This has to be the stake in the heart of the Democrat's "16 words" attack.

Some Democrat strategists admit that their only chance of beating Bush is hoping that the economy crumbles, or that Iraq becomes worse than Vietnam.

His numbers are now up to 57%, up from 52% before.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/944507.asp?0cv=CB10

Dude please, those polls say NOTHING.

And even if this would be an indication, I wonder: what do the majority of the Americans actually need to open their eyes?

I wonder: what do the majority of the Americans actually need to open their eyes?

You assume that you have your eyes open and the Americans have theirs closed. That might be construed as arrogance.

Charles

Etc etc etc more Bush propoganda, I wouldn't take any of this information with a pinch of salt.

Etc etc etc more Bush propoganda, I wouldn't take any of this information with a pinch of salt.

 

I quit believing in polls ever since I left the job I had doing such surveys. It i easy to rig a poll on purpose or accidentally bias the results, sometimes by changing a single word. Then of course we all see polls done @ the exact same time that can be as much as 10% to 15% different.

A poll conducted only during the daytime hours during the week tend to heavily favor Democrats.

A poll conducted only in the evening (any day) tend to heavily favor Republicans.

Polls done during the day on the weekend tend to lean slightly Democratic.

Also what has to be taken into account is what area of the country was the poll conducted in, how many respondents, age/race/gender/political ideology & party affiliation, of respondents, and whether or not the respondents are "adults", "registered voters" or "likely voters".

In the end, the only poll that will matter is the one conducted in November 2004.

And even if this would be an indication, I wonder: what do the majority of the Americans actually need to open their eyes?

Maybe their eyes are open Sabena 690. Democracy means that not everyone will think and vote according to the wishes of Sabena 690.

Just because you don't like Bush, don't belittle the millions that do.

"His numbers are now up to 57%, up from 52% before."

Who participates in these polls, I have yet to see any, do the same folks get polled over and over again? What's the error on this, +/- 5%?

Who are these people, where are these polls? I wanna participate, dammit!

I believe it is +/- 3 %

Pretty good figures for Bush given the usual pattern of such votes away from the incumbent(traditionaly here anyway)

Bush's ratings are tied largely to the U.S. progress on Iraq. He knows how to play politics and wants to win the election. Therefore, how much do you want to be he's savings lots of ammunition (i.e. we'll "find" WMDs in Iraq) for when it's the optimal time to get him through the next election.

Cnn reported Bush's ratings at 43% last week, saying that it was extremely low for this point in a presidency. So how it is 57% I am not sure. While I obviously don't know who is correct, I will say that living in Texas (Bush's State) it used to be all Bush lovers, and now everyone I come across cannot stand the man.

Big changes start with little changes, and like the UK, if the opposition had any reasonable candidate, Bush would be finished.

Like him or loathe him, he really has not had a very successful term. So far two wars, with Liberia, North Korea and Iran on the horizon. Americas opinion around the world has never been lower, economy is poor, moral is poor, unemployment is poor, stocks are poor, and his diplomacy has a long way to go. Even if he made the same decisions all over again, he could have made them in a much less offensive way.

Whether he is ultimately responsible for the state of affairs in the country at the time who knows, but if he doesn't improve it, he will ultimately fall.

I wonder: what do the majority of the Americans actually need to open their eyes?

You assume that you have your eyes open and the Americans have theirs closed. That might be construed as arrogance.

Well put Cfalk!

People overseas always say they hate Bush (yes that's with a capital B") but love Americans. What's going to happen when Bush wins in 2004? People overseas will still hate Bush, but they will also now hate Americans for putting him back in office!

We Americans don't care what the man in Munich, Cairo, Nagoya, or Brisbane think about Bush or any other president. If you dont like the current President I guess that's too bad for your cookie. Let it crumble.

Got milk...with that cookie?

People overseas will still hate Bush, but they will also now hate Americans for putting him back in office!

Didn't about half a million more Americans vote for Al Gore?

Electoral college. That's the one poll that DOES matter. That's our system not yours. Don't be concerned with it.

Al Gore? What's he doing of late?

Electoral college. That's the one poll that DOES matter. That's our system not yours. Don't be concerned with it.

I'm not. Still must suck that more Americans voted for someone else.

Nah... that's our system. People know that going into the voting booth. Al Gore thinks it sucks I will concede.

Airworthy, last poll I saw had his numbers down to 59%. Either way, he's lost the "mo" that he had following 9/11 until around May 1st when he announced the war was over.

Bush had better hope 1. The economy gets going, which it's not yet, and 2. That American GI's stop dying daily in Iraq, and 3. That his yes-men in Congress can stave off any investigations into the questionable motives leading to this continuing war.

If these indicators don't improve, he'll have a world of hurt next November. He is still the odds-on-favorite to repeat in '04, but, right now, he's nowhere the shoe-in he looked to be in the early spring.

A system where one vote counts more than another? Ultimatly where you live affects the strength of your vote...no?

Seems like a bit of a corrupt reigme to me! Shouldn't we send in troops so that the majority get the leader they want?!

A system where one vote counts more than another? Ultimatly where you live affects the strength of your vote...no?
************

Ultimately this will change. For example, In Texas, so many people don't even bother to vote because it is Bush's home state, therefore they know that their vote doesn't count for anything, as Bush will ultimately win there, so it is not worth voting against him.

This compounds the electoral college system as the Texas vote counts bigger than the Buttplug, Indiana vote yet the Texans don't vote.

When it is a 1 vote = 1 vote system, things will be better, although I do not say this in any way related to Bush as electoral has been there for many democrats also

When is it going to sink in with people outside the United States that we DO NOT elect presidents based on a popular vote? We never have and we never will. Please stop bringing it.

Besides, if Al Gore was any sort of candidate, he would have won his home state of Tennessee. He did not, so he lost. In retrospect, it had absolutely nothing to do wth Florida.

The US seems to have a problem with the way leaders in the world are elected, it should hardly be so on edge regarding critism of it's own system.

Remember, your president affects the rest of the world.

Remember, your president affects the rest of the world.

And that's the rub most foreigners can't stand! Oh well, I guess that's what sucks for some.

And that's the rub most foreigners can't stand! Oh well, I guess that's what sucks for some

What "sucks for some" is the way what your president does affects the lives of people in a country most Americans can't even point out on a map. Do you know where Lybia is?

The US is the one remaining super power. Whoopy doo. As such it has a responsibility to the rest of the world. The rest of the world shouldn't suffer thanks to mistakes the US makes.

A system where one vote counts more than another? Ultimatly where you live affects the strength of your vote...no?

Yes, just like in the UK 777236ER. There is wide variation in British ridings in terms of eligible voters. Hence a voter in rural Scotland has far more vote "clout" than a highly populated London riding. Is it also possible to electa national govt in the UK which received less support in total votes that the opposition IF the opposition vote is heavily concentrated. Perhaps you should restrict your concerns about American democratic problems when yours are no better.

Remember, your president affects the rest of the world.

That's true. Several US presidents have saved British democracy and way of life in the past 100 years. Britons should remember this, and be grateful for American democracy, power and protection.

Besides, if Al Gore was any sort of candidate, he would have won his home state of Tennessee.

Seeing he won about half the states, I don't see where it matters, at least in the context you put it. It IS true that had he won Tennessee-which he lost by a whisker, all the nonsense in Florida would have been moot, as he would have been elected President.

And that's the rub most foreigners can't stand! Oh well, I guess that's what sucks for some.

Imagine the reaction of Americans if some other world leader wielded the power-for better and for worse-that a U.S. president does. We'd be bitching up a storm too, I'd imagine, Clipperhawaii. Maybe you think it gives us bigger testicles to be able to influence so much of the world, but put yourself in the shoes of others around the world, and you can see how it bothers them. But they're just foreigners, right, so it doesn't matter what they think, right?


[Edited 2003-07-27 03:00:54]

I happen to live in a country that wields immense influence across the globe. So shoot me.
Alpha1, you sound as though we should apologize to the rest of the world for the influence we have happened to obtain in over 200 short years. I am not going to apologize for the success our grandfathers have had. As an American neither should you!

I am not going to just give up the influence gained just to placate some foreign individual or power.

We should however work with friendly countries for the better of all mankind. But in doing so we can not sell this country or it's citizens short. An example of that is this asinine Kyoto Accords.

Clipper, I'm not saying we should apologize-the world is what it is, but maybe people like you should step back once in a blue moon and realize that everyone doesn't see the world in the same warped way that maybe you see it.

And don't tell me what to think, as an American. I won't apologize for it, but when our power is being wielded by a bunch of zealots, I will critisize it. I can see where the rest of the world doesn't like our incredible influence. On issues like Afghanistan, I'll tell them that that's too bad, if they feel that way, but on Iraq, when I think it's wrong, I'll say I think it's wrong.

when our power is being wielded by a bunch of zealots, I will critisize it.

But you (and your ilk) elected them Alpha. Doesn't that make you a zealot?

You are right Alpha1, that not everyone sees the world like I do, nor should they. But you and others need to be reminded that I have my way of thinking and my way of thinking is putting what is best for me and my fellow citizens FIRST before thinking what is best for others.

I have to add that there is and always should be room for compromise. We should never say "our way" only. But we should never be forced to change because we are the big bad United States. That I will always refuse to do.

Bush or whomever is president I can assure you no matter what poll numbers he carries, will never not put the best interest of the American people first.

Clipperhawaii, I agree with all your comments!

The US should be proud of its accomplishments and not apologize for its military power. It should also not be afraid to push its weight around when needed.

Regards
Neil
Toronto

But you (and your ilk) elected them Alpha. Doesn't that make you a zealot?Z

I beg your pardon? I voted for Al Gore, not George Bush, my friend, so don't blame me, OK?  

But you and others need to be reminded that I have my way of thinking and my way of thinking is putting what is best for me and my fellow citizens FIRST before thinking what is best for others.

We can do that, Clipperhawaii, without shitting on the rest of the world, as we did in the UN before the war, and as we did in Iraq. We can take care of ourselves without acting like street-corner bullies, led by a guy telling the other "gang" to "bring it on". We can do a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now.

I have to add that there is and always should be room for compromise. We should never say "our way" only.

Agreed, but what you've been supporting is an Administration that has said, publically, if you don't support us-on whatever you do-you're against us. That made us a few enemies, and pissed of a lot of our friends in the U.N. before the war, because this administration, having been taken over by extremists pushing an extreme agenda, aren't interested in compromise. That stubborness to compromise is one reason why there's a battle going on in the administration to go back to the UN to get a resolution to get more nations to support post-war reconstruction.

The US should be proud of its accomplishments and not apologize for its military power. It should also not be afraid to push its weight around when needed.

I am proud of my cousin, a navy doctor, who served with honor in Iraq. A am NOT proud of the fact that this administration misled the American people, the Congress, the world, on it's reasons for this war. The WMD's aren't there, or if they are, they were not the threat Bush made them to be; there was no reconstituted nuclear program; there is no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. How can you be proud of an Administration that basically fibbed us into a war. So many here who support this war, said they were ashamed when the last president lied about getting a blowjob in the White House, yet they turn an blind eye to the fact that we were deliberately misled about a war where thousands have died, and where American, Brits and Iraqi's still are dying. For that, I'm ashamed-not of the troops, but of those who sent them there.

My personal opinion is that Bush's numbers popularity climbed after Saddam's sons were killed in the raid. After several weeks of questions over faulty intelligence and an increasing American body count, Uday's and Qusay's deaths were likely seen as strides in the direction the American people believe the war effort and rebuilding should go.

It will be interesting to see how this situation works out in the long term. I do not have any vested interest one way or the other. However, it will be interesting to see how Western values and democratic ideals can be integrated into what is fundamentally an Arab society with a strong Islamic influence. It will be an interesting marriage.

Two comments:
Gore did not win about half of the states...in fact he lost a landslide amount of county's...his votes seemed to concentrate on each of the coasts, specifically the Southern California region, and the North East.

I also have a theory as to why polls would yield Democratic leaning numbers during the day, and Republican numbers during the evening...its called having a job.

J

Ah, James, so most Democrats don't have jobs, eh? Then answer this question: why are all the mid-day talk shows with all the right-wing hosts like Rush Limbaugh so popular? All those Republican's doing their jobs, and just taking a break? Give me a break. It has nothing to do with that. That's just ignorance speaking.

My my Alpha 1...calling me ignorant? Care to explain than oh great one? I listen to talk radio from time to time, from the safe confines of my desk, or maybe in my truck when making sales calls, and I would guess that most of the callers to the type of shows you are referring to are doing the same.

Polls do not mean a whole lot, I was commenting on an above post. It seemed interesting to me that different times of the day would yield such different results...did that not seem interesting to you?

As for my comment on county by county results:
This is a link that contains a graphic of the nation. Take a look.

http://www.mob-rule.com/counties/electoral.html
J

Don't hand me that bull, James. Your whole intent was to make it seem as if most Republicans work for a living, and most Democrats don't, else you don't come up with that ignorant statement. And I really don't care what you do or don't listen to, but your argument came off as what I said above. That's ignorant.

And your intent Alph seems to be to discredit me, rather than answer the question posed to you, or anyone for that matter.

Again...care to take a guess of your own as to why those numbers present themselves? Or are you just being reactionary, I have my thoughts, what are yours?

J

My answer: I have no idea. And I don't really care. Most people I know are Democrats, and they work for a living. Care to rebut my charge that that's what you were insinuating?

You may calm your nerves as I was not insinuating anything relating to you, or yours. I was simply asking you your thoughts on a subject that apparently touched a nerve seeing as how you came at me with such vigor. But I guess upon further review you "don't really care". Fine with me. But how about the next time you don't agree with someone else's thoughts or ideas, you keep it to yourself unless you have something to bring to the table. I may be ignorant in your eyes, but you sir are apathetic in mine.

Something else occurs to me that seems to be a common theme in Democratic circles, all full of piss and vinegar when it deals with other's thoughts and ideas, but seldom provide one of their own.

J

On the related topic...Bush's poll #'s...I would attribute it to recent events in Iraq, an upswing (albeit slight) in the economy, and Americans getting tired of the "16 words" salvo being fired at Bush by the left. But then again that is just my opinion.

1. Off all, Bushes poll numbers do tend to slip in the summer, they have in the past two summers anyway.

2. This was a poll taken after a piece of good news came out, the numbers will reflect it.

3. The earlier polls where taken during a time of pretty intense accusations and publicity given to unfounded claims of intellegence padding by Bush made by the democrates. Needless to say G.W's earlier numbers are also skewed because of this.

James, since I've don't remember running across you before, I really don't care what you think of me in any way, shape or form. I think I asked a legit question, and instead all you can do is throw up a firewall at me. Fine, I guess we're even. Now go bother someone who will actually, really care about your opinions, OK? Have a pleasant evening.

You did ask a legit question...and I answered it. I too posed a question, why not answer it?

You may not have run across me before, but as I pay attention to these boards from time to time, your name has popped up quite a bit. What I want to know is why you all of a sudden don't have an opinion, over something so trivial as poll results and how they vary from time of day.

The polls are slowly on the way up, but none of it will mean anything in '04 if Iraq isn't stabilized and the economy is in the tank, which very well may happen.

And finally, thank you Alpha for now I feel like I am in good company as I am sure many on here, yourself included have read "go bother someone who will actually, really care about your opinions."

I'll try to have a nice evening, though feeling a bit under the weather, please do try and have the same. Not the sickness, the pleasant evening part.

Regards,

James

Ok, Republicans work to pay for the cost of the Democrats who don't work  

 

We should never say "our way" only

Clipper, this is exactly how bush is handling today, or at least, how we, 'foreigners', feel that bush is working today. So you are accepting something that you actually don't want?

Of course who is elected in America has a BIG influence in the rest of the world. Do you know what already changed in Belgium due to bush and his policies? Anyway, the only thing I hear about America these days (and this from a lot of people) is that we all are now waiting for bush to be bumped out of the white house. Since bush, the transatlantic relations were never so bad, he just bombed Iraq without even bother what France, Germany, Belgium,... have to say about a country which is still closer located to us than America.

Qyoto: EVERY European country wants Kyoto, and is working at it. Bush (he must love to work unilateral) just throw it away. I mean, nobody pollutes as much as the US. Are you guys forgetting that we still have to live in this world, without having cancer when you are 30 years old, without having astma etc etc? Do you think Qyoto is just a stupid invention of some lazy bureaucrats?

I only see a positive evolution the next coming years when bush is voted away.

Bush's Poll Numbers Are Climbing....

Did they get a 3rd recount or what?  

No Kyoto was the invention of radical evironmentalists, who fell that the US needs to decimate it's people and economy, since they can get press time and have influence there, by imposing harsh and unneeded restrictions on free enterprise.

Meanwhile.

Countries with major pollution problems and lax controls like India and China don't have near the restricitions because the enviornmentalists knew that they couldn't and don't have the influence needed to effectively pressure those governments.

It was a double standard, and never should have been signed by Clinton in the first place. There wasn't a chance of it ever being ratified by the senate.

Countries with major pollution problems and lax controls like India and China don't have near the restrictions because the enviornmentalists knew that they couldn't and don't have the influence needed to effectively pressure those governments.

Major pollution problem? Do you realise how much CO2 the US releases?

Do you know where Lybia (sic) is?

Sure do, 777236ER. I can even SPELL it, unlike you.  

Ok ok fair enough, it was late  

No Kyoto was the invention of radical evironmentalists, who fell that the US needs to decimate it's people and economy, since they can get press time and have influence there, by imposing harsh and unneeded restrictions on free enterprise.

Meanwhile.

Countries with major pollution problems and lax controls like India and China don't have near the restricitions because the enviornmentalists knew that they couldn't and don't have the influence needed to effectively pressure those governments.

It was a double standard, and never should have been signed by Clinton in the first place. There wasn't a chance of it ever being ratified by the senate.

Surely, you do know which country has by far the highest pollution per-capita?
(Hint: it has 4% of the world's population and 40% of the oil consumption)

L-188:

" Countries with major pollution problems and lax controls like India and China don't have near the restricitions because the enviornmentalists knew that they couldn't and don't have the influence needed to effectively pressure those governments."

You really should do some proper research before making such nonsense claims. Also, major pollution problems as you call them aren't something local. Countries with these problems don't have them because of their local industries alone. Pollution is world-wide and what one country pollutes now, affects other countries and the world directly.


"* In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively."
(Source: http://climate.wri.org/project_content_text.cfm?ContentID=1284)

So the US puts up 80% of the plant air each year.

You know we also plant these things called trees that tend to use Co2 to grown and make O2.

Thus the cycle complete.

Meanwhile in Asia, you have un-filtered smokestats, people burning dung to heat their homes, and a general sulfer crud over many major cities. That isn't pollution that needs to be addressed.

So the US puts up 80% of the plant air each year.

You know we also plant these things called trees that tend to use Co2 to grown and make O2.

Please, please, please can you try to check your facts before posting? It would improve the debate for everyone.

80% indeed...

Meanwhile in Asia, you have un-filtered smokestats, people burning dung to heat their homes, and a general sulfer crud over many major cities. That isn't pollution that needs to be addressed.

Perhaps so, but for each single unit of crud that an Asian pumps out, an American pumps out many more units of crud. Simple as that.

Poll numbers anyone? I mean that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Seems too many threads devolve into "The U.S. sucks because of X...or my life and my countrymens lives are affected negatively because the U.S. did X" give it a rest and get over it.

I would imagine that the U.S. does emit more pollution per capita, than say China or India. But comparing the U.S. to said nations isn't really apples to apples is it? No.

J

I have to say too, that I am impressed with a 16 year old Belgians grasp of American politics...he isn't too far off with:

"Ok, Republicans work to pay for the cost of the Democrats who don't work."

Well done. And did I read that? How could the U.S. act without any regards to the feelings of the French, Germans, and the...the...the Belgians? Goodness.

J

So, James, you do believe that manure, that Republicans do all the work. I thought you were that ignorant. Thanks again for confirming it.

Jamesag96 wrote:

"How could the U.S. act without any regards to the feelings of the French, Germans, and the...the...the Belgians? Goodness."


You are being sarcastic here, but if we act without any regards to what our allies (France, Germany...) think, our allies will simply start acting more and more often without any regards to what America thinks. How on Earth will this benefit us or the world?

As I've said before, working with our allies is in our national interest.

Unfortunately, PHX-LJU, the neocon mindset of foreign policy seems to automatically believe that American know better than anyone; that Americans should be put above everyone else, no matter what the consequences, and that we should never be concerned as to what others think.

In other words, this tack of foreign policy only gives lip service to diplomacy and compromise, and relies heavily on simply ramroding what they want down the throats of the American people and the rest of the world. They don't believe in diplomacy or compromise, so they ignore it as much as possible. So while most people can see that working with allies and finding common ground is the sensible thing to do, this paranoid neocon line of thinking doesn't believe in doing that.

Agree 100%, Alpha 1. I wouldn't be upset at all if such recationary attitudes were just damaging the current administration's reputation. Unfortunately, they are doing serious damage to our nation's image abroad (a very significant issue for the world's only superpower), and that could take quite some time to fix... and lead to serious consequences in the meantime.

[Edited 2003-07-28 01:42:45]

Unfortunately, they are doing serious damage to our nation's image abroad

I can second that, as a European... I never but never heard so much anti-Americanism as now.

In the past, there were the usual jokes about the Americans like we have about The Netherlands, France,... but what you hear now are no jokes anymore, it is a feeling, becoming a mentality.

As you say PHX-LJU, this is a very serious matter. I'm sure that the negative impact of the bush policy can only be changed by a new administration in 2004. Bush made a mess (unilateral 'preemptive' war in Iraq, lies not only to the American nation but to the whole world, etc etc).

I can only say: DUMP BUSH 2004

Sheesh, Frederic. I take it you dont like Bush then?  

While my comments earlier were tongue in cheek...as a 16 year old has very little grasp of anything but themselves...I do appreciate your continuing avoidance of the questions posed to you, and your complete lack of orginal thought.

The left by and large has made a career out of pointing out problems, yet solutions are hard to come by that don't rhyme with "Raise Taxes."

And since several here have derided the Pres., does anyone here actually have viable ideas as to how things should have, and going forward should be handled?

I am by no means a blind Bush supporter, but I do believe it is his duty to protect the citizens of the United States and its' allies against all threats foriegn and domestic. I also understand the delicate political situation that exists between the US and much of Europe. However, seeing as how the French, the Germans, and yes the Belgians were hell bent on doing nothing at all...I see little recourse. The UN provided a mandate last fall, though open ended and non-commital much like the previous 12 years. No one likes war, no one wants war. That being said, when it is necessary it is necessary. The US didn't create the climate we are in now, Islamic Extremeists provided all of the motivation needed.

My thoughts and opinions:
Bush needs to pull his head out of his ass, and get in front of the Ameican people and the world to get his message out. I am quite upset that we have heard from all of his advisors time and again, yet Bush has not Cowboy'd up and faced the music. All silence does is provide fodder for speculation. The administration also needs to come to grips with, and not shy away from info/intel that points out Saudi Arabia as a cohort in terrorism. Blacking out all references to the kingdom was bullshit in my opinion. If we are going to stay in Iraq, as I think we should, we need to speed up the transfer of power, get their oil pipelines pumping so they can pay their own way to re-build their own infrastructure, rather than burdening the American Tax Payer. How many of you realize just how bad things were over there...even prior to the war. Don't lose the War of Public Opinion, which it seems is happening right now. Bottom line is, a nation was liberated from a tyrant, they have lived under these conditions for decades and can not assimilate in a few months. NO...the WMD's have not been found, does that mean they don't exist? No...does that mean they do? No. But...we as a world community KNOW he had them, had used them, expressed interest in acquiring more, and CHOSE to ignore the United Nations requests for full disclosure...fully aware of the consequences. Who else besides the US, UK, and their allies have the strength and gaul to enforce UN mandates? The French? Too worried about monies owed...the Germans? Too worried about election results. It was apparent early that we would be going at it alone, hell it was like pulling teeth to get any assistance for Afghanistan. But when things flare up around the world, the US is usually the first ones to be asked for assistance...Liberia being a prime example. I think we should go in, the Liberians need help, but so did the Somalis, Rwandans, the list goes on and on. Bottom line is the World is a F---ed up place.

I have to get work.

J