Newsweek reports that its latest poll shows that Vice President Gore's
endorsement and the continued support of Dean's active followers has pushed
Governor Dean into a 2-1 national lead over his nearest Democratic
competitors for the nomination:

"I have come to the conclusion that in a field of great candidates, one
candidate clearly now stands out," Gore [said in his endorsement] on Dec. 9.
Registered Democrats seem to have agreed: 24 percent of those polled rank
Dean as their first choice, a big jump from 16 percent one month ago.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman are tied for a
distant second with a distant 12 percent of Democrats pulling for their
nomination (Clark is down from 15 percent while Lieberman is up from 8).
Another amazing figure in the poll is that Dean holds Bush below 50% in a
general election matchup (49%-42%, Bush-Dean). The poll surveys only
registered voters, while Dean continues to bring more and more people back
into the political process. With a margin of error of 3.5% Dean could well
be ahead of Bush by 1%.

And despite the recent despicable attacks on Dean by a cowardly, anonymous
group which mislabels itself 'Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive
Values', "a majority (53 percent) of all registered voters think Dean has at
least some chance of beating Bush in a hypothetical two-way election against
Bush next year."

As well:

Democrats feel Dean is the strongest candidate on the economy, with 23
percent responding he would be do the best out of all them managing the
economy and creating jobs.

The poll is bad news for Bush:

Neither good news on the economy, the passage of a Medicare bill nor his
surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad seem to have boosted President George
W. Bush's approval ratings among all registered voters... his ratings are
the lowest in the Newsweek poll's history. And less than half (45 percent)
of voters say they want Bush to be reelected.
More voters overall report being less likely to vote for Bush's reelection
because of the [controversial Medicare boondoggle] (36 percent versus 27
percent who say it will make them more likely).

Not even a surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving did much to boost
public opinion significantly in the president's favor. Bush's overall job
performance ratings are at a low with 51 percent of all voters approving
(and 42 percent disapproving), with less than half (45 percent) interested
in seeing him re-elected. Interestingly, Bush's PR stunt failed to gain much
traction .

The latest poll from Survey USA/ WHO-TV in Iowa shows Dean leading among
likely caucus-goers in the Hawkeye State. The results, with the November 24
results in parenthesis:

Dean 42 (32)
Gephardt 23 (22)
Kerry 15 (19)
Edwards 10 (11)

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Newsweek reports that its latest poll shows that Vice President Gore's
endorsement and the continued support of Dean's active followers has
pushed
Governor Dean into a 2-1 national lead over his nearest Democratic
competitors for the nomination:

Who was polled? People at random, likely voters, or registered voters?

"I have come to the conclusion that in a field of great candidates, one
candidate clearly now stands out," Gore [said in his endorsement] on Dec.
9.
Registered Democrats seem to have agreed: 24 percent of those polled rank
Dean as their first choice, a big jump from 16 percent one month ago.
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark and Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman are tied for
a
distant second with a distant 12 percent of Democrats pulling for their
nomination (Clark is down from 15 percent while Lieberman is up from 8).
Another amazing figure in the poll is that Dean holds Bush below 50% in a
general election matchup (49%-42%, Bush-Dean). The poll surveys only
registered voters, while Dean continues to bring more and more people back
into the political process. With a margin of error of 3.5% Dean could
well
be ahead of Bush by 1%.

And despite the recent despicable attacks on Dean by a cowardly, anonymous
group which mislabels itself 'Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and
Progressive
Values', "a majority (53 percent) of all registered voters think Dean has
at
least some chance of beating Bush in a hypothetical two-way election
against
Bush next year."

As well:

Democrats feel Dean is the strongest candidate on the economy, with 23
percent responding he would be do the best out of all them managing the
economy and creating jobs.

The poll is bad news for Bush:

Neither good news on the economy, the passage of a Medicare bill nor his
surprise Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad seem to have boosted President
George
W. Bush's approval ratings among all registered voters... his ratings are
the lowest in the Newsweek poll's history. And less than half (45 percent)
of voters say they want Bush to be reelected.
More voters overall report being less likely to vote for Bush's reelection
because of the [controversial Medicare boondoggle] (36 percent versus 27
percent who say it will make them more likely).

Not even a surprise visit to Baghdad on Thanksgiving did much to boost
public opinion significantly in the president's favor. Bush's overall job
performance ratings are at a low with 51 percent of all voters approving
(and 42 percent disapproving), with less than half (45 percent) interested
in seeing him re-elected. Interestingly, Bush's PR stunt failed to gain
much
traction .



None of this means all thatmuch until there's an actual nominee.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 00:26:48 GMT, "Sandman"
wrote:

Ne

Uj.

Cad fret guy tet alamop pies Repuciblin?

--
td

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
The latest poll from Survey USA/ WHO-TV in Iowa shows Dean leading among
likely caucus-goers in the Hawkeye State. The results, with the November
24
results in parenthesis:

Dean 42 (32)
Gephardt 23 (22)
Kerry 15 (19)
Edwards 10 (11)


YOU could trounce Gephardt, he's as exciting a speaker as Lieberman, with
out the charisma.

I do love how tells the union guys that his dad who once, to his shanme
drove a milk truck. Of course Gephardt tells as if his dad was proud of it.
Gephardt's brother on the other had disputes the idea and say his dad had no
use for unions and never had or wanted another union job.

Sandy blazed:

... with 23 percent responding he would be do the best out of all them ....

What kind of psychotropic drugs have you been taking lately?


GeoSynch

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Newsweek reports that its latest poll shows that Vice President Gore's
endorsement and the continued support of Dean's active followers has
pushed
Governor Dean into a 2-1 national lead over his nearest Democratic
competitors for the nomination:

Who was polled? People at random, likely voters, or registered voters?

Registered voters.

None of this means all thatmuch until there's an actual nominee.

It means Dubya is in trouble regardless of the nominee, and in really big
**** trouble if that nominee is Dean, which appears more and more likely
with each passing week.

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...
Newsweek reports that its latest poll shows that Vice President Gore's
endorsement and the continued support of Dean's active followers has
pushed
Governor Dean into a 2-1 national lead over his nearest Democratic
competitors for the nomination:

Who was polled? People at random, likely voters, or registered voters?

Registered voters.

None of this means all thatmuch until there's an actual nominee.

It means Dubya is in trouble regardless of the nominee, and in really big
**** trouble if that nominee is Dean, which appears more and more likely
with each passing week.

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's anybody who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

I did like Lieberman's comment that if Dean had been President, Saddam would
still be in power.

Check your history.

What President conducting a successful war, with a strong economy, and a
high consumer confidence rating, ever lost re-election.

You can spin all you want, the fact is Bush IS a popular President.

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's anybody who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's anybody
who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

The war was over and he'd broken his promise on taxes.

9/11, Saddam captured, Iraq liberated, Economy rebounding like gangbusters,
higher approval rating, Prescrition drug benefit, and people like George W.
Bush better. That plus the fact that the Dems are at war with each other,
it doesn't look good for anybody beating a popular incumbent.

Remember, there is a certain amount of people that will vote their party
line. Then there's theswing voters, they are the ones that win elections.
They tend to be more moderate and aren't likely to "swing" towards any of
the Democrats being offered.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's
anybody
who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

The war was over and he'd broken his promise on taxes.

9/11, Saddam captured, Iraq liberated, Economy rebounding like
gangbusters,


What did you major in? Library Science? Just because the Dow hit 10,000
doesn't mean the economy is rebounding. The job market is still atrocious,
spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and trade
deficit?

McKelvy, since you obviously get all your finance news from Drudge Report
headlines, let me give you a crash course:
An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever increasing
debts
b. results in higher interest rates
c. will likely result in higher inflation
d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to crash
e. consumer spending will be reduced to zero

Just like Gray Davis imposed illegal taxes on vehicle owners, this
administration imposed illegal trade tariffs on items like steel. Again, no
coverage in the news (anyone sense a pattern?).

So, no. The economy is not making out like gangbusters. Yet. And no. He is
not the messiah. You should honestly quit smoking that stuff.


higher approval rating, Prescrition drug benefit, and people like George
W.
Bush better. That plus the fact that the Dems are at war with each other,
it doesn't look good for anybody beating a popular incumbent.

Remember, there is a certain amount of people that will vote their party
line. Then there's theswing voters, they are the ones that win elections.
They tend to be more moderate and aren't likely to "swing" towards any of
the Democrats being offered.


Again, you exemplify your paucity of comprehension. "Swing" voters, as you
call them, are usually on-the-fence Democrats (liberals or socialists, as
some have referred to them) who would vote for a Republic they liked.

A conservative would rather commit hara-kiri than do the converse.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's
anybody
who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

The war was over and he'd broken his promise on taxes.

9/11, Saddam captured, Iraq liberated, Economy rebounding like
gangbusters,


What did you major in? Library Science? Just because the Dow hit 10,000
doesn't mean the economy is rebounding. The job market is still
atrocious,
spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian
debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and
trade
deficit?

For one, the democratic budget plan was flat out illegal in Ca.
Deficit spending without voter approval is illegal in Ca.
The Ca. dems (both in legislature and the governor) didn't
seem much to care about that little detail.

That is not the case for the federal gov't.

Trade deficits don't reflect the whole picture.
For example a good chunk of my employers profits are derived
from royalties on IPR.
Much of that comes from foreign companies and markets
including China. That money coming back is not counted against
the trade deficit.

ScottW

Schizoid Man tries to add it up:

An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever increasing debts
b. results in higher interest rates
c. will likely result in higher inflation
d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to crash

You may want to bone up on simple arithmetic before attempting to lecture
anyone else on the finer points of economics.


GeoSynch

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"dave weil" wrote in message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:56:04 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Most political observers, the objective ones, don't feel there's
anybody
who
can beat Bush at theis time and under the current circumstances.

That's *exactly* what they said in 1991.

The war was over and he'd broken his promise on taxes.

9/11, Saddam captured, Iraq liberated, Economy rebounding like
gangbusters,


What did you major in? Library Science? Just because the Dow hit 10,000
doesn't mean the economy is rebounding.

It's one symptom.

The job market is still atrocious,

But it is rebounding. Jobs are always the last thing to rebound after a
recession.

spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Not when viewed as all previous deficits have been viewed, as a precentage
of the GDP. We ahve far bigger ones when measured that way and still
rebounded.

Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and
trade
deficit?

Because the state of California isn't fighting a war and spent money they
knew they didn't have and then ilegally tried to borrow to fix it.


McKelvy, since you obviously get all your finance news from Drudge Report
headlines, let me give you a crash course:
An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever increasing
debts
b. results in higher interest rates
Not yet.

c. will likely result in higher inflation
Inflation just decreased.

d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to crash
e. consumer spending will be reduced to zero

Only if the proper atmospher is not created to allow us to grow our way out.
The tax cuts that have passed and the ones that are coming will no doubt do
the trick.

Just like Gray Davis imposed illegal taxes on vehicle owners, this
administration imposed illegal trade tariffs on items like steel. Again,
no
coverage in the news (anyone sense a pattern?).

Other countries have tarrifs on our goods or outright restrictions, (try
importing rice to Japan) or government subsidies on their exports.

So, no. The economy is not making out like gangbusters. Yet. And no. He is
not the messiah. You should honestly quit smoking that stuff.

Your wrong on the first count outright. On the second I don't think he's
the messiah, just someone who's working to create an atmosphere to create
growth.

higher approval rating, Prescrition drug benefit, and people like George
W.
Bush better. That plus the fact that the Dems are at war with each
other,
it doesn't look good for anybody beating a popular incumbent.

Remember, there is a certain amount of people that will vote their party
line. Then there's theswing voters, they are the ones that win
elections.
They tend to be more moderate and aren't likely to "swing" towards any
of
the Democrats being offered.


Again, you exemplify your paucity of comprehension. "Swing" voters, as you
call them, are usually on-the-fence Democrats (liberals or socialists, as
some have referred to them) who would vote for a Republic they liked.

And against a Dem they feel is to far out or too weak on defense.



A conservative would rather commit hara-kiri than do the converse.

They just stay home. My in laws are so liberal that rather than vote for a
Republican in the recall, my mother in law voted for "the slut" porn star
and my brother in law voted for the green party candidate, even thougheithre
of the GOP candiates were obviously better choices.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Not when viewed as all previous deficits have been viewed, as a precentage
of the GDP. We ahve far bigger ones when measured that way and still
rebounded.

The deficit has never grown at the pace at which is growing now, principally
due to the fact that for the first time in history we have gone to war and
at the same time had a massive tax cut.

IMO, that is just irreponsible fiscal policy. But I may be wrong.


Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian
debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and
trade
deficit?

Because the state of California isn't fighting a war and spent money they
knew they didn't have and then ilegally tried to borrow to fix it.


I would argue that the steel tariffs were also illegal and a ploy to please
the portion of the electorate that had no benefits from the tax cut.

McKelvy, since you obviously get all your finance news from Drudge
Report
headlines, let me give you a crash course:
An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever increasing
debts
b. results in higher interest rates
Not yet.

Interest rates are on the rise. Compare them to a year ago.

c. will likely result in higher inflation
Inflation just decreased.

Because the deficit has not become unmanageable. Yet.

d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to
crash
e. consumer spending will be reduced to zero

Only if the proper atmospher is not created to allow us to grow our way
out.


Well, then we need to keep having blockbuster quarters north of the 7% to 8%
mark in order to grow our way out of this ever deepening hole.


The tax cuts that have passed and the ones that are coming will no doubt
do
the trick.

That is yet to be seen.

Just like Gray Davis imposed illegal taxes on vehicle owners, this
administration imposed illegal trade tariffs on items like steel. Again,
no
coverage in the news (anyone sense a pattern?).

Other countries have tarrifs on our goods or outright restrictions, (try
importing rice to Japan) or government subsidies on their exports.

Well, that is because Japan has always had a protectionist economy. Unlike
the United States, which at times has truly been a free market.

So, no. The economy is not making out like gangbusters. Yet. And no. He
is
not the messiah. You should honestly quit smoking that stuff.

Your wrong on the first count outright. On the second I don't think he's
the messiah, just someone who's working to create an atmosphere to create
growth.

I hope so.

Again, you exemplify your paucity of comprehension. "Swing" voters, as
you
call them, are usually on-the-fence Democrats (liberals or socialists,
as
some have referred to them) who would vote for a Republic they liked.

And against a Dem they feel is to far out or too weak on defense.

A conservative would rather commit hara-kiri than do the converse.

They just stay home. My in laws are so liberal that rather than vote for
a
Republican in the recall, my mother in law voted for "the slut" porn star
and my brother in law voted for the green party candidate, even
thougheithre
of the GOP candiates were obviously better choices.

Well, that is just irresponsible citizenry. I'm surprised why they would
waste their votes rather than giving Davis whatever support they could. As
the 2000 election showed us, every vote counts.

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
"Schizoid Man" wrote in message


spending is through the roof and the internal deficit is growing at a
breathtaking pace.

Not when viewed as all previous deficits have been viewed, as a
precentage
of the GDP. We ahve far bigger ones when measured that way and still
rebounded.

The deficit has never grown at the pace at which is growing now,
principally
due to the fact that for the first time in history we have gone to war and
at the same time had a massive tax cut.


The tax cut was not massive. The deficit was much higer in WWII, 45% of
GDP.

Tax cuts spur the economy and will cause us to grow our way out of it.


IMO, that is just irreponsible fiscal policy. But I may be wrong.


You are, if history is a reference.

Why is it that whenever one talks about the Dems that the Californian
debt
crisis becomes such a focal issue, but no one mentions the federal and
trade
deficit?

Because the state of California isn't fighting a war and spent money
they
knew they didn't have and then ilegally tried to borrow to fix it.


I would argue that the steel tariffs were also illegal and a ploy to
please
the portion of the electorate that had no benefits from the tax cut.

McKelvy, since you obviously get all your finance news from Drudge
Report
headlines, let me give you a crash course:
An increase in internal debt leads to the following:
a. makes it more difficult for the government to pay its ever
increasing
debts
b. results in higher interest rates
Not yet.

Interest rates are on the rise. Compare them to a year ago.


Still very much lower than 20 years ago.

c. will likely result in higher inflation
Inflation just decreased.

Because the deficit has not become unmanageable. Yet.

No likelyhood it will unless Democrats are in charge.

d. the above two will cause bond, and consequently stock, prices to
crash
e. consumer spending will be reduced to zero

Only if the proper atmospher is not created to allow us to grow our way
out.


Well, then we need to keep having blockbuster quarters north of the 7% to
8%
mark in order to grow our way out of this ever deepening hole.


The tax cuts that have passed and the ones that are coming will no doubt
do
the trick.

That is yet to be seen.

There is the historical record to back it up.

Just like Gray Davis imposed illegal taxes on vehicle owners, this
administration imposed illegal trade tariffs on items like steel.
Again,
no
coverage in the news (anyone sense a pattern?).

Other countries have tarrifs on our goods or outright restrictions, (try
importing rice to Japan) or government subsidies on their exports.

Well, that is because Japan has always had a protectionist economy. Unlike
the United States, which at times has truly been a free market.

So, we don't get to fight back?

So, no. The economy is not making out like gangbusters.

It is growing and there's no reason why it shouldn't keep doing so. The
rest of the Tax cuts haven't kicked in yet.

Yet. And no. He
is
not the messiah. You should honestly quit smoking that stuff.

Your wrong on the first count outright. On the second I don't think
he's
the messiah, just someone who's working to create an atmosphere to
create
growth.

I hope so.

Again, you exemplify your paucity of comprehension. "Swing" voters, as
you
call them, are usually on-the-fence Democrats (liberals or socialists,
as
some have referred to them) who would vote for a Republic they liked.

And against a Dem they feel is to far out or too weak on defense.

A conservative would rather commit hara-kiri than do the converse.

They just stay home. My in laws are so liberal that rather than vote
for
a
Republican in the recall, my mother in law voted for "the slut" porn
star
and my brother in law voted for the green party candidate, even
though either
of the GOP candiates were obviously better choices.

Well, that is just irresponsible citizenry. I'm surprised why they would
waste their votes rather than giving Davis whatever support they could. As
the 2000 election showed us, every vote counts.


Then why did Gray Davis and other Democrat Governors refuse to count the
absentee ballots in their states?