I am astonished that GW Bush would stand a chance against anyone besides maybe Al Sharpton. Isn’t his approval rating in the upper 40s at best?
I don’t think so. Maybe I misread, but I think it’s in the 65 range.
Ah here we go, an actual cite:
The latest poll I saw showed GWB’s approval rating at 65 percent.
Bush has high approval ratings, but the number of people who would vote for him again is small.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71235,00.html
44% and that is from fox.
I disagree on Kucinich. I think he is electable. I believe the electorate will be tired of the right wing warmongering and general meanness. They will be ready for the left wing for awhile. He is the only presidential candidate who voted against the war. Outside of Dean who couldn’t vote. He has my support.
The problem, Reeder, is that the majority of people don’t see things that way. Millions of people, including myself, think that President Bush is doing what has needed to be done for twenty years. I think the result will be a safer world for the United States in the long term. Turning away from a debate on general ideology and back to the topic at hand, Kucinich’s views appeal to many people…but not enough of them to make him a viable candidate. He will be gone by early March, if not sooner, along with Sharpton and Moseley-Braun.
As one Evil to another, Evil One, I must point out that just have millions seeing it your way doesn’t cut it. Your candidate has to have MORE millions than the opposition does.
My feeling is that Dean is the most viable candidate, and that Bush is a lot more vulnerable than he seems. Because, see, it won’t matter if the economy improves, but it’s one of those JOBLESS recoveries. Jobless recoveries only help the investor class, a small percentage of the voting class.
Look for a very sharp battle in 2004. Anybody but Lieberman oughtta be able to swing it. If the Dems go centrist with Lieberman or another Repub lite, they’ll find that most voters will say, “Well, since there isn’t a hell of a lot of difference between these guys, I’ll go with the devil I know.” Unfortunately, I don’t know if the Democratic “Leadership” Committee will be able to figure this out.
Kerry: he’s got experience, credibility in the defense arena (cant’ wait to hear a debate between Kerry (wounded in Vietnam) and Bush (cut his hand opening a beer bottle at an Texas Air National Guard kegger), and is centrist enough without being RepublicanLight.
Evil Captor, I go back to history. The further left a candidate is, the worse he does nationally. The country is simply not open to “Socialism Lite”. If they were, there would not be Republican majorities in both houses of congress. Each party has a loyal base that will not stray. The key is the middle. Not bound by ideology or one or two hot button issues. Comfortable but not rich, agreeing in general with some liberal principals but not really wanting to pay higher taxes. Concerned about national defense and their own security. Who will they choose? They loved Reagan…and I think they’ll like Bush.
Bob Dole had plenty of credibility in this regard over Bill Clinton, but that didn’t seem to make a difference. Dole, if you recall, was wounded in WWII. Clinton ran to Oxford. Kerry doesn’t want to take on Bush on national defense because it’s one of Bush’s strengths. Bush has proven himself many times over to those who desire a strong response to terrorism. If Kerry can convince people he will be just as strong and can fix the economy (assuming it’s broken a year from now) things could get interesting. If the economy improves, look for Bush to win 35-40 states.
But at the time of Clinton vs. Dole the news wasn’t reporting about American soilders as being killed in a war that was marginally supported at home and resoundingly NOT supported by the majority of our allies. Clinto ran to Oxford? Who cares, no one’s shooting at us (by and large). That, I believe, was the sentiment at the time.
I see your point. If you are saying, in effect, that involvement in the Iraq war is going to hurt Bush at the polls, I disagree. But the depth of anti-war sentiment among voters is going to be revealed by which Democratic candidate they support. If it’s a primary issue for them, Dean and to some degree Kuchinch will benefit.
There are Republican majorities in both houses because Democrats tried to take the middle. Whats more I’d say the issues don’t matter that much to the majority of voters. I mean look at all the recent presidents and tell me when the one with more charisma loses to the one with less charisma. That hasn’t happened in a long while.
And even on the issues Bush’s record works against him. He cut taxes, but only 8% of Republicans think that they actually benifitted from the tax cuts. He went to war in Iraq, but the reconstruction isn’t going so well and well where are the WMDs. His predecessor had a great economy while he was in office and Bush has been predicting that the economy will recover for a long while now.
If you look at the polls most people care more about the economy and healthcare than security. Whats more Bush has never really showed that he is making the country safer in any real way. The idea that the WMDs were looted and sold to terrorists would take away Bush’s strongest appeal.
House elections tend to be local. Someone like Maxine Waters from Los Angeles couldn’t get elected statewide, but in her district, she’s fine. There are far right Republicans who are in the same boat. In the Senate, I come closer to conceding your point, but the races are still somewhat local in nature. Ted Kennedy would not be elected in Utah. Orrin Hatch would not be elected in Massachusetts. There are a lot of Republicans who were elected with solid majorities…as well as Democrats. However, there are a lot of people that agree with the Republican platform…apparently more of them that agree with the Democrats. I can hear some of you now…if voter turnout were higher, more Democrats would be elected. And I think you are right. But people have to make the effort to vote. And it is up to the candidate to inspire them to do so. Which brings us to…charisma.
1960 Charisma Winner-Kennedy, Election Winner-Kennedy
1964 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Johnson
1968 Chrisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Nixon
1972 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Nixon
1976 Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Carter
1980-Charisma Winner-Reagan, Election Winner-Reagan
1984-Charisma Winner-Reagan, Election Winner-Reagan
1988-Chrisma Winner-None, Election Winner-Bush (41)
1992-Charisma Winner-Clinton, Election Winner-Clinton
1996-Charisma Winner-Clinton, Election Winner-Clinton
2000-Charisma Winner-None, Election Winner Bush (43)
Now…In no case since 1960 did someone with more Charisma lose to someone with less. You are right. Superficial voters are a factor in presidential elections. But in only two cases where Charisma was not a factor (Johnson/Goldwater in 1960 and Carter/Ford in 1976) did a Democrat win. Johnson had Kennedy sympathy going for him and Carter had post-Watergate bitterness. (If anyone thinks that any of these four was charismatic, please feel free to object.) In all the other races in in 1968, 1972, 1988 and 2000…an uncharismatic Republican (Nixon twice and both Bush’s) won. Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were able to use charisma successfully. However, over the last fifty years, a Democrat was in office only twenty of them.
KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT
Gore.
Things have changed a bit since I began this thread. Bush’s poll numbers are down and the Democratic candidates seem to have gone dormant to a large degree, at least in the national media spotlight. I notice that Dean is trying to step a little closer to the center as well. In that regard, I now see Kerry and Dean as the front-runners, with Gebhardt third. I still think Kerry will be the eventual nominee.
Steven Hawking dies and goes to Heaven. St. Peter meets him at the Pearly Gates and says “Welcome, Dr. Hawking. We didn’t expect you quite so early, so unfortunately your room isn’t ready yet. You’ll have to stay with a few other men in a dormitory until the painters finish up.”
“That’s fine,” says Hawking. It’ll give me a chance to make some friends. When he gets to his room, his new roommates are obviously honored to be sharing quarters with the great Steven Hawking.
“I’m very pleased to meet you, sir,” says the first. You’ll be happy to know that my I.Q. is 180."
“Great!” says Hawking. “We can discuss unified string theory.”
The second approaches and shakes Steve’s hand. “How do you do, Dr. Hawking? My I.Q. is 145.”
“Excellent!” Hawking responds. “I’d love to hear your thoughts on history’s great works of literature.”
The third roommate sidles up to the great man sheepishly. “I’m also very honored to meet you, Dr. Hawking,” says the man, “but I’m afraid my I.Q. is only 95.”
“Terrific!” says Hawking. “Tell me, who do you think will be the Democratic nominee in 2004?”