Will Bush be re-elected by the American public?

fisty

Had a chat about this earlier.
Will Bush be re-elected by the American public?
I for one don't think so...
His using of the military as foreign policy this year has turned a lot of people against him after his popularity soared in early 2002.
Thoughts?

Éomer of Rohan

Please God/Buddha/Vishnu/Allah/Mother Earth/Blind Io let it not happen. I mean, once, by the virtue of a screwed up system, fair enough but if it happens twice? Is it possible?! Could the USA actually re-elect a man who can't string a cohesive and intelligible sentence together without help? Mind you, the media terms 'Bore and Gush' still apply; I say if Hillary Clinton stands against him, she'll win.

conZ

He will. Americans :rolleyes:

fisty

hillary clinton.
I would like to see what she could do in office.
I agree though - you can't really count on americans to see past their lunch can you....

Éomer of Rohan

So true. I mean, this is the nation which elected McCarthy, Nixon, bloody Ronald Reagan and Monroe. The nation in which even the right wing lauds the decrease of foreign affairs related information on the news. Oh just don't start me.

shotamoose

If he keeps the wars coming and/or America is struck by another terrorist attack, he might sneak in.



As the above chart shows, his approval rating was meandering downwards until the Sept 11 attacks saw it shoot upwards. Subsequently people gradually began to dislike him again, until his approval rating was almost down to the magic 50% mark. Hey presto, war on Iraq! Everyone gets behind the boss at this time of national struggle, and he gets another poll boost.

So watch out Syria, Iran and North Korea in 2004 ...

[edit: more aggregated poll stuff
here]

Éomer of Rohan

He really did declare war as a diversion from domestic politics didn't he?

fisty

Crap Economy + Steal someone elses Oil = ??

PHB

I could see him being beaten if there was a very strong democratic candidate. I personally dont think the american public is ready for a female president, and I dont think the democrats will run a controversial campaign againist bush, with his approval ratings.

fisty

Thatcher imposed herself on the UK in the early 80s.
She just needs to grab power and then people will just have to deal with it.

Éomer of Rohan

You see, right there is the problem with the democrats; ever since LBJ they are terrified of the word controversy. If they ran Hillary Clinton and based the election on hard facts, she'd run rings around Bush. The scenario where a democrat loses to a retard would never arise - she is so much more charismatic than he could dream of being himself and would walk the TV debates. IF the election panned out the same way as last time, she'd win Clinton's home state and Gore's home state and take the election with them.

Sparks

President Hillary... hmmm. Well, there isn't much I can think of that sets off alarm bells there - with the possible exception of who she chose for a husband of course!

fisty

The 1st Cheat0r

Manach

I see Bush winning because.
1 The ecomony is bound to pick up sometime, if only a dead cat bounce.
2 Everyone likes a winner in war (even one as artifical as Iraq). An dogmatic republican spoiler, like Buchanan in '92, would not be considered, for Bush originates from that wing of the Party himself.
3 No strong democratic candidate, apart from prehaps Lieberman.
Hiliary Clinton is roundly loathed by the American Right for her attempt to reform/destroy (take your pick), the Healthcare system. They would pull out all the stops to stop this Lady MacBeth and rally to Bush.

Éomer of Rohan

yeah but come on, if they put up Hillary Clinton, it would destroy the Naderites, giving the democrats a head start; if she picked big issues with which to fight - eg the CORRUPTION of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT then the nostalgia at having a capable leadership would shift things in democratic favour; hell, I reckon even the non-Naderite greens would support the democrats after the ****e that they have gone through with the 'Thief in Chief' at the top.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Manach

3 No strong democratic candidate, apart from prehaps Lieberman.

Oh jeebus not Lieberman. He's so right wing it's not funny. The only reason he's not a Republican is that they weren't too keen on Jews back when he was starting out.

You're right that the right wing in America really hates Hilary Clinton - but I'm not sure she has enough die-hard supporters among Democrats to counteract this.

The other Democrat candidates seem to be mostly uninspiring white men in suits. At this stage I'm reduced to hoping Al Gore makes a comeback :rolleyes:

Sparks

This is pathetic. Cheney's speech where he said he'd be Bush's running mate basicly said that the two of them had their personal doctors standing by, so he'd go for it. And the democrats cannot field a contender? Hello, people, they're old, they're corrupt, their lead guy deserted during vietnam and has managed the worst turn in the US economy since the US economy was two guys trading animal skins in the woods!
What the hell are the democrats playing at? FFS, the sanest voice in Congress right now belongs to an ex-member of the KKK!
:rolleyes:

Biffa Bacon

Does anyone want to know my opinion on this?

No?

OK, I'll just put spoiler tags around it then.

I hope Bush is re-elected. There I said it.
Ra ra Go Team USA!!!

Éomer of Rohan

But then Biffa, we KNOW you want Bush re-elected, so I tell you what. THIS is your chance to tell us exactly WHY and allow us to tell you why we think the Bush regime should be consigned to the dustbin of history. So hit it...

Sand

Biffa answered the question set by the poll Eomer, its pretty much written in big flaming letters across the night sky why people think Bush is (pure evil / alright actually) by now. Bush will probably be re-elected anyway - Clinton is probably the democrats strongest candidate but the Clintons are loathed by large groups of voters, and the republicans can laugh off any democrat attempts to paint them as corrupt - I mean its the Clintons for gods sake:)

The economys a problem, but then most of the developed world is hit hard these days - Germany is technically in recession last I heard. Either way so long as arabs keep blowing stuff up Bush will be able to argue hes led them through Afghanistan and Iraq in rather unprecedented milatary victories - which is a nice qualification for leadership in wartime.

Éomer of Rohan

Biffa answered the question set by the poll Eomer

I know he did BUT I would like to see if he can justify his support; throwing down the gauntlet to him if you will. If he wishes not to accept, that is his prerogative. Why are you trying to weasel him out of it?

Hobbes

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if senario happens that allows Bush to suspend the elections and remain in office for an extended period of time.

Considering the whole two party system in the US it would be doable. Lets see a small scale nuclear terrorist attack around the elections killing off major members of the government (which mostly didn't agree with you).

It would work like a dream. You would have the whole US population polarised behind Bush and ready invade France if he said so. Even the fact he's put the US in the crapper in business and foriegn relations wouldn't matter.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
But then Biffa, we KNOW you want Bush re-elected, so I tell you what. THIS is your chance to tell us exactly WHY and allow us to tell you why we think the Bush regime should be consigned to the dustbin of history. So hit it...

Because of his foreign policy. I think we've been through this before though...

bonkey

We have indeed. You approve, others dont. We all have our different reasons, and - as you say - it has been been gone through before.

And the second line of the spoiler brought a smile to my face........

In terms of someone like Hilary Clinton being a serious candidate....I'm not so sure. Approval ratings are a very, very misleading indicator.

Consider a Republican voter. Might not approve of Bush's actions at the moment, but come next election will be far more likely to vote Republican and Bush than not-Republican because they dont approve of Bush.

Trite though it may seem to use as a reference, Tom Clancy - in my opinion - gave a very good description of the "real" mechanics in one of his more recent Jack Ryan novels.

Of the typically active voters, there is a fixed percentage who - come the day - will vote Republican or Democrat, regardless of who the candidate for that party is. Clancy put this figure at 40% Democrat, and 40% Republican. The remaining 20% is who actually decide who really gets elected, as they are the only people who will vote for a candidate rather than a party.

Those "pro-party" figures may be too high, but I dont think they're that unrealistic......but either way it is safe to say that they are at least a significant percentage, and it should always be remembered that things like popularity polls do not fully represent this.

So, to swing that percentage...or to encourage a higher turnout then normal with voters specifically for you. Now, on one hand, the concept of a coloured person, or a woman running for President seems like a winner - automatically getting the equivalnt voting groups all but under your belt from the get-go. Unfortunately, the opposite is also true...a coloured person or woman will = unfortunately - also have entire voting groups set indelibly against them from the get-go...and the general feeling is that such groupings would ultimately work against the candidate.

So...will Bush get re-elected? Personally, I think it will depend on a number of key issues. If think Iraq is still a ticking timebomb issue. It could result in a major swing for or against Bush, as the continued US presence means that it will not be forgotten as easily as the Gulf War of his dad's.

The economy would look like a damning factor right now, but if there are signs of a turnaround in the next 12 months, there is again a good chance that he will be given some credit, rather than criticism as he is at present.

But if neither of these issues go really sour or turn up trumps, then it will be down to the quality of the Democratic candidate, and whether or not they can - as Dave put it so well - "run rings" around Bush.

But always remember....since the advent of televised debate, there is increasingly strong evidence that the undecided voters are swung as much (if not more) by the smile and charisma of the candidate than by what they are actually saying.

Regardless of what I may think of Bush as a leader in terms of his policies, or the quality of his words, I will say that he does "come across" very strongly on television as a comitted, passionate believer in his nation, with just a trace of cowboy thrown in...and you know what....that wins votes just as much as good policy or articulacy does every time.

jc

shotamoose

Originally posted by bonkey
But always remember....since the advent of televised debate, there is increasingly strong evidence that the undecided voters are swung as much (if not more) by the smile and charisma of the candidate than by what they are actually saying.

Regardless of what I may think of Bush as a leader in terms of his policies, or the quality of his words, I will say that he does "come across" very strongly on television as a comitted, passionate believer in his nation, with just a trace of cowboy thrown in...and you know what....that wins votes just as much as good policy or articulacy does every time.

Bush might even try to play up his no-genius image. During the 2000 elelction, his team discovered that some people responded to Bush as 'one of us', especially in contrast to Gore the fact-spewing policy wonk.

Whoever Bush comes up against, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the 1980 Reagan-Carter debate. Every time the Democrat candidate comes out with a detailed explanation of why Bush is such a disaster on health, education or social policy, Bush can just do what Reagan did - shake his head wearily and say, "There you go again". Worked a charm.

Sparks

Bush might even try to play up his no-genius image.

image????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Éomer of Rohan

Originally Posted By Sparks
image????

LMFAO.

Yeah, regrettably I think daveirl has a point; I disagree with the whole notion of patriotism; I think it is as the poet put it the first resort of cowards and criminals - and what is more, there seems to be some sort of perception that patriotism is the region solely of the republican party; which is obviously crap; the democrats love their country too, they just aren't as jingoistic about killing innocent foreigners. At the same time however, it will come down at some level to name calling - and I have to admit; the Republicans have always been the better mud slingers.

I think Hillary should be given the chance though; I reckon she'd win and even if she didn't it would be a landmark event in American politics.

sceptre

Originally posted by bonkey
Of the typically active voters, there is a fixed percentage who - come the day - will vote Republican or Democrat, regardless of who the candidate for that party is. Clancy put this figure at 40% Democrat, and 40% Republican. The remaining 20% is who actually decide who really gets elected, as they are the only people who will vote for a candidate rather than a party.

Oh he's absolutely correct there. Same thing in Irish politics (FF can always count on about 35% even if the leader says he eats babies at the weekends, Labour about 12, FG about 20, smaller parties always at least 5. The remaining 25%-odd decides who's in government).

bloggs

The American public don't seem to care about policy, they care more about who is appearing more on TV. People like Nader don't have the mega bucks to get on TV, so people don't see him. Bush has raised about 200 million now from big Business, and they are linked to the owners of NBC, FOX, CNN. They will be pushing the Bush agenda, so people will only see the good side of Bush (is there one?).

The whole thing is a pretty sorry state of afairs. People get 'elected' on the amount of cash they have, not on policies.

sovtek

Man Hillary doesn't have a snowball's chance in Hades.
She's loathed by all Reps and actually enough by Dems.
What pisses me off (well one of the many) about the whole thing is the fighting already going on about "should Nader run...should we vote for who we think will win...should Kucinich and Dean just quit being so "radical".
Then Leiberman starts dissing Dean and Kucinich.
The most competant and the person with the most integrity is Nader.
**** thing is that I probably can't vote for him.
The whole system pisses me off.
Did you know that the Dems nor the Reps will even debate with other parties anymore.
Even then they won't allow members of the public to ask candidates questions.
If we had a different system we could actually vote our conscience.
Pundits on TV last week were busy trying to insinuate sinister motives to Gores latest speech, instead of actually analyzing WHAT he said. That's the kinda thing that plagued the 2000 (s)election.
Will the "American people" vote Bush back in?
I don't know...I think Iraq is going to look worse before it looks better (as it was a big, dumb FU from the beginning). I think it will effect the economy even more.
Will this register with FOX watching zombies? ...who knows.
I really hope so, but then you have to contend with the irrational fear alot of people in America have for "left-wingers". It might keep them voting for Bush even when he's a puppet-idiot-fratboy-on-Zanex-that-represents-the-worst-of-humanity.

bonkey

Sure the thread was old enough?

Man, bloggs, you must be bored to be reading back to threads that are 3 months stale.