Bush most unpopular President in modern history

#4
#4
Great opening paragraph:

President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
#5
#5
BigPapaVol said:
Kerry had a similar advantage and lost. Which of the current crop of dems can actually win a national election?
Click to expand...


I actually think that a Clinton-Richardson ticket would be very strong. Rationale:

1) Clinton fatigue is matched right now only by fatigue at the rad right's crusade against them. The notion that she is unelectable because she is too divisive is inaccurate because those aligned against her wouldn't vote for the Dem no matter what.

2) Whatever loss of support for the ticket there would be just because she's Hillary Clinton would easily be made up for by the increase in women votes and the moderates who would increasingly support her when they find out she is not as "liberal" as portrayed.

3) Richardson is harmless and non-offensive. Edwards can't be her VP because, together, he and Clinton cannot overcome the liberal label. Obama is increasingly being shown for the amateur he is. He just doesn't have a grasp on the policy issues.

4) The Republicans are in dissaray and Bush is not going to back down on Iraq. Come the election, we will still have over 100,000 troops there and no real end in sight. No Republican nominee can disavow the war and keep party support, but also cannot win if he refuses to distance himself from the war.
 
#6
#6
If Hillary runs me and every other republican will donate the maximum. She has zero chance andthe polls show she is widely disliked even by democrats (those outside of california and new york). I hope she wins the democratic ticket. The republicans could put jeb up there and still win.
 
#7
#7
droski said:
If Hillary runs me and every other republican will donate the maximum. She has zero chance and is widely disliked even by democrats (those outside of california and new york). I hope she wins the democratic ticket. The republicans could put jeb up there and still win.
Click to expand...
Yea we can be proud of the Rep. in office now. Not that I would vote for HC but she could do better blindfolded than what we have now.
 
#8
#8
lawgator1 said:
I actually think that a Clinton-Richardson ticket would be very strong. Rationale:

1) Clinton fatigue is matched right now only by fatigue at the rad right's crusade against them. The notion that she is unelectable because she is too divisive is inaccurate because those aligned against her wouldn't vote for the Dem no matter what.

2) Whatever loss of support for the ticket there would be just because she's Hillary Clinton would easily be made up for by the increase in women votes and the moderates who would increasingly support her when they find out she is not as "liberal" as portrayed.

3) Richardson is harmless and non-offensive. Edwards can't be her VP because, together, he and Clinton cannot overcome the liberal label. Obama is increasingly being shown for the amateur he is. He just doesn't have a grasp on the policy issues.

4) The Republicans are in dissaray and Bush is not going to back down on Iraq. Come the election, we will still have over 100,000 troops there and no real end in sight. No Republican nominee can disavow the war and keep party support, but also cannot win if he refuses to distance himself from the war.
Click to expand...
I think you actually got all 4 posts exactly wrong.

1. She's unelectable because she's disliked across the political spectrum, not just by conservatives.

2. Moderates support her at exactly the rate she needs to lose. The picture being painted of Hillary is one of centrism, which couldn't be further from her roots or the truth.

3. Richardson doesn't have any real notoriety and where he does, he's little more than a Bill Clinton crony.

4. Distancing himself from the war is easy for Giuliani, who made no votes either way. Finding a solution - nobody has that answer and any proclamations to the contrary will be heavily discounted.
 
#11
#11
allvol123 said:
Did you happen to find the approval rating of Congress while you were digging?
Click to expand...
While you are looking for that see if you can't find a poll that breaks the approval of congressional republicans compared to congressional democrats. I'm guessing there is probably close to a 20 point divide there.
​
 
#12
#12
DAVOL said:
While you are looking for that see if you can't find a poll that breaks the approval of congressional republicans compared to congressional democrats. I'm guessing there is probably close to a 20 point divide there.​
Click to expand...

I don't happen to be doing the research, Oklavol is.
Ask him.
 
#13
#13
DAVOL said:

While you are looking for that see if you can't find a poll that breaks the approval of congressional republicans compared to congressional democrats. I'm guessing there is probably close to a 20 point divide there.
​
Click to expand...

I'll find the link but it's 65% to 59%. Even with bammer math that's not 20 pts.
 
#14
#14
Poll: U.S. Support for Iraq Invasion Inches Up - The Caucus - Politics - New York Times Blog

At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the way the Republicans have handled it, and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats.
Click to expand...
It's on the war but gives a pretty good idea.

Overall none of them look too popular

Charleston Daily Mail
 
#15
#15
BigPapaVol said:
Kerry had a similar advantage and lost. Which of the current crop of dems can actually win a national election?
Click to expand...

Check your history books. Truman (D) and Nixon (R), the last two presidents with similar lows in approval rating, were succeeded by a President of a different party in the next election.

Eisenhower (R) succeeded Truman (D), and Carter (D) succeeded Ford (R). Ford had succeeded Nixon (R) but was never elected.

See a trend there?
 
#16
#16
I do agree with LG on what is going on with the Republican party... I can't see any Rep. nominee being effective at all. Like you said, when it comes to Republicans supporting the Iraq war, damned if you do, damned if you don't (sound familiar?).

The Iraq war will be the deciding factor on who I vote for, though. From my own personal opinion, and numerous friends in the military, many of which have been to Iraq (one marine in particular going back for his third tour), we don't seem to have any direction over there. I hate seeing my friends go over there to fight when I don't even know what it's really for.
 
#17
#17
oklavol said:
Check your history books. Truman (D) and Nixon (R), the last two presidents with similar lows in approval rating, were succeeded by a President of a different party in the next election.

Eisenhower (R) succeeded Truman (D), and Carter (D) succeeded Ford (R). Ford had succeeded Nixon (R) but was never elected.

See a trend there?
Click to expand...
two instances definitely shows a trend that lone stat should be relied upon as the indicator of the party affiliation of the next president. Let's call off the election and just hand it to the winner of the democratic primary.

How'd it turn out the last time that a female was the head of a ticket? How about one of muslim descent? What are those stats telling us? Let's see, only female on a ticket got slaughtered. Sounds like a trend.
 
#18
#18
milohimself said:
I do agree with LG on what is going on with the Republican party... I can't see any Rep. nominee being effective at all. Like you said, when it comes to Republicans supporting the Iraq war, damned if you do, damned if you don't (sound familiar?).

The Iraq war will be the deciding factor on who I vote for, though. From my own personal opinion, and numerous friends in the military, many of which have been to Iraq (one marine in particular going back for his third tour), we don't seem to have any direction over there. I hate seeing my friends go over there to fight when I don't even know what it's really for.
Click to expand...
then surely you would condemn the Democrats who voted to go to Iraq in the first place moreso than a Republican who was in civilian life and had no vote.
 
#19
#19
oklavol said:
Check your history books. Truman (D) and Nixon (R), the last two presidents with similar lows in approval rating, were succeeded by a President of a different party in the next election.

Eisenhower (R) succeeded Truman (D), and Carter (D) succeeded Ford (R). Ford had succeeded Nixon (R) but was never elected.

See a trend there?
Click to expand...

Trend yes. Female candidate no.
 
#20
#20
BigPapaVol said:
two instances definitely shows a trend that lone stat should be relied upon as the indicator of the party affiliation of the next president. Let's call off the election and just hand it to the winner of the democratic primary.

How'd it turn out the last time that a female was the head of a ticket? How about one of muslim descent? What are those stats telling us? Let's see, only female on a ticket got slaughtered. Sounds like a trend.
Click to expand...

There was another woman who ran for President and lost?
 
#21
#21
BigPapaVol said:
then surely you would condemn the Democrats who voted to go to Iraq in the first place moreso than a Republican who was in civilian life and had no vote.
Click to expand...
Rep. or Dem. seem to have been greatly mislead by our bad intelligence causing them to vote pro war. Do you think Bush really thought they had WMDs or he just made it look that way and used it as a vehicle to go to war?
 
#22
#22
BigPapaVol said:
then surely you would condemn the Democrats who voted to go to Iraq in the first place moreso than a Republican who was in civilian life and had no vote.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's when the whole idea of the thing was to get in, rebuild (find the terrorists?) and get out or whatever. We're just kind of lingering around there right now. I don't get why we're over there. What, exactly is the goal one year down the road there? Three? Five?
 
#23
#23
he might be referring to the Mondull-Ferarro ticket. While Geraldine wasn't the head of that particular ticket, she was clearly the one with the intelligence and personality. Unfortunately for those two, they were picked to run against an incumbent Ronald Reagan.

Iraq is a basket case for many reasons, not the least of which is a media that is geared against the US in general and Bush specifically. I'm not saying it's all roses and puppies, but when you have Al Quaeda propaganda being quoted as gospel truth by the American media at the expense of the reporting by people like Michael Yon, the US is made out to be the bad guys there.
 
#24
#24
Congress: Job Ratings

latest congressional dem approval
46% approve 51% diapprove

latest congressional rep rating
34% approve 64% diapprove

so it looks like the congressional dems are a little more popular than their counterparts from the other side and the Bush administration. Not quite 20 points though but 12 is quite the gap.:peace2:
 
#25
#25
oklavol said:
There was another woman who ran for President and lost?
Click to expand...
point being that the set of facts in those past instances differed greatly from today. we're talking about electing a woman or minority for the first time in our history, and I don't believe we're that enlightened yet.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top