Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Sandman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


  #2   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

"Sandman" wrote in message ...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll
  #3   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,

the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying

he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #4   Report Post  
Sandman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,

the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying

he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Not only that, the same Gallup poll shows Edwards beating Bush by 1%. And
that's *before* Edwards' strong showing in today's primaries.


  #5   Report Post  
TonyP
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...



Sandman wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

"Sandman" wrote in message


...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,


the

lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying


he's

"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Not only that, the same Gallup poll shows Edwards beating Bush by 1%. And
that's *before* Edwards' strong showing in today's primaries.


Too bad polls don't vote. People do. And, we will see in Nov. who will
be president (Bush of course).



  #6   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,

the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying

he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!


Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.
  #7   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are

saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!


Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president.


OSAF.

I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.


Because the Democrat alternatives are all so much worse.

You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.


Where is the moral high ground with Democrats?



  #8   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are

saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!


Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.



I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #9   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are

saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!


Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.



I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.


Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false reasons.
  #10   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are

saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.



I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.


Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false

reasons.

No false reasons have been offered.





  #11   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...



Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message ...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.



Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll


If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.

  #12   Report Post  
Sockpuppet Yustabe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message

...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message

...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are

saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.



I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.


Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false

reasons.

There were a multitude of good reasons.
Sometimes we must bear wars, conflicts, rebellion and disobedience.
People get hurt or killed by these.
But the end result is hopefully the accomplishment of something
significantly
better , for those that remain, and for the futures of their offspring.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  #13   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

" wrote in message ...
Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message ...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.



Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll


If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.


That story says only two incumbents trailed at this time: Harry
Truman and Gerald Ford.
  #14   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...

No false reasons have been offered.


Yes there were--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
  #15   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

...

No false reasons have been offered.


Yes there were--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


That was only one of several reasons.

Not finding them is not the same as not existing.
Clinton believed they had them, the UN believed they had them, the Germans,
French, and many other countries were also of this opinion.

If this was in your opinion, a false reason, then it was not out of
deception, but the result of imperfect intelligence.

Of course if your party had not consistently voted to reduce our
capabilities in this area, things might be different.




  #16   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
" wrote in message

...
Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message

...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval

rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying

he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.


That story says only two incumbents trailed at this time: Harry
Truman and Gerald Ford.


By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.




  #17   Report Post  
Jacob Kramer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...

By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.
  #18   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...



Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...


By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.



In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.


Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.

It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.

  #19   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...


By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.



In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.


Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.


Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.

It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.


The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks. I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.
  #20   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...



dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...



By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.


Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.



Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.


Which is to say, it's been 44 years since a Northeastern Democrat was
able to win a Presidential election -- or even be reasonably
competitive. That's my point. The demographics of the nation have
changed a hell of a lot in the last 44 years, with a dramatic shift of
population to the south and west. It's noteworthy that in even that 1960
election, it was not a clear and decisive victory for Kennedy. Dukakis
was actually leading Bush I right after the Democratic convention, and
that was meaningless.

If you like, assume Kennedy's 1964 re-election, and it's still 36 years
in the past. I think the national demographics make it nearly impossible
for a northeastern Democrat to make a convincing showing. Christ,
Humphrey couldn't win even with Wallace pulling a lot of southern
conservative votes from Nixon. Gore didn't even carry Tennesee. The
northeastern and midwestern candidates that the Democrats have fielded
in the last 40 years have provided a series of textbook examples of how
not to pick national candidates.

Mind you, I say this as a moderate Democrat who's tired of watching
Republicans win presidential elections. I find it difficult to imagine
how anyone could think that Kerry is somehow going to miraculously
change this trend.





It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.



The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


If one in ten of those disaffected conservatives go to Kerry, that would
be a miracle for the Democrats.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.


I actually hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. If you
had to put $1000 on it right now, do you think Kerry would be able to
win even 20 states? As I recall, Mondale may have got a grand total of
2, and did Dukakis get more than 1?



  #21   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:18 -0500, "
wrote:



dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...



By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.

Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.



Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.


Which is to say, it's been 44 years since a Northeastern Democrat was
able to win a Presidential election -- or even be reasonably
competitive. That's my point. The demographics of the nation have
changed a hell of a lot in the last 44 years, with a dramatic shift of
population to the south and west. It's noteworthy that in even that 1960
election, it was not a clear and decisive victory for Kennedy. Dukakis
was actually leading Bush I right after the Democratic convention, and
that was meaningless.

If you like, assume Kennedy's 1964 re-election, and it's still 36 years
in the past. I think the national demographics make it nearly impossible
for a northeastern Democrat to make a convincing showing. Christ,
Humphrey couldn't win even with Wallace pulling a lot of southern
conservative votes from Nixon. Gore didn't even carry Tennesee. The
northeastern and midwestern candidates that the Democrats have fielded
in the last 40 years have provided a series of textbook examples of how
not to pick national candidates.

Mind you, I say this as a moderate Democrat who's tired of watching
Republicans win presidential elections. I find it difficult to imagine
how anyone could think that Kerry is somehow going to miraculously
change this trend.


Why do you think that far west and New England Republicans have been
successful? Is there something fundamentally different about where
Democrats and Republicans come from? I'm just askin'.

It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.



The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


If one in ten of those disaffected conservatives go to Kerry, that would
be a miracle for the Democrats.


Well, Kerry isn't a lock yet, so I don't know if it's an issue yet.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.


I actually hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. If you
had to put $1000 on it right now, do you think Kerry would be able to
win even 20 states?


Yes, I think he could. of course it depends on the states as to
whether it would get him close. Let's remember how close the last
contest was. Even assuming things like incumbency, 9/11, etc, one
should probably look to 1990 as a cautionary tale. How many people
knew Clinton before the primaries? Are you saying that because he's a
southerner, he had some sort of advantage that Kerry doesn't have?
Let's not forget that the first president Bush had waged a successful
military campagn (up to a point) but lost support when he went back on
his taxes pledge. Could the deficit act in a similar fashion? I dunno,
but he seems to be proposing programs designed to win him popular
support, but I wonder how many Republicans are going to worry about
the net effect of tax cuts and 10 year missions to Mars, Medicare
reform, etc.

And if the Democrats *really* get motivated about the Supreme Court
situation in the next 4 years, *that* alone might be enough to drive
the turnout to new levels.

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

As I recall, Mondale may have got a grand total of 2, and did Dukakis get more than 1?


I don't buy the fact that just because a candidate comes from a
specific region, it's necessarily the kiss of death, or has much to do
with others from the same region.
  #22   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:22:18 -0600, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

If you like, assume Kennedy's 1964 re-election, and it's still 36 years
in the past. I think the national demographics make it nearly impossible
for a northeastern Democrat to make a convincing showing. Christ,
Humphrey couldn't win even with Wallace pulling a lot of southern
conservative votes from Nixon. Gore didn't even carry Tennesee. The
northeastern and midwestern candidates that the Democrats have fielded
in the last 40 years have provided a series of textbook examples of how
not to pick national candidates.


I just wanted to point out that Democrats and Republicans have held
the Oval Office for the same amount of time since 1961 UNTIL the
current President Bush.

And both sides have had Presidential scandals and one-term Presidents
who were tossed by an angry electorate who were partially victims of
their times and partially victims of their policies. The next 9 months
will determine how President Bush fares and I maintain that there are
a lot of things that can happen, both to help him and to hurt him as
well.

  #23   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

...

By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect

Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this

time:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/ap_poll_bush


It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.


OSAF. Kerry voted against nearly every weapon we used In Iraq, he voted
against the CIA. He's repeatedly voted to cut Defense. He's just another
Democrat Liberal, even more than Ted, hic, Kennedy, on some issues.

Even if the unthinkable happens and kerry should win the White House, he'll
get nowhere with a GOP controlled House and Senate.

I think you'll find that Bush will be a much more effective campaigner this
time out, plus the Dems won't be able to try and steal the election this
time.



  #24   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

...


By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect

Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at

this time:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...p/ap_poll_bush


It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.


Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.


Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

OSAF.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.

It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.


The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


Never, they just stay home.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.


The record shows that there is a core for both parties that is pretty evenly
split, it's the undecided's who decide elections.


  #25   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:18 -0500, "
wrote:



dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message

...



By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more

widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect

Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at

this time:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...u=/ap/ap_poll_

bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.

Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.


Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.


Which is to say, it's been 44 years since a Northeastern Democrat was
able to win a Presidential election -- or even be reasonably
competitive. That's my point. The demographics of the nation have
changed a hell of a lot in the last 44 years, with a dramatic shift of
population to the south and west. It's noteworthy that in even that 1960
election, it was not a clear and decisive victory for Kennedy. Dukakis
was actually leading Bush I right after the Democratic convention, and
that was meaningless.

If you like, assume Kennedy's 1964 re-election, and it's still 36 years
in the past. I think the national demographics make it nearly impossible
for a northeastern Democrat to make a convincing showing. Christ,
Humphrey couldn't win even with Wallace pulling a lot of southern
conservative votes from Nixon. Gore didn't even carry Tennesee. The
northeastern and midwestern candidates that the Democrats have fielded
in the last 40 years have provided a series of textbook examples of how
not to pick national candidates.

Mind you, I say this as a moderate Democrat who's tired of watching
Republicans win presidential elections. I find it difficult to imagine
how anyone could think that Kerry is somehow going to miraculously
change this trend.


Why do you think that far west and New England Republicans have been
successful? Is there something fundamentally different about where
Democrats and Republicans come from? I'm just askin'.

It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going

to
see it that way come November.


The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


If one in ten of those disaffected conservatives go to Kerry, that would
be a miracle for the Democrats.


Well, Kerry isn't a lock yet, so I don't know if it's an issue yet.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.


I actually hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. If you
had to put $1000 on it right now, do you think Kerry would be able to
win even 20 states?


Yes, I think he could. of course it depends on the states as to
whether it would get him close. Let's remember how close the last
contest was. Even assuming things like incumbency, 9/11, etc, one
should probably look to 1990 as a cautionary tale. How many people
knew Clinton before the primaries? Are you saying that because he's a
southerner, he had some sort of advantage that Kerry doesn't have?
Let's not forget that the first president Bush had waged a successful
military campagn (up to a point) but lost support when he went back on
his taxes pledge. Could the deficit act in a similar fashion? I dunno,
but he seems to be proposing programs designed to win him popular
support, but I wonder how many Republicans are going to worry about
the net effect of tax cuts and 10 year missions to Mars, Medicare
reform, etc.

And if the Democrats *really* get motivated about the Supreme Court
situation in the next 4 years, *that* alone might be enough to drive
the turnout to new levels.


I think the GOP will use that as an issue. They don't want more Liberal's
on the Bench rewriting the law.

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of a
Democrat win goodbye.

As I recall, Mondale may have got a grand total of 2, and did Dukakis get

more than 1?

I don't buy the fact that just because a candidate comes from a
specific region, it's necessarily the kiss of death, or has much to do
with others from the same region.





  #26   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.


Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.
  #27   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


Never, they just stay home.


Just as good.
  #28   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of a
Democrat win goodbye.


Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...
  #29   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...



dave weil said to the Bug Eater:

Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.


That would amount to pain management, bad business sense, and
Kroopologism. And eating bugs.




  #30   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of a
Democrat win goodbye.


Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...


Another blank assertion.




  #31   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.


Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.


You first.


  #32   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.


Never, they just stay home.


Just as good.


I doubt it will happen this time around. They will come out in droves to
vote against a New England Liberal.


  #33   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of a
Democrat win goodbye.


Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...


Another blank assertion.


Another blank assertion.
  #34   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:32:20 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.

Never, they just stay home.


Just as good.


I doubt it will happen this time around. They will come out in droves to
vote against a New England Liberal.


Another blank asserion.

Thank you, Madame Cleo.
  #35   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is

in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of

a
Democrat win goodbye.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...


Another blank assertion.


Another blank assertion.


See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.




  #36   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:42:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is

in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of

a
Democrat win goodbye.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.


Another blank assertion.


See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.


No, actually you were supposed to refute it.

Sorry, you lose.

Again.
  #37   Report Post  
Michael McKelvy
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:42:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan

is
in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this

new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising

again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance

of
a
Democrat win goodbye.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.


See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement

has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.


Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not a
game I'll participate in.


  #38   Report Post  
dave weil
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:38:52 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement

has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.


Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not a
game I'll participate in.


Thank you for playing.
  #39   Report Post  
Jodster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Dubya tumbles to all-time low...

If an autistic midget with one leg plays chess against a retarded black
french lady, who wins? . . . . . . . Exactly!


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:38:52 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have

been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we

need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your

statement
has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not

a
game I'll participate in.


Thank you for playing.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Q: clarion drb2475 time set tecumseh Car Audio 3 August 23rd 04 12:14 PM
rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) Ian D. Bjorhovde Car Audio 0 March 6th 04 07:54 AM
Time to sue for slander & libel. Bender Audio Opinions 4 January 30th 04 05:16 AM
DCM Time Window History Greg Berchin General 0 November 16th 03 03:11 PM
OK, time to face the truth George M. Middius Audio Opinions 8 August 27th 03 11:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:35 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"