WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush basks in high approval ratings, but when potential voters are pressed about giving him a second term, the numbers drop, a reflection of worries about the struggling economy and a general wait-and-see attitude so far ahead of the election.

Bush's overall approval ratings have remained at 60 percent or higher in most polls since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

But now that the electorate is turning to thinking about Bush's handling of the economy and wondering who the Democrats will nominate, the president's re-elect numbers are at 50 percent or lower in several polls.


Iran or Syria better get ready its coming down the pike.

The election is a ways off and the economy is rebounded finally. It is too soon to make predictions.

Originally posted by Freddie
The election is a ways off and the economy is rebounded finally. It is too soon to make predictions.

What part of the country do you live in that the economy had rebounded?

Chicago, just like my ATS location says. Companies are beginning to hire again. I personally have two job offers.

Yeppers it does help to look at the location!


That is great that you have 2 job offers!
What line of work are you in?

Insurance defense. I am a lawyer. I am going to interview with the State Dept. in a month for a possible consulate job.

'Soccer moms' have become 'safety moms'...

Sorry, and I know that many of you are die-hard Bush haters, but Bush is going to draw at least 55% of the popular vote... and may win a landslide in the electoral count.

You can't be talking about a Bush defeat when you have yet to find someone who even looks like he/she can challenge Bush. I mean, c'mon, Carol Mosely Braun, Howard dean, Al Sharpton... the folks the Democrats are fielding aren't even on the same page as most of america. It's sad to see the Democratic party just concede to the Republicans and become a party, purely, of the disgruntled...

..I mean, really, after the Dems got crushed in the mid-term Congressional elections they turned to Nancy Pelosi to become their new party leader in the House. Think about that... they got waxed for being too disconnected with security matters so they turned to the left! That sort of 'I know I'm right, they'll just have to come around' thinking just shows that the Democrats are now run entirely by liberal ideologues who haven't changed since their college days.

Sorry dudes... it;s going to be Reagan V. Mondale all over again.

Jim

Carol Mosely Braun. That's a joke as you know, being a fellow Chicagoan. BTW, she is from Oak Park.

Yeah,
She's obviously just in it to draw away votes from Sharpton... but so far she's only managed to draw in about $75,000 in contributions (my guess is that Kerry put her up to it). At any rate, it's brought her back into the public eye, so it helps if she wants to run for senator again.

As for the 'mainstream' Democratic candidates, Lieberman's still too locked on the whole 2000 thing and Kerry's WAY too foppish (he wants to be an experienced Jack Kennedy, but just comes off as a Yalee with a bad toupee). Gephardt certainly has a lot of strength in the midwest, but his healthcare plan comes across as too socialistic.

A Bush V. Sharpton debate would be VERY funny.

I must say Sharpton has been impressive in his recent public speeches. He is not a credible candidate, though. I think It will be Kerry v. Bush.

onlyinmydreams, good point about the soccer moms. It's said that they helped elect Clinton. Now, they'll help elect Bush.

The war issue won't be all that viable for the serious dem contenders because they supported it. And, the ones that opposed it aren't the folks we need running our country (Kucinich, Sharpton).

Dean has already proved himself inconsistant on his views. Kerry's stance on Iraq was much different in the late 90's then now and I finally figured out what creeps me out about him: he looks french

And for anyone that compares this upcoming election to Bush Sr. losing to Clinton be mindful of Perot. I still think that w/ out Perot running Clinton wouldn't have beat Bush Sr.

I think it will boil down to the economy - while still shaky - seems to be improving. I work in the tech sector and we were hit hard. Because of that - it's been said - we'd be a good indicator and things, imho, are improving. So if the economy doesnt' improve I think the dems have a chance. The dems are all about gloom and doom though. Does anyone else get annoyed by that?

The US also seems to be losing control in Iraq. That could hurt.

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

The economy is improving!?! really? Movement in the tech sector is still abysmal, and yes, we are a great indicator. Folks who are getting jobs are, on average, being broken down upwards of 30% or better ( I know, I'm hiring them!)
The expected "attack" prior to the election is on the horizon folks, so guard your grill!
Besides, who realistically thinks Bush stands a chance on the debate daise with anybody - even the kooks like Braun/Sharpton/Kicinich?
When dispassionate qualitative analysis is applied, the questions of "are we better off now" or "what's been implemented to change the tide" on every viable subject....this administration comes up extremely lacking.

Even I'd admit that some IT salaries were inflated during the bubble. So, if that was 30% of what they were making then I am not suprised - and what are you complaining about, bt? You're able to lowball some great talent these days hehheheh Plus, look at the outdated technology and the guys that wouldn't learn anything new.

dispassionate qualitative analysis, BT? C'mon - that's just not most people, sad to say, and everyone knows that.

and lacking? If that's how you're describing Bush the what would you call the Dems?

At least we agree Braun/Sharpton/Kicunich are kooks

[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

in all fairness those last few links, and I've only seen the headlines, don't look good for Bush. Thought he'd appear more of a centrist before the elections.

However I can't pass up the chance to paste this bit from your CNN link:
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank...

liberals should stay away from the economy

The article ran before getting a response from the WH or Labor Dept. Could it have killed them to wait? Oh, wait, that's from CNN, a liberal-bias media outlet. Typical MO, put together a one-sided story and run it!!! If they waited for the truth, or at least a rebuttal, it might not be news worthy.



[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

Originally posted by Bob88
in all fairness those last few links, and I've only seen the headlines, don't look good for Bush. Thought he'd appear more of a centrist before the elections.

However I can't pass up the chance to paste this bit from your CNN link:
The Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a liberal Washington think tank...

liberals should stay away from the economy

The article ran before getting a response from the WH or Labor Dept. Could it have killed them to wait? Oh, wait, that's from CNN, a liberal-bias media outlet. Typical MO, put together a one-sided story and run it!!! If they waited for the truth, or at least a rebuttal, it might not be news worthy.
[Edited on 26-6-2003 by Bob88]

CNN...liberal? PLEASE!!! They are Fox News Lite!!
Funny, you take it as jumping the gun, and I take it for what it is - whenever a gov. or corp. communications arm wants you to piss off, you see " could not immediately be reached for comment" !

As for the massive propaganda behind Mr. Bush's numbers, it was always about the approval rating or how do you think he's doing his job....that lead to the 60+ percentage points.
The REAL question posed above - "Do you want him in a second term?" has always been hovering at 50% or below for almost all of his term.

BT, that's just a poll. And speaking of which - have you looked at the polls that have said that nobody knows who the Dem challengers are?

"Earlier tonight we polled our audience...and you know how painful that can be!" - David Letterman

BT, wasn't Powell a Clinton appointee?