2004 Elections: Democratic Party Contenders

I think we would be smart, Mamaj, to urge MoveOn and others to get on the stick and rally people around Congressional candidates. The energy is there; it needs directing. That doesn't mean not continuing to help one's favorite presidential candidate, but it does mean getting unlazy about stopping the right wing from manipulating Congress any further. At the very least, put the brakes on. At best, insure a turnover.

Gee, does that mean some people are beginning to realize that Bush's rhetoric is empty air? Com'on, "leave no child behind" is a good policy.

Hey, what the heck nimh, Tart, the rest of you guys ... maybe I'm wrong about not bein' wrong, and just don't see it. If everyone else does, then its prolly me that's outta step. I ain't about to try to come off as infallible. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, there's no reason I can't be wrong now ... even if I ain't entirely convinced that I'm wrong now

Ain't nothin' wrong with that, is there?

Know what, timber? It's us playing off against each other that keeps us sharp. Geez, in my immediate family I have a son-in-law who's conservative republican (although he says he'll vote for anyone but Bush) and my daughter, the moderate liberal. Then there's my son, the conservative, and his wife, the democrat. My other daughter, who's just discovered this game - assorted others - all different views, and we get together frequently. If ever we had total agreement I think there would be fainting fits. And I grew up with a father who was a practising Young Republican until he died (if you started out that way, you stayed that way.). So real discourse is rare and to be treasured.

Not wrong, Timber. Misled. Not one of us here who hasn't been.

Well, maybe one or two of us...

timber, That you would admit you might be wrong is good enough for most of us. If you want to meet somebody that's stubborn, I'm included in the bunch too! LOL

BTW, you're honest enough to admit something we'll never find in maliagar.

I now honestly believe that Bush is the underdog...........facing anybody!!!!!

Timberlandko- Greetings- With regards to polls-

I must admit that I am of the school whose members, fortunately or unfortunately, make value judgements based on performance.

I think that Michael Jordan was the greatest player of this generation.

Statistics prove that.

Similarly, the Gallup Organization is head and shoulders above Zogby International, which contains important members who are frankly Anti-Semitic.

The National Council on Public Polls which made an analysis of the 2002 Election Polls found the following:

Number of Polls- Zogby- 17

Gallup- 7

Percent of Deviation in findings- Zogby- 2.5%

Gallup- 1.4%

Number of races where Polling Organization picked the wrong winner.

Zogby -5

Gallup- 0


I respectfully submit, Timberlandko that rhetoric is rhetoric and factual results are factual results.

Bill W. makes the interesting statement that he honestly believes that Bush is the underdog now facing anybody.

As the late great American philosopher, Mortimer Adler once said, there is a difference between informed opinion and uninformed opinion.

Of course, Bill W. is entitled to his opinion. It is also welcome, however, it may be( since he gives no data) uninformed.


The most recent Gallup Poll-August 25th/26th shows the following:

In an election between Bush and a generic Democrat candidate


Bush-51%

Democratic Candidate-39%

Other(Nader?) -4%

No Opinion- 5%

cicerone imposter comments on George W. Bush's mantra-Leave No Child Behind.

I wonder if Cicerone Imposter noticed that the House of Representatives recently voted for a "voucher" plan for DC which, I understand, will pass the Senate and be signed by Bush.

I wonder if "Leave No Child Behind" is really a stalking horse for the voucher system?

We shall see.

Italgato, the relative probity and respective accuracy of the various polling organizations is unarguably subject to objective, quantifiable verification. Still, there are differing polls, and one side or the other can be expected to embrace results favorable to their respective parochial agenda while attempting to delegitamize contrary findings. The only poll that carries real weight is that nationwide poll conducted biennially the first Tuesday folowing the first Monday in November. It is then that indeed we shall see and read the true mood of The Electorate. I expect there will be some dissatisfaction with and objection to that poll, too; graciousness in victory is generally more evident than graciousness in defeat.

Oh, and no need to be formal; folks here mostly just call me timber, 'less they're angrilly callin' me names :wink:

Timber- You are quite correct, the only poll that counts will be on nOV. 2, 2004.

I have been watching polls long enough to know that there are quite a few problems with polling. However, a visit to the Gallup site will reveal an article which goes into great detail about the use of mathematical and statistical techniques which allow some polls to be "better" than others.

My reaction on polls followed when I viewed the Zogby Poll listed as an authoritative source.

I have read enough about Zogby and Zogby International to know that that poll may indeed be tainted.

I did some research( which, of course, all are free to rebut) that showed that Zogby International does indeed have problems.

However, I did not consider that to be the last word.

I very carefully searched for an authoritative source. I believe I found one, namely, the National Council on Public Polls. (Of course, anyone is free to try to show, if possible, that this is not an authoritative source.

The National Council on Public Polls clearly indicated that the Gallup Poll was not only more reliable than Zogby but made fewer error with regard to choice of winners.

That's it!

Again, I do agree with your comment about the only real poll.

I am willing to wait.

However, I must insist that I may again quote the National Council on Public Polls if anyone insists on denigrating the Gallup Organization.

Cheers- Timber

Simple, it's based on 100% of data available to everyone under every soure.............

Thanks for allowing me an opinion, the majority of righties I've encountered don't even allow me that right

Clearly, whether one posits the 'real' stat at 59% approval or 49% approval for Bush, that stat is declining steadily and he is in trouble. And he deserves to be in trouble. Not only is he demonstrably incompetent and under-educated for the Presidency in this complex modern world, he has about him a crew sporting some of the worst pathologies one might find in a western government...secretive, hubris-laden, draft-evadingly selfish, and with enough personal wealth made or in prospect from connections with the oil, gas and military industries to feed a small African nation for some weeks.

This editorial is tender-footed... http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/opinion/09TUE1.html

Bill W indicates that "It's based on 100% of data avbailable to everyone from every source".

I must confess, Bill W. that I must have missed that 100% of the data from every source.

I hope that you won't feel it is an imposition to give me some of that data.

Thanking you in advance.

Mr. Blatham is of the opinion that George W. Bush is demonstrably incompetent and undereducated.

As to the matter of his incompetence, I have seen no real evidence and am respectfully asking blatham to provide some that proves his "incompetence"

However, I must agree with Mr. Blatham about Bush's lack of education.

His colleagues like to brag about the fact that Bush graduated from the best business school in the world at the time( The Harvard MBA program.).
I know of some people who left that program at approximately the same time Bush was enrolled.

These people complained that the program at Harvard Business School wasn't rigorous enough.

Well, Blatham, considering that that is the lead editorial in today's Times, I'd say it's a pretty strong statement.

Also interesting is David Brooks first bi-weekly column for them, appearing today. A bit different from the ones he wrote for the Weekly Standard. But then even Krystol has changed his tune.


Whatever It Takes
By DAVID BROOKS


he Bush administration has the most infuriating way of changing its mind. The leading Bushies almost never admit serious mistakes. They never acknowledge that they are listening to their critics. They never even admit they are shifting course. They don these facial expressions suggesting calm omniscience while down below their legs are doing the fox trot in six different directions.

Sunday night's presidential speech was a perfect example. The policy ideas Bush sketched out represent such a striking series of policy shifts they amount to a virtual relaunching of the efforts to rebuild Iraq. Yet the president unveiled them as if they were stately extensions of the policies that commenced on Sept. 11, 2001.

Fortunately, while in public members of the administration emphasize their own incredible foresight, in private they are able to face unpleasant facts and pivot in response. Sometime around the middle of August, while the president was on the ranch, members of the Bush team must have done a candid and scathing review of how things were going in Iraq.

This was the time, remember, when leading Republicans were falling out of love with Donald Rumsfeld. They were outraged with Rumsfeld's unwillingness to even consider the possibility that the U.S. might need more troops in Iraq and a much bigger Army over all. Several Republicans were also coming to doubt the competence of the people running Iraq policy. While on visits to Baghdad, they were finding that civilian reconstruction efforts were absurdly underfinanced and understaffed. What's more, there were no Iraqis in Paul Bremer's administrative headquarters. The Iraqi Governing Council had been appointed, but its members were being treated like figureheads.

By the time the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad was bombed on Aug. 19, President Bush was willing to strike out on a new course. It was in a phone call that day with Condoleezza Rice, a close Bush adviser reports, that Bush observed that the tragedy of the bombing might be turned into an opportunity to internationalize the rebuilding effort. Colin Powell was dispatched to talk with Kofi Annan about a resolution authorizing a greater U.N. role. Annan was receptive.

The decision to go to the U.N. is not the most important policy revision Bush executed. The coming U.N. debate will give a lot of second-tier powers the chance to preen about sending troops they don't have and making contributions they can't afford, but nobody should fool themselves into thinking it is in any way crucial to the region. Powell has estimated there may be a mere 10,000 to 15,000 additional international troops. Some technocrats from the Sorbonne may supplement the ones from Johns Hopkins, but the U.N. offensive is a long journey for only a modest reward.

The truly important initiatives Bush launched were, first, to sharply increase the level of spending on Iraq, and therefore increase the likelihood that major infrastructure problems will be addressed. With this, Bush is not only taking on the antiwar Democrats, but also the so far silent but oh-so-sullen fiscal conservatives in his own party.

Second, Bush has finally signaled that the U.S. is going to hand over real authority to newly selected Iraqi ministers. Yesterday, Bremer released a seven-step process for handing power back to the Iraqis that reads like a treatment program for Imperialists Anonymous. If this process is carried out, Americans administrators will be serving Iraqi executives, not the other way around.

Some close advisers suspect the violence may not abate in Iraq until early next year, and it will be interesting to see whether Americans can sustain their morale over that time. Still, as Bush makes these pivots, I'm reminded of the way Ronald Reagan made his amazing policy shifts at the end of the cold war, some of which outraged liberals (Reykjavik) and some of which outraged conservatives (the arms control treaties with Mikhail Gorbachev). Presidents tend to be ruthless opportunists, no matter how ideological they appear. Even as he announced his strategy on Sunday night, Bush left open the possibility that he might be compelled to shift again and send in more U.S. troops if circumstances warrant.

The essential news is that Bush will do whatever it takes to prevail, and senior members of his administration are capable of looking honestly at their mistakes. You will just never be able to get any of them to admit publicly they've ever made any.



From all indications this is a sinking ship. It would take a miracle turnaround in the ecnomic world ( replacing those 300 million jobs plus more to give job growth, ensuring some sort of plant and industry re-investment, reducing the trade deficit (the ups and downs of the Dow are not a true indicator), restoring growth and economy in the form of living wages and afforadbale housing, health care, etc. And that's on one side. The Iraqi mess, which will have a price for years to come, stopped looking long ago like that war of liberation that was another of the Bush slogans and took on the colors of what was predicted and feared.

So, from Bush, it is more and more apparent that we have an empty man, with speechqwriters who don't know what to write anymore.

(OK - and after this let me get back to my train schedule



Actually, I agree.

I think a liberal poster here some time posted a link to quite a thorough deconstruction of Zogby's practices. (It's ... here, from the American Prospect). Zogby, you see, has lately been mostly accused of being a pawn of Republican interests. Then again, its not always been that way. Mostly however, from what I understood from the article, he tends to have a knack to "deliver" the desired results to whomever is paying for the research.

Still, I cant help wonder - back in January, when Zogby polled 51% "deserves reelection" for Bush and 36% "someone new" - did you also think its results were clouded by the Zogby family's "Arabic heritage" (thats from your post on the other thread)?

OK - so, Zogby's out. Who else we got? Italgato has generously shared the Gallup results with us several times. There's a few others as well.

Time/CNN, 3 Sept:
Will vote, "definitively for" Bush 29%, "might vote for or against", 25%, "definitely against", 41%.

Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political report, 2-4 Sept:
Will vote, "definitively for" Bush 38% (down 6% from last month), "might vote for or against", 24%, "definitely against", 36%.

CBS News, 26-28 Aug:
Bush 33%, Democrat 27%, Don't Know (Yet) 40%

Democracy Corps Poll, 24-28 Aug:
Bush 46% (down 3% from last month), Democrat 42%, Not Sure 10%

Mixed bag there. (You can check up with all these regularly at Polling Report.com). Overall they indicate a tight race, with many undecideds, and still a marginal lead for Bush. The Time/CNN poll seems to contain the worst news for Bush, but note: as soon as the questions specify Bush vs Kerry, Bush vs Lieberman, etc, the poll reverts to showing a minimum 5% lead for Bush - kinda in line with the other polls. But what three out of four polls above have in common (there's no past figures from the Time/CNN poll), is that the Bush figures are dropping.

Not 300 million jobs; 3 million. Also, the Iraq liberation is at the sacrifice of US citizens doing without health care for our own children, larger classrooms, higher college tuitions, US infrastructure breakdowns, and the huge mortgage future generations will be paying for this folly. This Harvard educated imbecile is a danger to all humanity, and it makes some wonder why he continues to enjoy a good performance rating in this country. This will be the dilemma of the new century for historians.