These polls are begining to discourage me.

[coloradodem2005]

It seems now that Bush has a decisive edge in all major polls. While I understand that many people are more for him because of Saddam's capture, but he always seemed to have the edge. Partly because the liberal base is so fragmented. While there are a number of people who are ready for a change, why are there so many people who have it worse under Bush that would either vote for him or not vote democrat next year?

[Wetzelbill]

1. he'll sink again pretty soon

[toddzilla]

2. temporary for sure..

what we really need to be concerned about is the timing of the WMD find, or OBL capture to coincide with a peak of support in 2004.

[montanacowboy]

5. Or worse

and "attack" on American soil - so that martial law can be declared and the Constitution thrown down the toilet - that's what you really need to be worried about. Remember what Tommy Franks said in his interview with Cigar Afficiando...they tipped their hand I think.

[matt53]

17. Actually

that would be the best thing, right? I mean not to sound like I'm hoping for it, but another attack would prove Bush incompetent once again! Now a WMD or OBL find would probably kill our chances in 04, but an attack would likely hurt his approval. His approval rating soared after 9/11, but I don't think it would have the same effect again after he's been supposedly "preparing".

However I think Bin Laden is smart enough to be aware of the political ramifications of an attack, and I think he likes having Bush in power because it causes divisiveness, so he'll wait until after the election I'm sure... make Bush think he's winning the "war on terror"

[coloradodem2005]

20. You're probably right..

..I just hope we can see his approval ratings sink like a stone without an attack occurring.

[Tempest]

3. Just remember this

"You know," DNC chair Terry McAuliffe told Democrats assembled in St. Paul Friday, "there are some who feel the Democrats should just throw in the towel right now. I even read the following just the other day by political commentator Tom Wicker: 'The real question is whether any Democrat can match George Bush's claim to be a proven Presidential figure, validated by war and victory. It won't be easy . . .' I also read: 'No political strategist in the country can see any way George Bush is not going to win and win big.' That came from Ed Rollins, a Republican political strategist. Sounds pretty dire, huh? Well, buck up - these were written in 1991."

http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/030623.html

[CalebHayes]

39. Hell yeah!

[Robbien]

4. 24 hour a day cheer leading for five days will do this

But the masses will get tired and discouraged soon enough when our troops are not coming home and are still in harms way. The masses want this war to be over now and will be unhappy when it is not.

[matt53]

6. It'll come back down in time

Once Dean gets the nomination and schools him in the debates... unless they drag out Bin Laden in late October... that's why Dean can't back off the Bush "conspiracy theories". Plant the seeds of doubt now and people will question it when it happens in October...

[SmokingLoon]

11. The problem with "conspiracy theories"

is that they look tin foil hattish to most of the electorate. If we continue with them, the moderates and dissatisfied conservatives won't even consider our candidate.

[Tempest]

15. The thing is, the conspiracy theorists are being proved right

Cynthia McKinney had the nerve to state2 years ago that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.

We find out yesterday that the chairman of the 9/11 committee determined the exact same thing.

[SmokingLoon]

35. Please cite:

The only articles I've seen said otherwise.

[vi5]

14. Yeah, winning the debates.....

Dean or whoever can "win" all the debates they want. That's not going to stop it from being portrayed as a bush victory. Especially if it's Dean, in which case every time he removes a smile from his face for any reason will be an excuse to portray him as angry and unstable.

[Brotherjohn]

29. I fear you're right. Gore won every debate handily. The media even...

... admitted as much in the immediate aftermath of them.

Then the media spin machine got to work, and the conventional wisdom quickly became that Gore was stiff and wonky, while Bush was straightforward and refreshing.... in short, that Bush won.

The Daily Howler web page covered this a lot some time ago, with exact quotes from even conservative commentators initially pointing out how good of a job Gore did vs. bush.

[Silverhair]

36. Gore acted like a spoil brat in the debates.

He didn't look poised and Presidental with all the eye rolling, sighing, running over and getting in W's face. That lost a lot of votes.

[thebigidea]

41. as opposed to firm, Presidential Dubya?

[Yupster]

44. What was that

walking into Bush's ear thing at the town hall style debate. That was just weird.

[Eric_B]

7. National Defense!

The first responsability of national government is national defense. President Bush will continue to have an advantage until we get serious about national defense. It's important!!!

[SlavesandBulldozers]

8. Bush

commands the uninformed vote, that's why he's on top all the time. While Joe-Sixpack and the Nascar-Dads (sounds like a band) laments that he no longer has a job, he always has blacks and feminists to blame rather than the plutocracy. Try explaining what "plutocracy" is to a Nascar-dad and you'll understand why Bush can never do wrong.

[SmokingLoon]

12. While you are at it...

would you explain plutocracy to me? I probably know what it is, but don't know the word for it.

[joe_sixpack]

46. Plutocracy?

That's a government run by cartoon characters, isn't it?

[CityZen-X]

9. Truth Shall Conquer

That's what they are designed to do, discourage you. Do not count on their accuracy. They, in my opinion are designed to manipulate thought. Have you ever been asked to participate in one, do you know anyone who has?
Take your own poll ask people in your daily life if they support this Resident and his Faustian machinations. Take courage in reality not some manipulated poll.

[dennis4868]

10. I THINK

Bush's numbers will go down again, especially if soldiers continue to die. However,I agree with you. Things do not look good right now. It's a little depressing that Bush's numbers are up and so many people are willing to vote him in for another 4 years even though his White House outed a CIA agent and lied for the reasons for war. I do not see how anyone who is objective could want Bush for another 4 years. I mean he committed treason for crying out loud outing a CIA agent. Isn't that enought to make people mad and want him out of office?

Anyway, the dems have to move on and push the agenda which should be: Health care for all, tax fairness, national security and of course jobs. I do not think any of the Dems are doing a very good job right now in this regard.

Plus, Bush has the corporate media sponsoring his presidency. That will be hard for any Dem to overcome. Juts ask Al Gore about that.

[QC]

13. It's a long time until election day.

Way too soon to give up hope just yet.

[Tempest]

18. Exactly right

"You know," DNC chair Terry McAuliffe told Democrats assembled in St. Paul Friday, "there are some who feel the Democrats should just throw in the towel right now. I even read the following just the other day by political commentator Tom Wicker: 'The real question is whether any Democrat can match George Bush's claim to be a proven Presidential
figure, validated by war and victory. It won't be easy . . .' I also read: 'No political strategist in the country can see any way George Bush is not going to win and win big.' That came from Ed Rollins, a Republican political strategist. Sounds pretty dire, huh? Well, buck up - these were written in 1991."

http://www.andrewtobias.com/newcolumns/030623.html

[QC]

22. Yep. Some of us here remember the Invincible George H.W. Bush.

The unbeatable warrior king who went on to suffer the worst loss by an incumbent president since William Howard Taft.

[Yupster]

45. Correct QC

Bush will be ahead for a while, behind for a while. Little things will be huge stories. There's too far to go to care about polls.

[Bandit]

16. Just Remember and repeat often

Could Have Been and Should Have Been Prevented

[Tempest]

19. Also...

Weapons of Mass Destruction For Bush a Nonissue

"So what's the difference?" Bush* is quoted as saying in this article from Richard Stevenson (NYT, Dec. 18)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/politics/18PREX.html?ex=1072751715&ei=1&en=e1580f09d8acdaf1

[ThomC]

21. Will it be as popular as the "BUSH KNEW" credo?

I fear any massive attemp to replay that scene will be met with an overwhelming "Clinton did it" but what the hell it's worth a try :-)

[Bandit]

27. The difference is the "Bush* Knew" came from the left

Could Have Been and Should Have Been Prevented came from the official investigation appointed by Bush* himself. It has legs indeed. Also it doesn't say he knew just that he was derelict. Quite a difference. One is hard to believe a President could be guilty of. Most Americans are not that cynical, however dereliction of duty is almost a given.

[Brotherjohn]

28. So what's all this that came out yesterday about the 9-11 Commission?

"Could Have Been and Should Have Been Prevented"?

Another poster above said "that the chairman of the 9/11 committee" determined that Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened.

Did I miss some big news?

[Bandit]

30. Yes I guess you did

The head of the 9-11 investigation came out and said "9-11 Could Have Been and Should Have Been Prevented" He said the CIA and FBI and National Security Dept and the Administration all fell down on the job and that it could have been prevented. He was appointed by Bush* and is a Republican. IMHO this is huge news and a huge gift to the Democratic candidates right before Christmas.

[AlinPA]

38. The guy thgat said it (Kean) recanted that statement

No story now.

[CMT]

23. these go in cycles

in a month after the Saddam effect has worn off he will begin to drop again. Might even be sooner.

[AlinPA]

24. I'm willing to bet that Clinton and Carter were "down" in the polls

at this stage in their run for the WH. Not a vote has been cast yet. The primaries will tighten up things once people see the candidates in their home states. Just keep working. (Unless the media freezes them out)

[mikehiggins]

25. Bush is the incumbent President

We don't like him but we are the clear minority in this country.

This is a clear tradition in this country. People ALWAYS want to beleive the President is a good guy, and doing the best for the country. The powerful know that is all bullshit, but the powerful amount to even fewer votes than the total of DU members.

Just because a person tells a pollster that he or she is definately going to vote, and even worse, is going to vote for Bush, it doesn't mean that is going to happen.

Things happen.

If Governor Kean's report is verified and catches the public's attention, how welcome do you think the GOP will be next September in NYC? Suppose the City Council passed a resolution DE-inviting them?

Stuff like that is possible and that is why the race is never over until the Supreme Court sings...I mean, the last vote is counted.

Like Astrology, the poll impel but don't compel...

[Tempest]

26. Saddam's capture bodes ill for Bush's re-election

Saddam's capture bodes ill for Bush's re-election

William Pfaff TMSI

http://www.iht.com/articles/121875.html

Contrary to what many are saying, Saddam Hussein's capture is a negative omen for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign and points toward continuing disorder and resistance in Iraq.

Saddam's ignominious circumstances when he surrendered - hiding in a hole in the ground when he wasn't living in a shed heaped with dirty clothes, eggshells and unwashed pans, with a refrigerator stocked with candy bars and soft drinks - made it clear to all that the resistance to the American occupation was not being commanded from there. So it is wishful thinking to expect his capture alone to slow or end the violence. It may spur the resistance.

<more>

[West Coast Democrat]

33. This article makes some good points

It reminds me that the inaccurate press after Saddam's sons were killed. We were told that the sons basically led the insurgency, and that it was sure to die out. But the insurgency only grew stronger in the months to follow, and it seems to be coming from a variety of directions. If things in Iraq don't improve IMMENSELY now that Saddam in custody, the public is sure to grow even more skeptical about whether going into Iraq was a good idea.

[West Coast Democrat]

31. Discouraged? Look Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=938949

[mlawson]

32. Remember, Clinton was THIRD behind Perot and Poppy

in JUNE 1992. Don't worry ... yet.
Just be glad they got Saddam, and not WMD!!!

[Myra]

34. coloradodem2004, I think they're supposed to discourage you

They wouldn't be good propaganda if they didn't.

[AlinPA]

37. Even this one does not discourage me (see link)

Bush would win "even if the economy goes sour.."? B.S.
Lots more issues than just the economy.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3694389/

[West Coast Democrat]

43. Economists aren't good at predicting anything

they've been predicting for 2 years now that an ecomonic boom and huge job growth are right around the corner. The stock market might be back up, but that's only because the dollar is losing value and interest rates are almost nothing. Millionares need to put their money somewhere.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[West Coast Democrat]

42. Get lost!

Economy at 20 year high?...what spin!

[matt53]

47. Spooky deletion

Makes me wonder what the guy said... is saying the economy's doing good a deletable offense? Geez...