush does have obvious SUPPORTERS...

Those who received the bulk of the tax reduction, Those who receive large sums from dividends, ditto for capital gains, those who would repeal or roll back enviornmentally friendly legislation. Let me qualify the ditto- let's say those who's haul from capital gains is more than most peoples annual incomes. Not all mind you after all some actors and entertainers are activists who early sounded the alarm on Bush. I think you now can figure the type that wants him in office.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by amp
Those who received the bulk of the tax reduction, Those who receive large sums from dividends, ditto for capital gains, those who would repeal or roll back enviornmentally friendly legislation. Let me qualify the ditto- let's say those who's haul from capital gains is more than most peoples annual incomes. Not all mind you after all some actors and entertainers are activists who early sounded the alarm on Bush. I think you now can figure the type that wants him in office.

Don't forget the industries who put their profits over avoiding poisoning our drinking water, spreading mad cow disease, or keeping workers from getting injured. Pretty much anyone who wants a government handout, but doesn't need it, supports Bush.

 

[GENIERE]

I don't care for McCain, but I like father and son. I believe GW is more decisive then his dad. I think Clark is the most probable Democrat nominee and would be the only formidable opponent for GW.

Right now, it looks like only 8 states will go democratic. California is most likely to remain Democratic and is absolutely necessary for them. It must be protected at all costs. Expect to see the Republicans spend an enormous amount of money in the California campaign forcing the Democrats to do likewise and short themselves elsewhere.

The Clintons obviously do not want a Democratic victory in 2004, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Hillary is now playing the typical Clintonesque game of taking centrist positions designed to appeal to the moderate democrats and independents; note pro-war position statements and visiting the troops. Possibly Hillary will be “forced” to accept the VP spot at the Dem’s convention, setting her up for 2008. Of course Guiliani may run for the senate and would likely win over Hillary. Perhaps then the country would be rid of that disastrous duo.

Lastly, we will be saying bye-bye and to Daschle and Gephardt this year. Halleluiah!

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by GENIERE
I don't care for McCain, but I like father and son. I believe GW is more decisive then his dad. I think Clark is the most probable Democrat nominee and would be the only formidable opponent for GW.

Right now, it looks like only 8 states will go democratic. California is most likely to remain Democratic and is absolutely necessary for them. It must be protected at all costs. Expect to see the Republicans spend an enormous amount of money in the California campaign forcing the Democrats to do likewise and short themselves elsewhere.

The Clintons obviously do not want a Democratic victory in 2004, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out. Hillary is now playing the typical Clintonesque game of taking centrist positions designed to appeal to the moderate democrats and independents; note pro-war position statements and visiting the troops. Possibly Hillary will be “forced” to accept the VP spot at the Dem’s convention, setting her up for 2008. Of course Guiliani may run for the senate and would likely win over Hillary. Perhaps then the country would be rid of that disastrous duo.

Lastly, we will be saying bye-bye and to Daschle and Gephardt this year. Halleluiah!

This is one of the strangest posts I've seen on the issue(the third paragraph)...no offense, but this is the stuff that only Republicans say, and has nothing to do with what Democrats are actually doing.
As far as spending in CA, it is one of the reasons why I think the electoral college should be done away with. We have the technology to go to direct voting, and we should as soon as possible.

BTW, I agree that Bush is decisive as hell...wrong, but decisive. It is easy to make a stand when you take things on faith instead of educating yourself. But, hey, if that's what you want to represent your party, knock yourself out.

 

[kawikdx225]

Considering the Democratic candidates I PREY TO GOD that Bush wins the next election! I'm definitely voting for him.

And no I am not a rich business owner nor do I make a lot of money.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kawikdx225
Considering the Democratic candidates I PREY TO GOD that Bush wins the next election! I'm definitely voting for him.

And no I am not a rich business owner nor do I make a lot of money.

And under Bush, you never will be...but you'll vote for Bush anyway. Why?

 

[amp]

kawikdx225 , I guess your not worried about a job...

with so many companies sending jobs to countries where the wage is barely above indentured servitude, thanks to your ardent executive and his cronies in conglomerates. Please, consider the Democratic candidates. Sharpton would be a better Prez than Bush IS. Consider your childrens children, Don't you want them to be able to drink the water, to breathe the air without being poisoned because Bush allowed polluters to have their way. How about the stop-speak that will likely occur because yo prez ripped apart some of the fundamental doctrines builit into our Constitution.

 

[kawikdx225]

I am responsible for my own actions and those I CHOOSE to be responsible for (ie my family)

If I want more money it's MY responsibility to cut my spending or get a better job or go back to school to get a better education which will help get me a better job or get a second job etc...

The last thing any person should do is go to the government with their hand out demanding money(except for special cases). It's not the governments job to support me, it's mine.

If say "Joe Shmoe" is very successful and earns a lot of money then good for him. He completed the american dream. (ok, maybe it was inheritance money) but anyway if you are successful and earn a lot of money then it's yours. It's not Joe's responsibility to give his money to someone else that is not successful.

So why am I voting for Bush you ask, well I don't expect him to make me rich because that's not his job. The presidents primary job IMO is to ensure the safety of the citizens of the USA.

I don't want him in my life taking care of me and my family, Thats my job.

 

[amp]

So, do you really believe he's insuring your

safety thru his actions and policies? Antagonizing the rest of the world doesn't seem to be a course of action that would engender safety. Pre-emption can go both ways, of course you don't think a few smaller countries could gang up on the U.S. (with our military stretched thin as it is) and pre-empt on us. The vaugeness of 'Your either with us or against us could cause more harm than the Prez imagined as well as lose allies. Scare weaker countries enough and like a cornered mouse they may roar, we won't like that sound.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by kawikdx225
I am responsible for my own actions and those I CHOOSE to be responsible for (ie my family)

If I want more money it's MY responsibility to cut my spending or get a better job or go back to school to get a better education which will help get me a better job or get a second job etc...

The last thing any person should do is go to the government with their hand out demanding money(except for special cases). It's not the governments job to support me, it's mine.

If say "Joe Shmoe" is very successful and earns a lot of money then good for him. He completed the american dream. (ok, maybe it was inheritance money) but anyway if you are successful and earn a lot of money then it's yours. It's not Joe's responsibility to give his money to someone else that is not successful.

So why am I voting for Bush you ask, well I don't expect him to make me rich because that's not his job. The presidents primary job IMO is to ensure the safety of the citizens of the USA.

I don't want him in my life taking care of me and my family, Thats my job.

Oh, you mean the 'personal responsibility' deal that Republicans pretend to? Guess what, chum: Bush's policies make success harder for the average American. In truth, you'll have to work harder just to stay where you are, let alone get further in your life. It isn't about 'entitlements' either...it is about the fact that wages don't grow as fast as costs, and you and I won't be able to keep up.

But, hey, hold on to that fantasy that if we all work harder, we all suceed...if it helps you sleep at night, I guess that's all that is important.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
.

But, hey, hold on to that fantasy that if we all work harder, we all suceed...if it helps you sleep at night, I guess that's all that is important.

I love when you show your true colors :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I love when you show your true colors :)

What true colors are those? It is a simple fact that while any specific individual can suceed, not ALL individuals can move up in life...unless you propose that the government force a system where everyone who passes a 'works hard enough to deserve it' test automatically becomes a millionaire?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
What true colors are those? It is a simple fact that while any specific individual can suceed, not ALL individuals can move up in life...unless you propose that the government force a system where everyone who passes a 'works hard enough to deserve it' test automatically becomes a millionaire?

What is your definition of success?? what is working harder?

As far as monetary, 'Success' will continue to evolve as the country's monetary climate does.

Firstly, not all individuals work to their fullest, and that's fine. They will take their proper place on the capitalistic bell curve.

Now, back to the monetary climate - as the country moves up, so does the entire bell curve. If someone is willing to work as hard as another, they will move up as well. If someone else is willing to do more work for less, someone else will move down. This is the equillibrium that is an open market. But I know you know all this...Which begs the question, how can you realistically believe that hardwork doesn't mean success. Both will slide up and down based upon what others are willing to exert.

I run a small business. If I don't move, the business doesn't. I fail to see how working harder doesn't put me closer to success?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
What is your definition of success?? what is working harder?

As far as monetary, 'Success' will continue to evolve as the country's monetary climate does.

Firstly, not all individuals work to their fullest, and that's fine. They will take their proper place on the capitalistic bell curve.

Now, back to the monetary climate - as the country moves up, so does the entire bell curve. If someone is willing to work as hard as another, they will move up as well. If someone else is willing to do more work for less, someone else will move down. This is the equillibrium that is an open market. But I know you know all this...Which begs the question, how can you realistically believe that hardwork doesn't mean success. Both will slide up and down based upon what others are willing to exert.

I run a small business. If I don't move, the business doesn't. I fail to see how working harder doesn't put me closer to success?

Is this like the quibble over the definition of 'is', Repugnican style? Your success depends on more than hard work, obviously, or do you make the claim that people who are unsuccessful are just lazy?

And, of course, the idea that when the overall economy moves up, we all do better, is a complete lie, created by lying rich folks. If the rise in my income doesn't match the rise in cost of living, I am moving down, even if my paycheck goes up.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
If the rise in my income doesn't match the rise in cost of living, I am moving down, even if my paycheck goes up.

Then you either adapt, or take your place at a different segment of the bell curve. Your level of living is not guaranteed.
If the people around you create more, or atleat more valuable based on society's judgement, services or products, then you are going to be outdone. That is the point of capitalism.
If someone can do my job for less and better, I need to reexamine my business plan, or my choice of work.
I don't see your problem with this - that is unless you expect the government to give you a certain standard of living?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Then you either adapt, or take your place at a different segment of the bell curve. Your level of living is not guaranteed.
If the people around you create more, or atleat more valuable based on society's judgement, services or products, then you are going to be outdone. That is the point of capitalism.
If someone can do my job for less and better, I need to reexamine my business plan, or my choice of work.
I don't see your problem with this - that is unless you expect the government to give you a certain standard of living?

Hmmmm...you don't want to live in America, obviously. You think that living in a corporation is ideal, huh? Do you think a healthy society allows its poor to starve?

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...you don't want to live in America, obviously. You think that living in a corporation is ideal, huh? Do you think a healthy society allows its poor to starve?

I believe in a society that gives incentives to remove yourself from the wing of the government.

Sort of off-topic, but my mom is a great example! She is on disability and receives SS for my youngest brother. If she TRIES to work, she will be kicked off disability, including medical support for her and my brother. If she sits back and does nothing, she makes more than she would at a minimum wage job, and retains her medical coverage.
Now, the disability people check her every 3 years to decide whether she is capable of working (she is incapable according to them, due to lack of ability to handle streess). Now, if one time she is incapable, and the next time she IS capable, then it stands to reason that she was capable of working and wasn't. (unless the 1:1000 chance happened that she became capable the day of the interview).

Now, my point is, that this sort of help is good on the surace, but has no end, nor any way of aiding to get OUT of this situation.
A few years ago, I was laid off.I would make MORE from UI than I would working a minimum wage job. Where is the incentive to work the lower job? I was lucky I found a job and thus declined my first UI check. But think about human nature - why would someone go work at McDonalds while searching for another job, when they could just sit around and earn the same??

Children should always be helped. Poor people should be given the tools to succeed. Those who do not help themselves when given the chance deserve what they give themselves.


Edit - I'll preempt your "this is just what rich people say" with...
My mom is a recovering Narcotics user.
My dad is a recovering Alcoholic in prison.
My parents are divorced.
My mom lives across the country.
According to many, I have all the makings of a social misfit, but I'm not. Nor will I be.

 

[Zero]

How about raising the minimum wage?

Children should always be helped. Poor people should be given the tools to succeed. Those who do not help themselves when given the chance deserve what they give themselves.

We agree on that, but Bush doesn't.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
How about raising the minimum wage?

I am presently against raising the minimum wage until China moves to a market controlled currency. Until then, China holds prices and wages artificially low. This is good for us for the obvious purchasing power, but bad in that investment and business is moving away.
A higher minimum wage right now would be shooting ourselves in the foot. It means that at some point, products need to increase in price to pay these workers. Not to mention, I have faith in a strong dollar recovery, and setting the minimum wage using today's standards would not be very accurate for the future if that is the case.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
We agree on that, .

I think we simply disagree on the means by which helping people should be done.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I am presently against raising the minimum wage until China moves to a market controlled currency. Until then, China holds prices and wages artificially low. This is good for us for the obvious purchasing power, but bad in that investment and business is moving away.
A higher minimum wage right now would be shooting ourselves in the foot. It means that at some point, products need to increase in price to pay these workers. Not to mention, I have faith in a strong dollar recovery, and setting the minimum wage using today's standards would not be very accurate for the future if that is the case.

You couldn't maybe hold down corporate profits? No? Are corporate profits the be all and end all of a government, of a society?

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I think we simply disagree on the means by which helping people should be done.

The problem is, you can't remove the social safety net and still help children and create the tools for the poor to improve their position in life.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is, you can't remove the social safety net and still help children and create the tools for the poor to improve their position in life.

But you can change, and in some places, lessen that net.

I'll reply more later- I'm off for the evening :)

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
But you can change, and in some places, lessen that net.

I'll reply more later- I'm off for the evening :)

Yeah, go away, and tell me tomorrow why a corporate safety net is ok, but a social one is not..

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by kawikdx225
Considering the Democratic candidates I PREY TO GOD that Bush wins the next election! I'm definitely voting for him.

And no I am not a rich business owner nor do I make a lot of money.

Originally posted by Zero
And under Bush, you never will be...but you'll vote for Bush anyway. Why?

You say stuff like this all the time, Zero, but I've never asked you: what specific and essential component of your plan to become a rich business owner has Bush undermined? 'Cause I got to tell you - my plan to become a rich business owner has nothing to do with any of what Bush is doing there in Washington. There is very little he could do to sabbotage me.

And it appears phatmonkey, kawikdx225, and I have the same worldviews: Zero, all three of us have made a choice to create our own destiny. You appear to have a ready-made excuse for failure, and I'm sure you know the power of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The attitude on that choice (and the very fact that your attitude is a choice) appears to me to be the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats (not surprisingly, also the fundamental difference between successes and failures). Ironic, isn't it - I thought it was the liberals who were supposed to be idealistic!

Also, re: corporate profits. Where do you think the money goes?
Zero, its seems like you think a corporation is an entity that eats money. You buy a product, the corporation gets it and the money is consumed and disappears under the caption "profit." Don't you have a stock portfolio? The more profitable companies give dividends. They also give raises and bonuses to reward their employees for their help making the company succeed.

I really struck a nerve with this thread. Jeez - 3 pages in 1 day.

 

[Zero]

Hey, I don't plan on failing...my goals aren't to be rich, though, because it would interfere with my PF mentor duties.

What I'm talking about is things like undercutting public schools with the school voucher scam, tax cuts that make sure that state programs get cut, cutting health care for poor kids, things like that.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Hey, I don't plan on failing...my goals aren't to be rich, though, because it would interfere with my PF mentor duties.

What I'm talking about is things like undercutting public schools with the school voucher scam, tax cuts that make sure that state programs get cut, cutting health care for poor kids, things like that.

Zero, none of those things apply to YOU, ME, or kawikdx225 (the one you told Bush would keep from succeeding). They are also extra assistance. Taking away extra assistance (I'm not saying those programs are good or bad) is not the same as putting a roadblock in front of someone.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Zero, none of those things apply to YOU, ME, or kawikdx225 (the one you told Bush would keep from succeeding). They are also extra assistance. Taking away extra assistance (I'm not saying those programs are good or bad) is not the same as putting a roadblock in front of someone.

Public schools are 'extra assistance'? Making sure that children are healthy is 'extra assistance'? Really? I thought we called that 'civilization'.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Public schools are 'extra assistance'?

No, but you didn't say public schools, you said vouchers. Thats not the point in any case:

Zero, none of those things apply to YOU, ME, or kawikdx225 (the one you told Bush would keep from succeeding).

What specifically has Bush done that will prevent US from succeeding? You have said quite directly that he will (a number of times). I want to know how.

 

[Loren Booda]

A vote for Bush by any American citizen of the world is a sell out. He has surrounded himself with greed and false respectability. For the wannabe rich Republican, the ends justify the lies.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
A vote for Bush by any American citizen of the world is a sell out. He has surrounded himself with greed and false respectability. For the wannabe rich Republican, the ends justify the lies.

Do you have more than childish rhetoric in this claim?h

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Do you have more than childish rhetoric in this claim?h

LOL. For someone who blindly follows his 'leader' no matter how bad he might be (more than slightly reminiscent of the Germans and THEIR illustrious 'leader'), this is the most laughable question I've seen in ages. Brainwashing is fascinating.