Despite Iraq being handed over, and a recovering economy, Bush isnt in yet.

[Mitchell]

I know Iam getting hammered to death here if I dare say a bad word about the God Idol himself, George W Bush, but I'm going to make some points here that I can back up. Even with Iraq being handed over to the interim Iraq government, numbers show that the war was still not a popular move. Further, US forces will just not be able to "pull out", with an interim period of adjustment needed. Just last week, there was serious violence, and it is likely to continue for some time, meaning tragically there could be more American lives lost. It will be interesting to see how all this affects the polls in November.
Second, although the economy is "recovering", there has to be serious question as to if it will look as good by the numbers as the 4.2% unemployment rate that existed on Jan 20, 2001 when this prince took office. The Dow Jones is lower than on the day, and while it is recovering, it will be interesting to see if Americans are actually better off when they go to the polls in November than they were on Jan 20,2001.
One final point, and I can back this up also with a number. Bush 41 was voted out in November, 1992, after which he stated in his own autobiography that the economy had recovered greatly in the third quarter, and grew by something like 4% in the fourth quarter of 92, and yet Clinton, an unknown southern governor, defeated him handily. The problem this time is that Bush 43 does a better job of talking things up then his father, who was more combative and not likable, and Kerry is not the engaging warm character for change that Bill Clinton was in 1992. I honestly dont know whats going to happen, but before all the Republicans on the board start visualizing a Bush 43 victory in November, remember that there are issues here that make this guy vulnerable. I dont know if these will go away in the next four months, and he'll manage to slip in, or whether the numbers on the war that I posted here last week will ultimately hurt him, but time will tell. I say that anything can happen. I also know that while at points in the 92 campaign both Clinton and Bush 41 had sizable leads, just before election day the seperation between them in the polls was 2 points, and Bush 41 ended up losing by 5.5% 43 percent for Clinton to 37.4 percent for Bush 41 (Quoted from both men's autobiograhpies). I say, time will tell, and anything can happen, so before the Bush voters go about predicting a Bush victory in November, remember that voters can be fickle, and things can change, and sometimes the person one never expects to win, like Clinton in 92, can pull off a victory when the country is looking for change.

Mitch

[Mitchell]

I do want to make one additional point about my thread. There is one thing that Bush 43 has in his favor that his father didnt, more favorable media coverage. In 1992, the father stated in his own autobiography that during the campaign, the press had gone against him, and that the media coverage was 60% favorable for Clinton, as opposed to in the 30 odd percent range for him. Another thing that Clinton had in his favor was Perot getting 19% of the vote, taking votes away from Bush 41, just as Nader took votes away from Gore last time, and cost Gore the election, as Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes. I dont know if the third party candidate will be as much of a factor this time, as in both 92 and 2000 it affected the outcome of who was president. Hopefully, this race will be decided by Bush vs Kerry, and the third party candidate will not be as much of a factor, as was in both 92 and 2000.

Mitch

[giggleygirl25]

the only problem is...now that Iraq is supposedly in good hands everybody will start thinking everything is hunky-dory and in reality it may not be...it's terrifying to look at Bush on television and realize he's the one with his finger on the button...i'm wondering how we all will survive another 4 years of GWB...

[Mephistopheles]

As the elections draw near I expect alot more bodybags to come home from Iraq, the bad guys know they can harm Bush by killing US soldiers

[Mitchell]

Right now, and I know many dont like it when I quote "polls", the race is supposedly a dead heat. Someone said that with the Fed raising interest rates, that could possibly hurt Bush.
I think what may ultimately decide the election is as giggleygirl said, what happens in Iraq over the next 3 plus months. Also, another thing that will swing it, is the effectiveness of Kerry's campaign, and who his running mate is. This may well be one election, whichever way it goes, that will be decided by something other than the economy alone, which is how most presidential races are decided.

Mitch

[venray]

What will ultimately decide the election is who people think is the worst man for the job . They will then vote for the other. This is the way it has been for many years. The polls change daily depending upon which way the wind blows, because people really dont know what the issues are. Nor do enough people care. It is unfortunate that many dont know who they are voting for or why until they get to the polls to vote. They do not take time to research the issues or talk about them.

I am not speaking of anyone who posts here as it is obvious that we all have concerns and have done our own research and made up our own minds long before the election. I am speaking of a vast majority of Americans who just vote because they are "supposed to". They are a bigger concern than those who dont vote at all.

All in all one will win and one will lose and we will go on as we always have no matter which one takes office. We havent really changed much as a nation in years for lack of true leadership by the politicians we choose to guide us.

Not just the Presidency, but all political offices included. Until we find leaders that we can get behind as a majority of Americans and not just a majority of those who choose to cast a ballot, I fear we will never evolve into the nation we can be, setting an example of the right way to do things instead of muddling along in the world hoping not to create more problems than we solve.


Ray

[Mitchell]

Ray, I completely agree with your post, and want to add something.
This is in no way to Republican bash, just to elaborate on your point. I know people in this county who vote for Bush without ever listening to a political debate or the issues. They vote for him because it is family tradition that goes from generation to generation, and their parents, grandparents, or brothers vote Republican, and this is what they pass on to their children. People like this, while they have the right to vote that way, infuriate me to no end. This to me is like having a brain and not using it. If one votes for Bush because they like his foreign policy, benefit from his tax cut, like him as a president or a person, or agree with the war, then although I may not agree with their vote, I have to respect that. It is people who just do it for tradition, or who do it because their friends or relatives do, that infuriate me to no end, because there is no ryhme, reason, or individuality behind their vote or their thinking. I had a professor in college who used to ask questions in class, and not only did we have to give the answer, but we had to tell him why we felt that way. For example, in 1992 he asked me why I was voting for Clinton over Bush 41. I told him that I felt Bush 41 needed to be replaced because the economy was suffering, and people were feeling the effects of a terrible recession, and that Bush 41 was in my opinion not an effective president, and that the country needed new leadership due to the conditions that existed. I also felt at the time that Bush 41 was out of touch with the needs of middle class America, and we needed a president who was more in touch with such. He told me that my answer was complete, because it gave reason, and clarity of thought as to why I felt the way that I did. He would always tell us:" If you dont know why, you dont know anything", and would many times spend whole classes dissecting reasons why things in history or modern day politics happened, rather than what happened, so that we would understand meaning. Had I just said:" Iam voting for Clinton because my friends are", he would have given me an F for not thinking about why, and not giving an intelligent answer about why.
So, in short, I believe you are 100% correct that many vote without knowing the issues. This is sad, because elections are too important, and the country's welfare too critical, for elections to be decided by uninformed voters who vote tradition or gut without knowing the issues, and why they should or could vote as they do.

Mitch

[venray]

Just remember that just as many will vote for Kerry having never heard him speak on any issue.(and I dont mean just sound bytes and political rhetoric) They will vote for him just because he is a Democrat running against Bush and no other reason.

The Democrats have their family traditions as well.

That is the big problem with our system, but it is still the best there is........

Ray

[MrMacphisto]

...but then you have the issue of... Is getting behind the majority of Americans really worth it? If the majority remains as silent as it has been lately, then both parties will continue to succumb to special interest groups, which will leave many of us out in the cold while the rich continue to rape us of our rights. So... what do we do about this? I think Kerry will lessen the severity of this problem, but you have to wonder if this nation (and if much of the world) will ever free itself of the deceit and oppression that corporations and lobbyists have continued to subject humanity to....

[venray]

Unfortunately, Mac, the majority has always been silent in this country. That is exactly what I am talking about. I would venture to say that the real majority has a point of view somewhere right in the middle of the two extremes and there hasnt been a politician in ages that has come forth as a great leader that members of all parties could rally behind and put aside the petty differences for even just a short while.

Imagine a Congress and A President that worked together to make life a little easier for all of us instead of doing what they think will get them elected by a majority of those that still vote.

Ah in a perfect world...( as a friend once said)

Ray

[MrMacphisto]

Perhaps the elected part is the problem. The people don't know what's best for them, but then again, who is fit to rule anyway? Alas, anarchy was so simple... Life was nasty, brutish and short... Now life is empty, decadent and long... (at least for the 1st world)

[jhop220]

This is an intresting topic. I think we need someone else in office to help us get favorable recognition from the world. I know the U.S. is hated mostly everywhere and the war in Iraq helped contribute to that. I do not belong to any party at all though. I am not Democrat, Republican, or any other party. I vote on who I think is the better person. Back in 2000 I didn't really like either choice but I thought Al Gore was the lesser of two evils. This election my vote will probably go to John Kerry. My view on Bush is that I think hes a complete moron. Most Americans think that we're on the wrong track and I think John Kerry could get us back on track. I am also part of a group of people who just started to vote. Most people who are just registering to vote are heavily liberal and I think they will push Kerry's polls up. Not only that but Kerry has been working for African American, and Hispanic votes.