Is the Tide Turning?

[Chandos the Red]

Just a short few weeks ago Bush II looked invincible: Polls showed that a Democrat could not even touch him. The media toads were still fawning over Shrub and his "War on Terror" as the lead in for almost every political story. The Orange Alert was on, then yellow, pink, green or whatever this nonsense is supposed to mean to the average American. A lady quipped to me at the height of all the alerts: "What does Bush want me to do, lock myself in my house?" Flights were cancelled, people were being "shaken down" at airports, panic attacks were everywhere.

Then there was Dean - the angry outsider who was rallying Dems, but could never be elected because he wasn't "mainstream" enough for mainstreet. The rest of the Dems were all fading because there was not a contender amongest them.

What a difference a few weeks can make. Suddenly the media is focused on the American political system. It suddenly realized that people actually vote in this country and that a large portion of them were not as entralled with the current prez as the media was. Here are a few new links that show that the media is starting to wake up to the fact that there is an election about to happen, and that the American people are going to have something to say about it.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4013019/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4012324/
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4002315/

Though the public has clearly noted an uptick in the economy -- 51 percent approve of the job Bush is doing managing the economy -- four in 10 Americans still believe the economy is in recession, the poll found. By 58 percent to 39 percent, they rate the economy and not terrorism as the bigger problem facing the country. And when asked who they would prefer handling the nation's economy, more Americans favored Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than preferred Bush (43 percent), the first time in more than two years that Bush has failed to best the Democrats on this key issue.

There's still lots of good news out there for the Bushies and their man: He is still fairly strong in the polls as far as overall approval rating, between 55-59 percent depending on whom one cares to believe. And there is the "national security" issue, which favors him. And, for some strange reason, a large portion of Americans believe that he has personal "character." Yeah, right.

But finally, there is just a hint, a small hint, that there could be trouble in Shrub Land.

[ January 21, 2004, 07:48: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

[dmc]

To quote myself:

I think the "typical" American has a great distrust of politicians and the political process. As for the next election, just remember that Bush's father was president for the first Gulf War (a much more tangible "success" than this one) and the falling of the Berlin Wall (whether or not any credit is deserved for that is, of course, irrelevant -- as we've said elsewhere, Presidents get blame and take credit for things that they have no business in, that's politics). With those things, he still lost, so there are no guarantees.

There's plenty of time for Bush to lose.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

Personally, I would think that the Dems best shot would be a Kerry-Clark combined ticket. A war hero and a general would be tough to beat.

[Ragusa]

Who knows, look at the PR boost Saddam's capture gave Bush. Maybe he can show up Bin Laden's head right in time before the elections - they will clearly aim on that.

[Laches]

The link about the polling is interesting. However, as Grey pointed out once a while ago (and I thought it was a very good point), the foggy "some other candidate" always seems to do better than a real candidate who has warts.

The poll is between Bush and "some other candidate" essentially. The night of the Iowa caucus the polling showed a hypothetical race between Bush and Kerry as having Bush ahead by 13 points. I think the candidate vs. candidate polling may be more accurate.

I kind of think the tide turned a while back. I've seen some say that Bush is losing his support. I'm not sure that is a full picture. Rather, what I think is happening, is that Bush received an artificial surge of support due to events beyond his control and that artificial support (those who said they supported him because they felt that was the right thing to do in a time of conflict but who probably weren't supportive of him before and were unlikely to be in the future)has dwindled.

I think we're back close to where we started when he took office - a fairly split nation.

One thing to be concerned with if you'd rather Bush lose is that even in the linked article about polling above Bush still has a high favorable rating.

As far as which candidate polls the best against Bush, I believe it is Clark. But that may just be because the public is still largely unfamiliar with him. The DLC supports him so perhaps they can slick him up enought to avoid the problems that will arise upon closer scrutiny but I have my doubts.

[RuneQuester]

I think it all hinges on Iraq. If we lose a couple hundred more soldiers between now and November adn the country STILL appears no safer(and Shrub doesn't have Bin Laden's head on a platter) he will likely have problems.

I also think that each side has it's irrational "core" of supporters. On the republican end we have those who hate and blame Clinton for everything that has ever happened to them and they have no idea why(*cough*propaghanda*cough*) and on the dems side you have the "Bush Sr. with his CIA connections + Shrub knew about 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Each of these factions is firmly entrenched and pretty much for all the wrong reasons.
It's, sadly, the wishy-washy, vote-according-to the-current-trend-of-the media crowd who will ultimately decide how things go and they will not have much idea why they decide what they decide.

The odd man out will be the minority of informned voters, leaning left or right, who understand the issues but do not possess the numbers to make much difference.

[Gonzago]

I think it all hinges on Iraq. If we lose a couple hundred more soldiers between now and November adn the country STILL appears no safer(and Shrub doesn't have Bin Laden's head on a platter) he will likely have problems.

True, true...the bad news for Bush is that (unless he finds a warhead) only bad news can come out of Iraq between now and November.

That, and the lesson of the Iowa caucases is that Iraq isn't the number one issue for voters...or for Iowa voters, at any rate.

[ January 21, 2004, 20:15: Message edited by: Gonzago ]

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

@RQ

You are absolutely correct. About 1/3 of the population will vote for the democrat, no matter what, and about 1/3 of the population will vote for Bush, no matter what. It's the moderates in the middle that decide virtually every election. That is exactly the reason why Dean is a poor choice for the democratic ticket - he won't win the moderate vote.

[Grey Magistrate]

Perversely, Aldeth, it's more like 1/4 voting Republican, 1/4 voting Democratic, and 1/2 staying home. I think that was part of Dean's appeal - that he would fire up those people who would prefer to spend election day with a TV remote instead of a vote.

Anyway, methinks Laches has it right:

I think we're back close to where we started when he took office - a fairly split nation.

'Course, Bush baaaaaarely squeaked past a candidate who had all the advantages of incumbency, an easier primary, the support of a popular president, a strong economy, several inches of height, and way more experience. (I think all Bush had in his favor was, ironically, a better education.) Are any of the current Democratic candidates going to bring those advantages to the table?

But I predict another squeaker.

[Chandos the Red]

'Course, Bush baaaaaarely squeaked past a candidate who had all the advantages of incumbency, an easier primary, the support of a popular president, a strong economy, several inches of height, and way more experience.

But a media that hated Gore, and adored Bush, as it still does.

[Laches]

Elsewhere, Roup on another forum wrote:

The numbers I looked at before showed the undecideds currently breaking towards Bush about 2-1 (comparing between core Bush support, core Dem support, and swing voters), and the strong pro-Bush outnumbered the strong anti-Bush 40%-30%. He is also, according to one anecdote I read, going into the election year (according to some polls) with the highest approval rating of any incumbent up for reelection since Eisenhower.

My P(B) = 0.75 estimate is based on my figuring a final popular vote for Bush at 55% -- 60%. The Dem candidate (whoever he might be) will pick off a couple of big states, including California and some of the eastern seaboard, but the map will look mostly blue.

75% isn't "unbeatable" but I wouldn't put any money on the Dems.

Edited to add: Example of what I'm talking about. 1996 polls from CNN. As of 1/18/1996 Clinton was ahead of Dole 45-42, much closer than Bush/Dem now. He had a 47% approval rating, compared to Bush's current 58%. Bush is much, much better off now than Clinton was at the same point in 1996.

[Chandos the Red]

Elsewhere, Roup on another forum wrote

Have no idea who Roup is, nor which forum, nor the context in which this post was created.

So, your point would be?

[Laches]

If you don't see the substance of the post (the numbers) as being at all relevant, *shrug, so be it.

[ January 23, 2004, 04:00: Message edited by: Laches ]

[Spellbound]

If somehow Bush DOES get Bin Laden's head on a platter before the election, the Dems would have a very hard time of it -- unfortunately. That would be the coup de grace that would assure him of victory I believe.

[Jschild]

And Laches post mentions Bush's popularity. His popularity is as low as it was before 9/11. So that info sounds pretty much out of date.

[Chandos the Red]

Laches - I did not say that it was or wasn't. But I'm only asking: who posted it and where I can find the orginal post? If I did not think it mattered, I would not have asked for more info.

[Death Rabbit]

More on the turning of the tide...some interesting facts about the New Hampshire primaries.

http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/ind...bid=1&pid=1221

Many New Hampshire primary participants decided to skip the formalities and simply vote against the president in Tuesday's Republican primary. Thousands of these Bush-bashing Republicans went so far as to write in the names of Democratic presidential contenders.

Under New Hampshire law, only Democrats and independents were permitted to participate in Tuesday's Democratic presidential primary. That meant that Republicans who wanted to register their opposition to Bush had to do so in their own party's primary. A remarkable number of them did just that.

One in seven Republican primary voters cast ballots for candidates other than Bush, holding the president to just 85 percent of the 62,927 ballots cast. In some parts of the state, such as southwest New Hampshire's Monadnock Region, a historic bastion of moderate Republicanism, Bush did even worse. In Swanzey, for instance, 37 percent of GOP primary voters rejected Bush. In nearby Surry, almost 29 percent of the people who took Republican ballots voted against the Republican president, while a number of other towns across the region saw anti-Bush votes of more than 20 percent in the GOP primary.

Few of the anti-Bush votes went to the 13 unknown Republicans whose names appeared on GOP ballots along with the president's. Instead, top Democratic contenders reaped write-in votes.

Even a significant number of Republicans are turning on him. If Republicans - even the moderate to left leaning ones - would rather vote for a Democrat than see Bush get 4 more years, that should really tell you something.

Turning tide indeed.

[Aldeth the Foppish Idiot]

@GM - you're right - only about half the people of voting age in our country vote. What I was implying was of those people who DO vote in any given election, the name on the ballot doesn't matter - only the party name under the person's name. Sad to say, but 1/3 of the people will always vote Democrat and 1/3 will always vote Republican, regardless of who that party is actually supporting. That's why it's nearly impossible to get even 60% of the popular vote in any given election, and similarly nearly impossible to get less than 40% of the popular vote in any given election.

[Chandos the Red]

Kerry tops Bush in new poll. Shrub is really starting to crumble, although maybe as a result of how the Dems have been blasting him for the last few months. After the conventions the results may change. Once it gets one-on-one between Kerry and Shrub the situation could be different. Still, Kerry has his chance. But the public has really done a fast turnaround, since the capture of Saddam just a short time ago.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...rry-poll_x.htm

The downside is that this really hurts Dean. He is all but finished, since the "anyone but Bush" slogan has started with the Dems and half the country. IMO, Dean carries an important message, although conservatives and neocons may disagee.

[Ragusa]

Kerry would be fine with me. He had the guts and spine to stand up against the war - and that in times of "When you're anti-war you're a terrorists yourself!". To get a glimpse on just how hard that was - here the experience of canadian journalist Eric Margolis who had the nerve to spoil the war fever by saying there are no WMD in Iraq. Kerry deserves respect for his courageous stance against the Iraq war.

IMO Kerry is probably better than Dean who's too much a hawk on Israel for my taste (but who'd probably be a decent president still) and who didn't dare to be anti-war. Kerry and Dean both are definitely better than psycho "I wanted war with Russia during Kosovo war"* Clark, not to mention "I need advice" Bush.
I yesterday read a Clark speach and found myself waiting for words like "Blitzkrieg", "Annihilate" and "Destroy" *shudder* I don't trust him. He has crazy eyes.

* British General Sir Michael Jackson, fortunately, refused to carry out Clarks order to attack uninvited (by NATO) Russian peacekeepers when they landed in Kosovo.
Check: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Kosovo/Sto...208120,00.html

EDIT: I resist the temptation to rewrite my post in an Orwellian way

[ February 03, 2004, 19:06: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

[Chandos the Red]

Ragusa - You probably meant the reverse. Dean has been anti-war from the beginning and has been very vocal in his anti-war rhetoric; Kerry had voted for, and still supports the war. Kerry disagrees with two things: How the war is being conducted, and the way in which Shrub got us into the war.

That is why I believe Dean would be a better president (among other issues). But the election is no longer about "principle," which is Dean's message, but about being "elected." I am not that pragmatic to believe that "who ever can be elected" should be more important than what the candidate stands for. The thing about Kerry is that he "seems" to be such a nice guy; very mild and somewhat low-key in his demeanor, which is unusual for a politican these days.

[ February 07, 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

[Ragusa]

Embarassing. Yes, you are right Chandos. Oh well, due to my haste there goes my point. But I don't move an inch from my position on the hawk on Israel part and especially on Clark.

... I'm somewhat confused today, exam preparations ...

[Blackhawk]

I was looking at the polls today for the seven states that are conducting primaries. Dean is going to lose all of them - by a large margin.

Clark ans Edwards may win a few - well at least one.

[Laches]

For clarification, Dean HAS been accused of being too 'hawkish' with regards to the Israel/Palestinian hoopla. Here is a 'leftist' site with some of the complaints:

"Howard Dean: Hawk in Dove's Clothing?"
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0226-04.htm

Ragusa's post talks about Iraq and Israel. Dean was opposed to war in Iraq but has taken criticism for being 'hawkish' regarding Israel.

However, Kerry has also been accused of being too 'hawkish' with regards to the Israel/Palestinian debate.

It seems to me that doing ANYTHING with regards to Israel/Palestine gets you branded one way or another. Saying that you're rather fond of the low humidity in the area would probably upset some people. Saying NOTHING has its own attendant problems though as well.

All of that said, if Dean were elected, I wouldn't anticipate much to happen on the Israel/Palestinian front. I'm not sure with Kerry, but I think something is more likely to be done (for better or for worse). Kerry has been in the region, met with the Saudis (and criticized them pretty heavily), met with Arafat (and criticized him), met with the Israelis (and criticized them, but less) etc. So, he knows these folks and has been working in that field before.

With regards to Iraq, if Kerry runs he may play the, "I was misled by Bush and that's why I voted for the war in Iraq" angle. More likely though, I'll think he'd say something like "Hussein was the suck and we should've worked through the UN to get him out. I wanted him out all along but didn't like the way it was handled. Look at me, I'm sitting on a fence."

Oh well, two issues anyways.

[Chandos the Red]

Ragusa - Yes, I should have stated that my post was only dealing with the war in Iraq, since that is where we are currently at war, and I have no opinion on Dean and Israel. But my feeling is that Laches is right.

Good luck on the exams, Ragusa.