John. Kerry. Not. Running. In. 2008. Stop.

[JollyRoger]

If you are calling having an unemployment rate of over 7% a victory, then I just dont know what to say.

I'm not. I just pointing out that unemployment rate isn't the end all, be-all. Carter had a net job gain. Bush had a net job loss over his first term. Reagan hit unemployment over 9%, Ford over 8%. I'm sure if you personally ranked those 4 Presidents, Carter would be ranked last for you, even though I can pull out isolated economic stats showing where he was better than each of them. You were trying to justify Bush based on unemployement figures, but you don't seem eager to apply the same standard to Ford or Reagan.

 

[.Shane.]

Shane, I'm 38 years old.

No, you're 38 eight years young!

Well, then, unless your self-employed or work for a very small-scale employer you'd of probably learned by now that there's no such thing as a raise based ability.

Every significant raise I've gotten in life is due to either being promoted or switching jobs.

The last 3 employers I've had gave out annual "merit raises", but they were the same for everyone, a flat 3, 4, 5%. There may be industries that are different, but I'd wager they're outside the norm.

Employers shaft you because they can. One time, when, during my exit process I told my soon-to-be former employer that part of the reason I was leaving was that the "merit" raises sucked and my new job was going to be giving me a sizeable wage increase, they said "why didn't you tell us that before" and then offered to match the new salary.

LOL, If I had "told them before" then they'd of labeled me as discontented or as someone looking for a new job, lame.

Unfortunately, with a few exceptions, that's how the world goes. Union or not.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm not. I just pointing out that unemployment rate isn't the end all, be-all. Carter had a net job gain. Bush had a net job loss over his first term. Reagan hit unemployment over 9%, Ford over 8%. I'm sure if you personally ranked those 4 Presidents, Carter would be ranked last for you, even though I can pull out isolated economic stats showing where he was better than each of them. You were trying to justify Bush based on unemployement figures, but you don't seem eager to apply the same standard to Ford or Reagan.

But I am not referring to 'isolated economic stats' in my references to Bush. Our current economy is doing very well, and the unemployment rate is merely a single part of that success. Carter was not an economic success. Bush has been, regardless of the governments deficit.

 

[brennan]

Shane, I'm 38 years old.

pwned

 

[Sahkuhnder]

How is losing the electoral college a technicality?

Technicality my butt. Its not a technicality, its own our elections are run and have been run for a very long period of time.

I'm not one of the nut-jobs that claim Gore should be in the White House, and yes, without the electoral college both candidates would allocate time and resources differently.

The question was Gore v. Bush, and pointing out Gore got more votes that Bush, which is enough to win in any textbook democracy, is relevant. As we are a republic, not a democracy, the technical rules of our electoral college system override the popular voice of the voters sometimes and the person who the majority of the people preferred is not awarded the victory.

How long we have been doing it that way is irrelevant. I choose not to comment on your buttocks.

By the way, tell me. Although Bush's popularity was lower, did he receive more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000? Why yes he did.

Apples and oranges. Different candidate, thus irrelevant comparison and Bush has slipped even more since 2004. As the election is not up to you alone I'm still waiting for actual links or data in support of your claim:

Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all.

My speculation is based on Bush's falling approval rating and the results of the last congressional election. Yours is based on ??? So your speculation is not just as good as mine. Please feel free to post actual data if you wish to continue to make claims.

I can't believe you compared Reagan with W. That is an extreme case of apples and oranges and very different for a large variety of factors too complex for this discussion. I was a Political Science major in college while Reagan was President and did research and wrote papers about him and the political phenomenon that he was. I'd be happy to discuss him with you in detail if you like, but just not in this thread.

I agree the dems have not returned to their earlier levels of power, but to deny their resurgence, much of which is due to dismay with the President, ignores the trend.


Does anyone else support MB's statement that Bush would defeat Gore in an election today? And if so, why? (facts and data are always preferred over "because I just think so")

...then I just dont know what to say.

Quoted for posterity.

 

[IglooDame]

I can't believe you compared Reagan with W. That is an extreme case of apples and oranges and very different for a large variety of factors too complex for this discussion. I was a Political Science major in college while Reagan was President and did research and wrote papers about him and the political phenomenon that he was. I'd be happy to discuss him with you in detail if you like, but just not in this thread.

I've taken a bit of a look this morning, and haven't been able to find any significant coverage of the '86 election where Dems made significant gains, and my PoliSci studies took place during the following administration - I wasn't paying enough attention to politics when I was in high school. Do you have any coverage of it available?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

I've taken a bit of a look this morning, and haven't been able to find any significant coverage of the '86 election where Dems made significant gains, and my PoliSci studies took place during the following administration - I wasn't paying enough attention to politics when I was in high school. Do you have any coverage of it available?

There were gains by the dems but they already controlled the US House where they simply increased their percentage. They retook control of the Senate. As the reasons are vastly different than the elections we just had a comparison isn't very meaningful.

I hate to quote wikipedia but they stuck to actual data this time so I guess it's OK.

1986 House Elections. Link.

1986 Senate Elections. Link.

 

[IglooDame]

There were gains by the dems but they already controlled the US House where they simply increased their percentage. They retook control of the Senate. As the reasons are vastly different than the elections we just had a comparison isn't very meaningful.

I hate to quote wikipedia but they stuck to actual data this time so I guess it's OK.

1986 House Elections. Link.

1986 Senate Elections. Link.

Actually those are two of the items that I'd already come across, that didn't really answer my question (except for the note that the Senate changes were freshman Reps losing their seats). They have the data, but not the background on the elections.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Actually those are two of the items that I'd already come across, that didn't really answer my question (except for the note that the Senate changes were freshman Reps losing their seats). They have the data, but not the background on the elections.

To do that topic justice would require a new thread and some time on my part. Maybe I can dig up some of my old college papers to properly refresh my memory, it might be fun.

In brief let's just say that things were different back then, people (generally) loved Reagan, but weren't so fond of the Republican Party. The demographic of the voters has changed too, the WWII crowd was on it's last fling of power and the rise of the Hispanic vote hadn't occurred yet.

 

[Naval Power]

Yes, but at least he can claim he won the popular vote, and he ran against Bush before people knew as much about Bush as we know today.

If Gore ran against Bush today who do you think would win by a landslide?
{/QUOTE]

To be fair, we don't know all we would about Gore if he had one. My guess, a failed presidency.

Bush, Man-Bear-Pig ruined Al Gore's career.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

I don't think Bush would win against either Gore or Kerry if an election were to happen right now. Not saying that I'm happy about it, but there are a lot of people that hate Bush in this country.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Bush, Man-Bear-Pig ruined Al Gore's career.

Maybe he did him a favor. Al's a movie star now.


It's all just speculation for fun anyway.

 

[MobBoss]

My speculation is based on Bush's falling approval rating and the results of the last congressional election. Yours is based on ???

Its pretty much based on the fact that Gore is an idiot.

So your speculation is not just as good as mine. Please feel free to post actual data if you wish to continue to make claims.

Well, you havent exactly provided any actual data either. The last congressional election is what it is....its not some 'forecast' to indicate proof in some debate regarding Bush vs Gore II.

I can't believe you compared Reagan with W

I didnt compare them..I merely stated an election fact. Reagan lost more seats to the Dems than W did in their 2nd term mid-term elections. Do you deny this?

I agree the dems have not returned to their earlier levels of power, but to deny their resurgence, much of which is due to dismay with the President, ignores the trend.

If that much dismay is accorded to the president as an election factor....then why didnt they win even more seats?

Does anyone else support MB's statement that Bush would defeat Gore in an election today? And if so, why? (facts and data are always preferred over "because I just think so")

Fact. Bush aleady beat Gore once. Whether you like it or not, that plays into peoples viewpoints.
Fact. Regardless of Bush's popularity, most people still believe Bush (and in turn, republicans in general) would be better than Gore (or any dem for that matter) at protecting the country and dealing with terrorism.
Fact. The republicans are currently just much better at running presidential campaigns than the democrats. Not to be discounted.
Fact. Gore would raise taxes. Bush wont. A lot of people vote their pocketbook on this one.

Bottom line, there is no real reason to believe Bush wouldnt beat Gore if the two faced off again in an election.

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Its pretty much based on the fact that Gore is an idiot.

That's it? That's the entire basis for your statement?

Bush isn't the brightest lightbulb either. If they are both idiots they it would come down to popularity, and as I linked, Bush is pretty bad off in that category.

Well, you havent exactly provided any actual data either. The last congressional election is what it is....its not some 'forecast' to indicate proof in some debate regarding Bush vs Gore II.

I provided a link to Bush's popularity. If you believe your statement then you weren't paying attention to the last election. The dems ran ads linking their opponents to Bush, and the GOP ran ads distancing themselves from him. This is actual data as it illustrates Bush's low popularity. I'm no Gore fan, but he isn't hated like Bush is.

I didnt compare them..I merely stated an election fact. Reagan lost more seats to the Dems than W did in their 2nd term mid-term elections. Do you deny this?

Bold by me.

OK, I agree with what happened with Reagan. If you weren't using it to compare, as you now claim, then why mention it at all? It's irrelevant to the discussion so why did you bring it up then, if not to compare and in support of your position?

If that much dismay is accorded to the president as an election factor....then why didnt they win even more seats?

Because as I said, the situation was different then. The '86 election was not a referendum on President Reagan's performance, and he played a very small part. The last election was to a large degree a referendum on W's performance, as evidenced by the dems tactics of linking opponents to Bush in ads.

Fact. Bush aleady beat Gore once. Whether you like it or not, that plays into peoples viewpoints.
Fact. Regardless of Bush's popularity, most people still believe Bush (and in turn, republicans in general) would be better than Gore (or any dem for that matter) at protecting the country and dealing with terrorism.
Fact. The republicans are currently just much better at running presidential campaigns than the democrats. Not to be discounted.
Fact. Gore would raise taxes. Bush wont. A lot of people vote their pocketbook on this one.

Bottom line, there is no real reason to believe Bush wouldnt beat Gore if the two faced off again in an election.

Agreed, but just because you won or lost once doesn't guarantee the outcome a second time. Bush has fallen greatly since 2000 in what people think of him.

Disagree, "most people" do not "still believe in Bush". Did you follow the link I provided? Would you like more links? Most people disapprove of Bush. Gore has much higher approval ratings than Bush. Saying "Fact" doesn't make it a fact. If you claim your statement as "Fact", please provide link(s) that support your claim.

Neutral, but definitely your opinion, not a "Fact". I have seen both parties run good and bad elections on every level. Again, before you can claim this as "Fact" please provide data in support.

Neutral, I'm no Gore fan but that yet again doesn't in any way make your statement a "Fact" - only pure speculation by you. Do you know what a fact is?
You can't know as a fact anything Gore, Bush, or anyone else will do for sure. Gore doesn't have to raise taxes and Bush may raise them too. My guess is Gore is more likely to, but that doesn't make it a fact, only just my guess. And this single issue is certainly not enough to declare as you did:

Bush would win. I have no doubt about it at all.

 

[Red Door]

You know why Bush received more votes in 2004 than 2000?

Because there was a high increase in the number of voters in 2004 than in 2000.

IF the Dems won, Kerry would've received the most votes ever, flawed logic.

 

[scipian]

Hi MB, I've missed you. No doubt you say? No doubt at all? You have a remarkable ability to deny the obvious even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Have you seen Bush's approval ratings? link.


Full disclosure - I voted for Bush both times, but would vote for Gore or Kerry now if the election were today. Bush is an ever-increasing disappointment.

That data is outdated. It is over half a year old. I'll try to find some more up-to-date stuff.

EDIT:I've got ACCURATE data. He stands at 40% which is entirely normal for a president especially a war-time president in his second term. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

 

[Kraznaya]

Would not be relevant to denouncing Sahkuhnder's arguments, Bush's approval ratings have slid even further with his "surge plan" in the past few weeks.

 

[s.c.dude]

Standing by MB on this one

 

[FriendlyFire]

Fact. Regardless of Bush's popularity, most people still believe Bush (and in turn, republicans in general) would be better than Gore (or any dem for that matter) at protecting the country and dealing with terrorism.

well well thats cutting it rather finely since Bush approval rating over hes handling of Iraq is a mear 26%. Perhapes in a few more months it will dipp below Nixion and enter the history books as the most disliked president in US history.
What then ?

 

[s.c.dude]

does anyone know what lincoln's approving ratings were