0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:13 am
Tell me about it.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:19 am
I hear ya, sister
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:19 am
nimh wrote:
It means a drop in Bush's popularity after the war (pretty much ended). As happened.



Actually first his popularity rose little, but then it drop.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:24 am
Nah, Thok. It rose after he declared war, after it started - but by the time he asserted the war to be over ("Mission accomplished"), it was already dropping, and after that, it dropped some more. So Craven was right. Here's the graph.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 08:41 am
Well, bush-job-ratings? Wrong graph.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:04 am
How else you gonna measure his popularity but through how well people thought he was doing his job?

I mean, what data are you going on?

You can check his favourability ratings too, of course - they show roughly the same thing as the job ratings, altho its harder to tell because not many pollsters kept up measuring favourability ratings at regular intervals through 2002/2003.
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:08 am
Because mainly probably this is related to his domestic agenda.

But alright.

Just one question left: From where do you have this graph?
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:20 am
Made it. I collected all the job ratings polls I could find for the past 4 years (pollingreport.com is a prime source, but sometimes, especially near the election, they missed a few, so I looked up further ones on other sites as well), entered the data into an excel sheet, had it calculate the average of all polls for each half-month period, turned it into a graph (two graphs actually: one with lines for every separate poll and one, which you just saw, with the average of them all).

Up till the month before the elections, no pollster had more than one job ratings poll out per half-month, so that worked fine. Only in the very last month or so did it get problematic as pollsters started publishing job ratings data every week and I had to use half-month averages for each pollster and calculate the total average for those.

I did the same with Bush vs Kerry and Bush/Kerry/Nader horserace polls, using an excel sheet which I had turn the data into graphs that showed how the polls compared to each other and what the average of them all was, respectively.

I posted these graphs regularly in my bookie thread here, as well as much of the polling data they were based on with comments if I could find something interesting to say.

The graphs themselves are for now collected on this webpage.

Doubt if I will be keeping this up thru the next four years tho .. ;-)
0 Replies
 
Thok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:22 am
Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 11:08 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Damn dude.http://www.thebearspot.com/images/ipb_smilies/worthy.gif


^^What he said. Pretty much dead on.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 05:15 pm
Victor Davis Hanson has an alternate theory of why Bush the Greater (thanks Timber!) won: he believes in American exceptionalism.

In other words, America didn't vote her fears.

She voted her dreams.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson110504.html
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:31 pm
The other thing which just happened here was the sea change in media and the power of the media. Ten years ago even, CBS would simply have gotten by with the stunt it tried to pull and the drumbeat of the mainstream media would have been fatal to a Bush campaign for reelection. This time out, it didn't fly. The common man can now go out and buy an internet capable computer for under a thousand dollars.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:45 pm
and even republicans are learning how to spell Demmunist and Hitlery
0 Replies
 
Wildflower63
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 06:53 pm
I'm really running late on this topic! Please, excuse my ignorance. I did a speed read of the last page.

Did anyone notice how close Bush and Kerry were, with each state? I would think it is a bit unusual for a candidate to lose large state electoral votes, but win the election. So, Bush won. He didn't do it by much, once again. At least Ohio didn't turn out to be the next Florida.

Did anyone win or lose? I say no. I don't believe it is the right thing to isolate ourselves, with the freedom and financial wealth we have, ignoring other countries, especially considering the middle east has been a serious problem since Jimmy Carter, but does not lack financial resource of other civilized countries.

They live like other civilized countries did 1,000 years ago. Look at how they treat their people. Even worse, would you want to be born a woman there? They deserve basic human rights too. Saudi Arabia, who is our best ally, still has public hangings, copping off the hand of a thief, and other gruesome stuff that is not tolerated by civilized countries. Show up on Friday at Town Square for the blood sport, not justice. This is the best the middle eastern countries have ever offered, but is among the same wealth and power as modern countries that do not practice blood sport, in the name of justice.

Women are being owned and treated worse than our pet dogs. They cannot own anything, but a father or husband always owns them. They actually go to prison for a crime their husband committed. If their husband dies, leaving them with children, they can't get a job and support their family. They can't remarry because they aren't virgins. This leads to cutting the clit of a young woman off making them mutilated and unable to enjoy sex, as any normal woman can and should. Sex just causes these women more problems. No woman should be owned. Why don't these women have rights, as we do?

These are not impoverished countries that you see on TV, wanting financial aid to live. These are wealthy countries that act barbaric, compared to others of the same wealth. They are oppressive to the people, especially women. They are led by wealthy, but the people never see education, paved roads, or anything else we take for granted.

How many years have countries around the world been putting up with their bullying and terrorism over economic stronghold?

Even if Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorism, which I seriously doubt, this is shameful to treat people in this way, but they are and terrified to speak out or be shot. Be arrogant and kiss your American dirt in your front yard that you weren't born to a country like this. I don't feel too sorry for Saddam or his dead sons. They were cruel to their people, for their own self gain. Nuke them all and start over, for the good of all.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:05 pm
White House Claims Mandate By Whole Half Of Nation

Quote:
The White House claimed yesterday that President Bush had won a mandate in the election on Tuesday. "Our overwhelming support by only half of a bitterly divided nation means that we have been given a fiat to implement the agenda a record number of voters disagreed with," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

McClellan acknowledged that in the 2000 election, the Bush administration had not recieved a mandate. "That's why the agenda we pursued in the past four years was so mild," he said.

McCelllan explained that in the next four years, the President was considering implementing policies that he would never have dreamed of pursuing a month ago. "For one thing, we're toying with making people in blue states carry red state people around in rickshaws," he said.

Additionally, because the "will of the people" requires it, members of the White House Press Gallery will heretofore be required to recite an oath of fealty to George W. Bush before entering the briefing room, and there will be no more questions from reporters. "Questions are for administrations that have to answer them," he said.

"This is the way democracy works," said McClellan. "Having a 3 percent edge over the almost 56 million voters who disagree with our policies means that we can do whatever we like.

"Democracy means never having to say you're sorry."


OYSH
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 07:30 pm
Wildflower63 wrote:
They live like other civilized countries did 1,000 years ago. Look at how they treat their people. Even worse, would you want to be born a woman there? They deserve basic human rights too. Saudi Arabia, who is our best ally, still has public hangings, copping off the hand of a thief, and other gruesome stuff that is not tolerated by civilized countries. Show up on Friday at Town Square for the blood sport, not justice. This is the best the middle eastern countries have ever offered, but is among the same wealth and power as modern countries that do not practice blood sport, in the name of justice.

Women are being owned and treated worse than our pet dogs. They cannot own anything, but a father or husband always owns them. They actually go to prison for a crime their husband committed. If their husband dies, leaving them with children, they can't get a job and support their family. They can't remarry because they aren't virgins. This leads to cutting the clit of a young woman off making them mutilated and unable to enjoy sex, as any normal woman can and should. Sex just causes these women more problems. No woman should be owned. Why don't these women have rights, as we do?


Wildflower...try to see the glass as half full, perhaps. There are truly amazing and earthshaking events taking place in the Middle East ... even changes concerning women :wink:

Quote:
Sheikha Lubna al-Qasimi, a member of the Sharjah royal family, is to take on the key job of economics and planning minister.

The move comes as a part of a wider government reshuffle and the merging of three ministries.

There are other women ministers in Gulf countries, in Bahrain, Oman and Qatar, but Sheikha Lubna's role is the most senior to date.

Educated at a US university, she's gregarious and approachable as well as still being traditional enough to wear the black abaya and shayla robes of most Emirate women.

Sheikha Lubna has had a meteoric rise through the male dominated government and business ranks of her country.

Her background is in information technology rather than economy but her personality suggests she'll take a hands-on role as the country's first female minister.


Source
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:10 pm
Wildflower63 wrote:
They can't remarry because they aren't virgins. This leads to cutting the clit of a young woman off making them mutilated and unable to enjoy sex, as any normal woman can and should.

The genital mutilation you describe is only practiced in the Horn of Africa - mostly Somalia. It is not practiced anywhere else in the Middle East and has its (cruel) roots in local culture rather than Islam. (It is also nothing to do with remarrying, its done when the girls are young.)

Wildflower63 wrote:
Even if Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorism, which I seriously doubt, this is shameful to treat people in this way

Saddam surely did treat his "subjects" shamefully. But the irony is that when it comes to the position of women, which you describe at length in the rest of your post, Saddam's Iraq was not of the Saudi bent; it was a secular state.

Thats the irony. People use womens rights as a rationale for the war, but the country that does actually treat women the way you describe is your biggest ally in the region (Saudi-Arabia), while the country you attacked did NOT treat women that way.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:12 pm
Considering this thread was made so Republicans could have a place to gloat in, this link actually first best in here ...

http://www.m90.org/view_image.php?image_id=326 (not safe for work)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:33 pm
Razz

<Didn't Dubya look oh-so-much-younger in that video>

<Less stressful days>
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Nov, 2004 10:40 pm
Great find, nimh. Your's was rich too, PDiddie ... thanks to the both of ya for the chuckles.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 01/06/2025 at 06:36:16