jasonxctf Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I always laughed when I heard people say that Bush won with a mandate. Sorry buddy, when 49% of the Country picked someone else... you didn't win a Mandate. It's going to be an interesting second term for GWB. WASHINGTON — Despite a clear-cut reelection and the prospect of lasting GOP dominance in Congress, President Bush (news - web sites) prepares to start his second term with the lowest approval ratings of any just-elected sitting president in half a century, according to new surveys. That distinction, which pollsters and analysts blame on public discontent over the war in Iraq (news - web sites), comes as Bush begins drafting two major speeches that could quickly recast his image: an inaugural address Jan. 20 and the State of the Union soon after. Bracketed between them is the Jan. 30 election in Iraq, another milestone that could affect public impressions of Bush. His performance in those speeches and the outcome of the Iraqi vote could determine whether Bush regains the momentum from his Nov. 2 election victory in time to push through controversial initiatives such as revamping Social Security (news - web sites), rewriting the tax code, limiting lawsuits and trimming the budget deficit, analysts said. A Gallup survey conducted for CNN and USA Today puts Bush's approval rating at 49% — close to his preelection numbers. That's 10 to 20 points lower than every elected sitting president at this stage since just after World War II, according to Gallup, which has been tabulating such data since Harry S. Truman won a full term in 1948. Bush's Gallup rating echoed a survey published last week by ABC News and the Washington Post, which put his approval rating at 48%. That poll also found that 56% of Americans believed the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Time magazine also put Bush's overall approval at 49%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 But hey ... Bush won. What does that say about the alternative choice? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Worst. Candidates. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Worst. Candidates. Ever. Maybe ... Dole vs. Clinton sucked big time, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Maybe ... Dole vs. Clinton sucked big time, too. At least it seemed like Bob Dole had some integrity. These guys :puke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't think it says much for either candidate. Bush and the GOP had a huge edge in 2004, with a message machine that's the most powerful in politics today. Something they've been building for the last 18 years since 1986 and the Gingrich founded GOPAC. It was only last year that Democrats started working to rebuild like the GOP did over the course of the 80s and 90s. Despite having less money, and less time to build an organization like the GOP, they got 48.3% of the vote and more votes than any other Presidential candidate besides George W Bush in history. (By the way, when the popular vote was all certified finally, Bush's popular vote share slipped slightly below 51% to 50.7%). Despite having the power of incumbency, Bush had the narrowest reelection victory for a president in 100 years, even though it was during a time of war. Kerry, on the other hand, failed to respond adequately to the attacks that were constantly piled on each candidate early in the campaign. He came on strong towards the end, but it was too little, too late. Being painted as ineffectual combined with Swift Boat and increased conservative turnout to pass "hate" amendments against equal rights for same sex couples ultimately doomed the Democratic standardbearer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Worst. Candidates. Ever. Think. Before. You. Speak. Lets see, the guy you probably voted for lost, and if Bush was the worst candidate, then what was Kerry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Think. Before. You. Speak. Lets see, the guy you probably voted for lost, and if Bush was the worst candidate, then what was Kerry? They were some of the most horrid candidates -- spineless, brainless, dumbass sonsofb****es. [and hey, I didn't vote for either of them -- Badnarik all the way] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Think. Before. You. Speak. Lets see, the guy you probably voted for lost, and if Bush was the worst candidate, then what was Kerry? Bush was the worse GOP candidate in my lifetime. I would have choosen any of the other GOP candidates including Bob Dole. Kerry was the worse DEM candidate in my lifetime. Total it all up and we have a close toss up election where the GOP won their first popular vote in 16 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I don't think it says much for either candidate. Bush and the GOP had a huge edge in 2004, with a message machine that's the most powerful in politics today. Something they've been building for the last 18 years since 1986 and the Gingrich founded GOPAC. It was only last year that Democrats started working to rebuild like the GOP did over the course of the 80s and 90s. Despite having less money, and less time to build an organization like the GOP, they got 48.3% of the vote and more votes than any other Presidential candidate besides George W Bush in history. (By the way, when the popular vote was all certified finally, Bush's popular vote share slipped slightly below 51% to 50.7%). Despite having the power of incumbency, Bush had the narrowest reelection victory for a president in 100 years, even though it was during a time of war. Kerry, on the other hand, failed to respond adequately to the attacks that were constantly piled on each candidate early in the campaign. He came on strong towards the end, but it was too little, too late. Being painted as ineffectual combined with Swift Boat and increased conservative turnout to pass "hate" amendments against equal rights for same sex couples ultimately doomed the Democratic standardbearer. The Dems weren't around in 1986? They've had the same opportunities to build their election coffers as the GOP. If they had "less money and less time" it's due to their own stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 (edited) The Dems weren't around in 1986? They've had the same opportunities to build their election coffers as the GOP. If they had "less money and less time" it's due to their own stupidity. The GOP had their candidate picked for 4 years prior to the election. The GOP also were able to stretch the soft money date further by holding an unusually late convention. It forced the DEMS to use their Federally limited budget longer. The GOP also was much more effective in using the new groups like Swift Boats. All in all this was a masterfully run election by the GOP. Both sides needed every last vote and the GOP was a much better political machine. They ruled the airwaves with the GOP Radio network. They led in newspaper endorsements, and Fox was the #1 watched "News" network. Harness advertising to the media on slaught and the GOP was unbeatable. Edited December 28, 2004 by Texsox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 The Dems weren't around in 1986? They've had the same opportunities to build their election coffers as the GOP. If they had "less money and less time" it's due to their own stupidity. No, read what I'm saying. The Republican party set about creating a new generation electoral machine in the mid 1980s. It has been phenomenally successful and knocked the Dems off their tracks. Since 2003, the Dems have been trying to recover by creating a new generation machine of their own. It takes time. The Dems had less money, but did improve their fundraising efforts in 2004. Once again, it takes time to turn weaknesses into strengths. Although, to be honest Tex, Kerry did have more newspaper endorsements than George Bush. Which is actually a relative rarity. Bush won the endorsement battle in 2000. And over the last 50 years, more newspapers have endorsed Republicans rather than Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 No, read what I'm saying. The Republican party set about creating a new generation electoral machine in the mid 1980s. It has been phenomenally successful and knocked the Dems off their tracks. Since 2003, the Dems have been trying to recover by creating a new generation machine of their own. It takes time. The Dems had less money, but did improve their fundraising efforts in 2004. Once again, it takes time to turn weaknesses into strengths. Although, to be honest Tex, Kerry did have more newspaper endorsements than George Bush. Which is actually a relative rarity. Bush won the endorsement battle in 2000. And over the last 50 years, more newspapers have endorsed Republicans rather than Democrats. I heard it on Hannity and assumed the newspaper endorsement statement was fact. Could it be more "major" newspapers endorsed Bush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSteve Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 They were some of the most horrid candidates -- spineless, brainless, dumbass sonsofb****es. [and hey, I didn't vote for either of them -- Badnarik all the way] I agree, but I am just saying the majority here voted Bush or Kerry, and to support Kerry but call Bush many of this is being a hypocrite IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WilliamTell Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Usually 2nd terms aren't as productive as first. I think Bush is trying to change that though. We'll see if it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I agree, but I am just saying the majority here voted Bush or Kerry, and to support Kerry but call Bush many of this is being a hypocrite IMHO. Even if forced to pick between two poor choices, isn't it still better to vote? Should voting for someone stop them from criticizing? I voted for Clinton (big surprise) but was very quick to criticize his personal choices while in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 I heard it on Hannity and assumed the newspaper endorsement statement was fact. Could it be more "major" newspapers endorsed Bush? No. That is completely without fact. Here's a list of the 20 largest circulation papers in the U.S. and who they endorsed. Kerry won the endorsement of ten, Bush won the endorsement of 6, and four of them could not endorse either. In Florida, Bush did not win the endorsement of any of the largest 6 or 7 papers in the state and papers that have historically backed Republican presidents chose to give no endorsement this year. I don't have the exact figures from Editor and Publisher, but according to them - Kerry got more actual endorsements than Bush and the circulation of Kerry's endorsements beat the circulation of Bush's endorsements handily. I'd gladly get you those, if you'd pay for me to subscribe to the E&P online. USA Today - None NY Times - Kerry Wall Street Journal - None LA Times - None NY Daily News - Bush NY Post - Bush Chicago Tribune - Bush Newsday - Kerry Houston Chronicle - Bush Dallas Morning News - Bush Arizona Republic - Bush SF Chronicle - Kerry Sun-Times - Kerry Boston Globe - Kerry Star-Ledger (NJ) - Kerry Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Kerry Philadelphia Inquirer - Kerry Star-Tribune (Minneapolis) - Kerry Cleveland Plain Dealer - None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.