This may have been posted by Dan..but I didn't want to review the past 3 pages of topics so I apologize if this is a repeat.....
Bush managed to win the election by appealing to fear and by making the vote about things other than his performance in office. Americans still aren't happy with that, a new poll found. The Ins ute For America's Future conducted a post-election poll and found that, by a margin of 51 percent to 41 percent, Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is going—even among those who voted to return President Bush to office. By 49 to 45 percent, Americans said the war in Iraq has made us less secure. Even more telling, voters favored major reform of the health care system by 72 to 24 percent. The poll results show that America is indeed in tune with progressive values , said pollster Stan Greenberg.
See The Data
Just something that made me go hummmm.
Still relying on polls?
When President Bush leaves office with the nation (and the world) well on the way to defeating global terrorism...the polls will say that 95% of Americans were behind him the whole time.
Polls change with the wind...
Hey, I see gold is up, employment is up, and oil prices are down today. Maybe they should take a poll and see if everyone is happy about that.
I'm sure a lot of conservatives would say that they are 'unhappy with the direction the country is headed' and that they would like 'major health care reform'.
I would echo that sentiment, and I would also add that I think Bush has the right idea on those issues.
Well, I know some who voted on Bush NOT because he was doing a good job but simply because they liked him better.
They don't like the way the war in Iraq is going, or the economy or the deficit but they still voted for him. I guess I can see that since I voted for Bill regardless of his sex life.
There will never be a defeat in global terrorism.
Yes Mandate for Bush! Just ask the 2 Democrats still left in congress(before they get voted out)...
Maybe, but I guaran-goddamn-tee-ya they won't be much of a nuisance either!
Talk about some broad questions...
For instance, I support Bush but I am unhappy with the direction the country is going.
For example, all the people who feel they are en led to something for free. The calls for socialized healthcare from the left. Anti-war/anti-defend ourselves libs who think if we just leave Iraq that Osama will leave us alone. Allowing illegal immigrants into this country, then expecting tax payers to pick up the tab for their medical, health-care, etc.
Lawsuits and lawyers running amok (i.e., fat people filing suits against McDonald's). People who scream free speech but then say I'm restricting free speech when I exercise my free speech to call bull on their free speech. Anyone who plays the race card on either side. Knuckleheads thinking Bush and our government were responsible or conspiratorial in 9/11 and calling for waste of further tax payer dollars to investigate said lunacy.
Education. Specifically the very preeminent views that kids who can't even spell or add being passed to the next grade level because the parent threatens lawsuit. Similarly, parents threatening suits if little Johnny fails a test, or if he gets sent to detention for decking his homeroom teacher. Etc. etc.
All of that pisses me off about the direction of America, but it hardly means I don't support Bush.
Dubyah had the weakest re-election numbers (electoral) of any in bent actually re-elected in the past century. Definitely not a broad mandate.
I think another misunderstanding, with respect to polls during the campaign, is that Demoncrats saw a disatisfaction with Bush (on many issues) as a sign they'd prefer Kerry when, in fact, it was because Bush wasn't conservative enough on certain issues.
You can be unhappy with your candidate without ever entertaining the notion of voting for the other ticket.
That's not really true when you consider the fact that he wasn't the popular choice in the first place.
He's the only electoral college President to ever win re-election and he won it by a substantial number of popular votes in the most heavily participated election in decades.
He won more popular votes than any President in history.
Considering that he had less support to begin with I'd say his winning margin is among the most impressive in history.
I'm going to have to signal the spin alert here, ex. Dubya can have either the weakest or the strongest re-election numbers in history, depending on how we want to look at it.
Whatever gets you through the storm ex. In reality, he was only a hairsbreadth away in many states from securing an electoral landslide. All but three of the "Blue" states were lost by less than 5% and that was generally due to "isolated" population centers where the Demoncratic get out the vote efforts were waged with abandon; their old tried and true "throw down" voters.
He's going forward as if it were a mandate...I guess he didn't get the memo.
PS: the only Mandate that matters can be found here:
http://www.archives.gov/national_arc...s ution.html
He won more popular votes than any President in history.
...soon to be eclipsed by another president after the population grows some more. The population boom mandate?
I think most are not happy with Bush, but also most were not so thrilled about Kerry either.
...soon to be eclipsed by another president after the population grows some more. The population boom mandate?
The last President to get more than 54 million votes was Ronald Reagan 20 years ago.
Kinda s up the theory that it was all due to a population boom doesn't it?
Either that or Clinton was one of the least popular presidents in history...Something I don't think is true.
Election-wise, that was actually true. He won only a plurality.Either that or Clinton was one of the least popular presidents in history...
Ronnie Raygun also won a landslide, so you'd expect his overall vote numbers to be up. Just the fact that Bush had only 51%, yet still polled the most votes for a prez ever show how worhtless that stat is, and how voterturnoutcentric.
51% to 48% is not an overwhelming mandate, although it's probably better than losing the popular vote like 2000.
Sad times indeed.
Why sad times? I like our chances for turning it around with Bush a of a lot more than I did with Kerry.
Ahh so Clinton won re-relection with only a plurality while Bush took a majority...that without winning the popular vote in his initial election...Making this earlier statement by you:
A bunch of misleading Bull .Dubyah had the weakest re-election numbers (electoral) of any in bent actually re-elected in the past century. Definitely not a broad mandate.
You sir, have kicked your own ass.
Especially when you factor in the fact that Bush had the fewest elctoral votes of any President since 1888, when he was elected in the first place. He picked up more elctoral votes between his first and second terms than Clinton and quite a few other Presidents. He also picked up 9 million additional votes in the popular vote...that is the second best of all time both by proportion and by total gain...again, second only to Reagan who picked up 11 million votes in his re-election bid a whopping 4% gain...which is huge....Compare that to FDR who lost votes in every single re-election bid.
What Bush did...it's like Bush had a negative Batting Average to begin with...and he still ended up winning the batting le. That is impressive. A large part of the credit goes to the Crats...but the result cannot be denied...Bush does have a mandate...the Republican Party has a mandate...and most importantly, the Democratic Party has a Mandate and it's Mandate is for the Democrats to pull their heads out of their asses and get their together.
W most definitely got a mandate...just the fact that he got re-elected was quite amazing...but let's face it, that has more to do with the inep ude and mental illness of the Democratic Party than any Bush himself really did. IF the Democrats had even been remotely supportive of the war effort they probably would have beaten W...instead Kerry had to kiss the ass of the extremists in his party to scrape up enough votes to get the nomination...a tactic that was used against him and hurt his bid for the actual Presidency.
So Bush did get a mandate...his mandate was to save us from the Democrats.
Last edited by whottt; 11-09-2004 at 11:55 PM.
I keep seeing this quote, but it is a non-factor when considering the amount of votes cast. I bet John Kerry had the 2nd most votes in history cast for him (cant back that up, just a theory based on the sheer number of voters).
No, you are right, he did, but that's like putting the team that loses the the highest scoring Superbowl in the same league as the teams that have won the Superbowl....there are two columns there..the winners and the losers. As much anti-Bush propaganda as was out there the fact that Bush increased his vote total by 9 million over his initial election is astounding.
Every time a President has been elected without winning the popular vote he has been thoroughly destroyed in his re-election bid...until now, this President got 9 million votes more...even if you give weight to population growth that is still an amazing total.
Most people would say FDR was the most popular modern president...with all the terms he served...yet even he got fewer votes on each re-election bid. This win for W was impressive in the historical sense.
Last edited by whottt; 11-10-2004 at 01:30 AM.
I understand this but you cannot base a comparison on a variable (actual votes) you have to base it on a constant (actual votes/votes cast) otherwise the comparison doesnt hold up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
