Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

Via Kos, of course, I bring thee new poll numbers. Bush and the GOP are sinking like an anvil. :lol

On whether or not Americans support Bill Frist and the Nuclear option:

Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?

Support - 26%

Oppose - 66%

And here are the rest...

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling:

                      Approve  Disapprove
A. Social Security     31        64
B. Iraq                    42        56
C. Economy             40        57
D. Terrorism            56        41
E. Energy Policy       35        54

Lastly, on the party most Americans feel best represents their values:

Which party better represents your personal values?

Dems - 47%
GOP - 38%

Poll was conducted by the conservative rag WashingtonPost. If only the Dems could function and not turn into defensive, effiminate robots during elections....

 

[LakeEarth]

Am I the only one who's certain the election was rigged last year?

 

[acoustix]

Am I the only one who's certain the election was rigged last year?

nope.

 

[DarienA]

Am I the only one who's certain the election was rigged last year?

I'm sure Bush had subliminal messages in all of his broadcasts leading up to this past election.

 

[LakeEarth]

Well I remembered this thread last year about voting discrepencies, but nothing came of it. Since you can't really trust anything off the net, I figured it was bull. Still makes me think.

 

[sprsk]

what is bush's current approval?

 

[demon]

What the fuck happened last November? Seriously.......what the fuck were people thinking?

 

[galeninjapan]

I think allot of americans are against many thinks Bush supports. However, When you throw gay-marriage into the mix most americans are conservative.

 

[acoustix]

What the fuck happened last November? Seriously.......what the fuck were people thinking?

This average IQ of this country is about 37.

 

[Father_Brain]

These polls are about specific issues. Bush didn't win based on issues - he won because, despite all his failings, people trusted him more on a gut level to protect them and their families from terrorists. The Democrats need to realize this if they want to win elections, because the GOP will have no trouble raising that spectre in 2006 and 2008. Unless Bush somehow does so well against al-Qaeda that by then, terrorism isn't considered a major issue, and we all know that's not likely.

 

[Incognito]

I'm sure Bush had subliminal messages in all of his broadcasts leading up to this past election.

yeah, just government paid shills posing as legitimate journalists.

 

[Lathentar]

What the fuck happened last November? Seriously.......what the fuck were people thinking?

People don't want gay people marrying. The people that don't want gay people marrying are for the most part Republicans. Banning gay marriage was on the ticket for many of the most important swing states.

Ta-da!

 

[galeninjapan]

The people that don't want gay people marrying are for the most part Republicans

While alot of conservatives do feel this way, I have many democrat friends that also feel this way.

 

[Incognito]

These polls are about specific issues. Bush didn't win based on issues - he won because, despite all his failings, people trusted him more on a gut level to protect them and their families from terrorists. The Democrats need to realize this if they want to win elections, because the GOP will have no trouble raising that spectre in 2006 and 2008. Unless Bush somehow does so well against al-Qaeda that by then, terrorism isn't considered a major issue, and we all know that's not likely.

Good post and I agree 100%. The Democrats need to talk strong about terrorism in a way that relates to people, ESPECIALLY during the campaign season. Right now, it should be the first issue discussed, not the 4th.

 

[Father_Brain]

People don't want gay people marrying. The people that don't want gay people marrying are for the most part Republicans. Banning gay marriage was on the ticket for many of the most important swing states.

Ta-da!

Utter, utter bullshit. See my post above. More articles:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17690

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/01/011905hrcElect.htm

 

[BigJonsson]

The evangelicals is what happened

 

[acoustix]

These polls are about specific issues. Bush didn't win based on issues - he won because, despite all his failings, people trusted him more on a gut level to protect them and their families from terrorists. The Democrats need to realize this if they want to win elections, because the GOP will have no trouble raising that spectre in 2006 and 2008. Unless Bush somehow does so well against al-Qaeda that by then, terrorism isn't considered a major issue, and we all know that's not likely.

I think you might be oversimplifying; look at the polls, Bush got alot of votes from the far right religious conservatives that wouldnt even normally vote, but they showed up at the booths to stop gays from getting married. Kerry also neglicted the south almost entirely.

Granted Kerry should have taken a MUCH stronger stance against terrorism but most people were so on one side or the other that they werent gonna be a swing voter anyway. Bush supporters had fanboy goggles on and would refute with the most indecernable logic anything you had to say that was negative.

Its hard to know how much of an issue terrorism will be by 2008, but I do agree that if it is Kerry will need to step up big time to make the American people trust him.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

The evangelicals is what happened

Basically. I think they seem to be drunk with power and will hopefully weaken the GOP enough so maybe the Dems can win the midterms. Most of my true conservative friends and relatives are kind of scared of where the party is going, including my good buddy Lath. Hell, my grandpa, who thought that FDR was the biggest traitor that this country has ever had, voted for the Democrats because of how they have been acting lately.

I think that if the Dems grow a spine and start getting a little aggresive, can make large strides in the legislature and maybe a couple states to boot in 2006. But I seem to disappoint myself and underestimate the Republican political machine way too much lately.

 

[Lathentar]

Its hard to know how much of an issue terrorism will be by 2008, but I do agree that if it is Kerry will need to step up big time to make the American people trust him.

Kerry will NEVER be President of the United States.

 

[belgurdo]

Am I the only one who's certain the election was rigged last year?

Greased palms+campaign run on scaring idiots=one really scary four years

Kerry will NEVER be President of the United States.

This, unfortunately, is a definite reality. No charisma+ the GOP successfully managing to turn "decorated Vietnam vet who wants to turn around Bush's screw-ups" into "America hating dope smoking pinko flip-flopping hippy" has pretty much seen to that

 

[acoustix]

Kerry will NEVER be President of the United States.

Thanks Miss Cleo for your wonderful input.

 

[Incognito]

Kerry will NEVER be President of the United States.

Kerry garnered 59 million votes against a war-time(x2) incumbent president and lost the election by 118,000 votes. If 9/11 didn't happen, Kerry, or whoever the Dem candidate is, wins in a LANDSLIDE. If he wins the nomination again in 2008, I think he has a very, very good chance of winning the presidency.

Confusing: Same situation with my Republican parents and family. They're all pretty upset right now and don't understand what the hell the GOP leadership is up to. "They have some nuts up there...". However, they can't seem to connect the dots. Those "nuts" are the LEADERSHIP. Those "nuts" are beholden to the fringe, far right-wing extremists. Those "nuts" are exactly the reason the Republicans enjoy such large majorities in both the House and Senate. But these "nuts" will be the downfall of the GOP.

 

[lexy]

This average IQ of this country is about 37.

Touche.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Kerry garnered 59 million votes against a war-time(x2) incumbent president and lost the election by 118,000 votes. If 9/11 didn't happen, Kerry, or whoever the Dem candidate is, wins in a LANDSLIDE. If he wins the nomination again in 2008, I think he has a very, very good chance of winning the presidency.

I kind of hope they pick somebody different as the nominee. I like Kerry and all, but the way he ran the election was incredibly stupid, and I don't know if I could trust him with another shot. He had so many holes he could have ripped into and caused real damage, but he always played defensive to the most idiotic shit. Maybe if he hired a better campaign manager or something, but at the moment, I would really like to see someone new thats not part of the current stagnet pond at the top of the party at the moment.

 

[Lathentar]

If 9/11 didn't happen, Kerry, or whoever the Dem candidate is, wins in a LANDSLIDE. If he wins the nomination again in 2008, I think he has a very, very good chance of winning the presidency.

Thats a HUGE if.

Why would the Dems want to throw their weight behind Kerry again? Someone else would be a much better choice.

 

[Spike Spiegel]

Thank you, Lathenar and Jazz, for pointing that out. Kerry LOST; he had his shot and he blew it. The American people won't get behind him again, and if the Dems are smart (a very big IF) they won't go near him when they go looking for a horse to run in '08.

America likes winners.

 

[Incognito]

I kind of hope they pick somebody different as the nominee. I like Kerry and all, but the way he ran the election was incredibly stupid, and I don't know if I could trust him with another shot. He had so many holes he could have ripped into and caused real damage, but he always played defensive to the most idiotic shit. Maybe if he hired a better campaign manager or something, but at the moment, I would really like to see someone new thats not part of the current stagnet pond at the top of the party at the moment.

Definitely a shitty-ass campaign. Kerry admitted as much and placed the blame squarely on his shoulders. IIRC, they switched "teams" about three times during the eight month campaign. Simply ridiculous.

What pisses me off right now about Dems, is that they somehow think Hillary Clinton is electable in a general election. I mean, what the fuck? If she wins the nomination in the primaries, I'm going to jump off a bridge knowing we've just lost another election.

 

[Incognito]

Thank you, Lathenar and Jazz, for pointing that out. Kerry LOST; he had his shot and he blew it. The American people won't get behind him again, and if the Dems are smart (a very big IF) they won't go near him when they go looking for a horse to run in '08.

America likes winners.

Nixon lost in 1960.

Reagan was bitchslapped in two primary seasons before he finally got it right.

 

[ConfusingJazz]

Nixon lost in 1960.

Reagan was bitchslapped in two primary seasons before he finally got it right.

Nixon also didn't run in 1964, and losing in the primary is no where near as damaging as losing as the nominee.

 

[3rdman]

Definitely a shitty-ass campaign. Kerry admitted as much and placed the blame squarely on his shoulders. IIRC, they switched "teams" about three times during the eight month campaign. Simply ridiculous.

What pisses me off right now about Dems, is that they somehow think Hillary Clinton is electable in a general election. I mean, what the fuck? If she wins the nomination in the primaries, I'm going to jump off a bridge knowing we've just lost another election.

Kerry will never be president...as such neither will Hilary. She is a smart lady and I personally would vote for her, but somehow I doubt that many in middle America (Jesusland) would. The Reps know this which is why they fought so hard to make Dean look like an idiot. He would have torn them a new one if he had come out of the Primarys. Instead we got Kerry...what a fireball...

 

[Dilbert]

1) The Washington Post is not the conservative paper -- you're thinking of the Washington Times.

2) Polls are not particularly meaningful.

 

[MetaKnight]

If she wins the nomination in the primaries, I'm going to jump off a bridge knowing we've just lost another election.

Wouldn't you be dead by 2008?

 

[Incognito]

Ha, this thread is the perfect case study for conservatives on how liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

1.) Liberal postits terrible poll numbers concerning the GOP and President

2.) About 5 posts deal with the numbers

3.) Liberals begin to bitch about their own problems, convienently forgetting about the orignal topic

4.) Conservatives laugh

:lol

As Ed Shultz says, "If the liberals were ever ordered to set up a firing squad, it'd be formed in a circle."

 

[ConfusingJazz]

1) The Washington Post is not the conservative paper -- you're thinking of the Washington Times.

The newspaper of the new Messiah!

 

[Lathentar]

How about we talk about the numbers....

Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?

Thats a REALLY slanted question.

 

[Incognito]

How's that slanted? The only point of contention I can see is that the question didn't make note of the fact that the removal of the fillibuster would only concern judicial nominess, and not legislative procedures.

 

[Dilbert]

How's that slanted? The only point of contention I can see is that the question didn't make note of the fact that the removal of the fillibuster would only concern judicial nominess, and not legislative procedures.

For one, it mentions "Bush" and "Republicans" in the question. Although this issue HAS been brought into public view because of the current political situation, a more neutral way of asking the question would be, "Would you support or oppose changing the Senate rules to remove the filibuster as a way of holding up or defeating the nomination of judicial nominees?"

Again -- bias in the question is yet another reason that the majority of polls produce questionable data.

By the way, if you haven't read this little gem, it's required reading for anyone interested in politics...hell, interested in ANYTHING:

 

[Hitokage]

I read that book just before we processed the survey results... it was funny looking at the data knowing what you could bend from it.

 

[MoccaJava]

what is bush's current approval?

Saturday Night Live:


"This past week President Bush's approval rating jumped to 57%. Which, according to teachers everywhere, is known as an F."


:lol

 

[ConfusingJazz]

what is bush's current approval?

Approve: 47%
Disapporve: 50%

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'm sure Bush had subliminabable messages in all of his broadcasts leading up to this past election.

Fixed.

 

[Jdw40223]

If 9/11 didn't happen, Kerry, or whoever the Dem candidate is, wins in a LANDSLIDE. If he wins the nomination again in 2008, I think he has a very, very good chance of winning the presidency.


Thats a HUGE if.

Why would the Dems want to throw their weight behind Kerry again? Someone else would be a much better choice.

That is a HUGE IF!!! I mean ... WTF do dem's believe in? The only thing they do right now, is just disagree with repub's. thats it. There's just no other way to describe this but liberal burnout! They keep losing, no matter what polls say. I hope they can do better. They are a bunch of disparate groups, and they are simply burned out over the fact that they are losing, and they can't figure out why and they're never going to be able to figure out why until they start looking at their own party, and actually state a belief. I think the dem's purposely put Kerry up there knowing he would lose to prepare for 2008, funny thing is that he almost won. haha

Also, What has been proposed to fix 'social security' other than Bush's proposal? Nothing.

 

[Dilbert]

That is a HUGE IF!!! I mean ... WTF do dem's believe in? The only thing they do right now, is just disagree with repub's. thats it. There's just no other way to describe this but liberal burnout! They keep losing, no matter what polls say. I hope they can do better. They are a bunch of disparate groups, and they are simply burned out over the fact that they are losing, and they can't figure out why and they're never going to be able to figure out why until they start looking at their own party, and actually state a belief. I think the dem's purposely put Kerry up there knowing he would lose to prepare for 2008, funny thing is that he almost won. haha

Also, What has been proposed to fix 'social security' other than Bush's proposal? Nothing.

1) You're almost like a joke character, except for the part where you're supposed to be funny.

2) The Democratic Party has a platform. Feel free to educate yourself with it. I don't want to hear you make the claim that Democrats "don't believe in" anything again. Period.

3) I have a proposal to address the Social Security "problem" -- raise payroll taxes on the wealthiest Americans. It would be the simplest -- and probably the fairest -- way to address the (future) problem. However, Bush refuses to even consider that as a possibility, even when proposed by lawmakers.

 

[Hitokage]

Also, What has been proposed to fix 'social security' other than Bush's proposal? Nothing.

Lying is wrong, sir.

 

[Jdw40223]

3) I have a proposal to address the Social Security "problem" -- raise payroll taxes on the wealthiest Americans. It would be the simplest -- and probably the fairest -- way to address the (future) problem.

wtf!! hahahahaha
Please educate yourself. The so called "wealthy" already pay the highest taxes of all. Taxing them wouldnt do shit. Check up on yer economics! macro that is.

Taxing never solves anything in the long run. Ever.

 

[Hitokage]

wtf!! hahahahaha
Please educate yourself. The so called "wealthy" already pay the highest taxes of all. Taxing them wouldnt do shit. Check up on yer economics! macro that is.

Taxing never solves anything in the long run. Ever.

Holy shit now you've done it. Why'd you have to go and summon Loki.

 

[Boogie]

Holy shit now you've done it. Why'd you have to go and summon Loki.

:lol

 

[Loki]

wtf!! hahahahaha
Please educate yourself. The so called "wealthy" already pay the highest taxes of all. Taxing them wouldnt do shit. Check up on yer economics! macro that is.

Taxing never solves anything in the long run. Ever.

You're an idiot.

Holy shit now you've done it. Why'd you have to go and summon Loki.

You are both prescient and wise, though I'll leave this one to more patient folks....

 

[Jdw40223]

You're an idiot.




You are both prescient and wise, though I'll leave this one to more patient folks....

wow!! name calling... what number is that in the liberal book??

 

[Boogie]

You're an idiot.




You are both prescient and wise, though I'll leave this one to more patient folks....

Aww, no fun.