NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush hasn't had good poll numbers, it seems, since October of 2001, but his performance since his re-election has been positively dismal. It's long been said that about 35% of the US is conservative, 35% is liberal, and the rest are either moderate or apathetic, and that's where the battles are waged. Well, is numbers like these are any indication (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html), Bush has not only lost the opposition and the independents, but he's losing his base as well.
President Bush’s job approval rating slipped this week and stands at a new low of 33 percent approve, down from 36 percent two weeks ago and 39 percent in mid-March. A year ago this time, 47 percent approved and two years ago 50 percent approved (April 2004).

Approval among Republicans is below 70 percent for the first time of Bush’s presidency. Two-thirds (66 percent) approve of Bush’s job performance today, down almost 20 percentage points from this time last year when 84 percent of Republicans approved. Among Democrats, 11 percent approve today, while 14 percent approved last April.
I have to wonder who those 11% of Democrats are--Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller and their families I guess?

I have to admit, I'm a little surprised. Everyone here knows how much I dislike Bush and his brand of destructive faux-conservatism, but I honestly didn't expect that he'd stay below 40% as long as he has, much less be threatening 30%. And he's got almost 3 years left.

How low will he go? Take the poll.

So much for the poll
ratzafratzabratzafrickin server

awww...

ouch

if fox puts it at 33% what is it REALLY? 25%??

As I found on a blog, for a little perspective, recall that Richard Nixon’s approval rating in the summer of 1973 (when the Watergate scandal was in full swing) was 39% (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/08/08/opinion/09opart.1.ready.html).

ouch

if fox puts it at 33% what is it REALLY? 25%??
To be fair to Fox, their polls have generally been in line with most of the others. It's Rasmussen that's been on the high end, and even they put Bush under 40% this week.

I'd be utterly shocked if he went below 30%, but like I said, I never figured he'd stay below 40 as long as he has.

What is the big deal? Somehow I doubt that a low approval rating, no matter how low, would cause Bush leave office before his term is up. Unless of course the intention here is to say "ZOMGZLOL BUSH IS TEH SUXXOR!!!!" in which case I (very tiredly) concur.

How low will he go?

http://www.woowoowoo.com/b3ta/titanic.jpg

That's the lowest. Someone already mentioned Rasmussenreports, which has it at 43%. The average of several recent polls has been about 37%.

http://www.woowoowoo.com/b3ta/titanic.jpg

I think that sums it up quite nicely.

What is the big deal? Somehow I doubt that a low approval rating, no matter how low, would cause Bush leave office before his term is up. Unless of course the intention here is to say "ZOMGZLOL BUSH IS TEH SUXXOR!!!!" in which case I (very tiredly) concur.
the point is not to get him to quit. if he quit, CHENEY would be president.

no one wants that

low poll numbers mean that the republican congressmen who are running for reelection have to seriously consider running on the "bush sucks" platform. this is bad for the republican party.

is bush so bullheaded that he will destroy his party rather than admitting he needs a slight course change?

I think this shows that Bush is the worst president ever and should be removed from power as soon as possible.

is bush so bullheaded that he will destroy his party rather than admitting he needs a slight course change?
If past history is any indication, the answer is yes. I can only hope that translates into massive gains for the Democrats.

the point is not to get him to quit. if he quit, CHENEY would be president.

no one wants that

low poll numbers mean that the republican congressmen who are running for reelection have to seriously consider running on the "bush sucks" platform. this is bad for the republican party.

is bush so bullheaded that he will destroy his party rather than admitting he needs a slight course change?
Oh yeah, I guess that is true. Plus it makes it more difficult politically for the Republicans to pass legislation. Forgot about that.

yeah, i am very surprised that he dipped this low. who knows, maybe as low as 25? i doubt it though

If past history is any indication, the answer is yes. I can only hope that translates into massive gains for the Democrats.

Great. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

We need the Democraps in power as much as Saddam Hussein wanted the Republicants in power in 2003.

Great. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

We need the Democraps in power as much as Saddam Hussein wanted the Republicants in power in 2003.
Well, sad as it may be, them's the options. Whatcha gonna do?

Well, sad as it may be, them's the options. Whatcha gonna do?

A balanced Congress would be great, so I'm hoping the Dems pick up enough seats in November to achieve that end. I think that would be best for everyone involved, especially those Republicans who have grown too comfortable with their dominance and rubber-stamp White House.

It might also bring out some fresh Democratic ideas that would have either been supressed on the floor or quieted by the needs of maintaining the party's position if the Republicans wern't stumbling. Personally, I feel energy independence will be an issue the Dems will use to great advantage in the coming months, and it looks like solid legislation might be coming soon from the rhetoric.

Perhaps we'll see some real bipartisan legislation, or maybe things will gridlock and we'll ride easy for a few years...gridlock does wonders for the budget deficit even if the actual budgets encounter no difficulty.

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?

Lemmee guess: another loony Libertarian.

Lemme guess. Another moonbat asshat. You lost. Get over it.

A balanced Congress would be great, so I'm hoping the Dems pick up enough seats in November to achieve that end. I think that would be best for everyone involved, especially those Republicans who have grown too comfortable with their dominance and rubber-stamp White House.

It might also bring out some fresh Democratic ideas that would have either been supressed on the floor or quieted by the needs of maintaining the party's position if the Republicans wern't stumbling. Personally, I feel energy independence will be an issue the Dems will use to great advantage in the coming months, and it looks like solid legislation might be coming soon from the rhetoric.

Perhaps we'll see some real bipartisan legislation, or maybe things will gridlock and we'll ride easy for a few years...gridlock does wonders for the budget deficit even if the actual budgets encounter no difficulty.
Few people really appreciate just how wonderful gridlock can be.

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?

Um. The polls are across the board showing these low numbers. http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Claiming the Fox News poll is somehow biased against Bush takes chutzpah, I'll give you that.

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?


yes, all the separate polls that have Bush in teh area of 30% are flawed and probably biased by the liberal media eh? lol

suck it up little one - his approval rating has been falling sharply and consistently.. but keep on defending him for whatever odd reason.

Great. Out of the frying pan and into the fire.

We need the Democraps in power as much as Saddam Hussein wanted the Republicants in power in 2003.
What's with all these troll puppets?

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?

Because, if anything, a Fox News poll is going to be biased against Bush, right?

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?
Very true ... which is the biggest problem I have had with fox not taking a statisticaly random sampling. They fuck up on such a simple process all the time to bias the survey to the right

Care to show us sampling error that pushes the CL out of the 95% range on this one though?

If past history is any indication, the answer is yes. I can only hope that translates into massive gains for the Democrats.
Actually, it translates into this, approximately ...
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C. April 18, 2006

http://sensiblyeclectic.com/b2evolution/blogs/media/bush_pimp.jpg
(kudos to CanuckHeaven :D )

Lemmee guess: another loony Libertarian.

Hey! I'm libertarian! Do I seem loony to you?

...

Okay, you win this round. :p

A balanced Congress would be great, so I'm hoping the Dems pick up enough seats in November to achieve that end. I think that would be best for everyone involved, especially those Republicans who have grown too comfortable with their dominance and rubber-stamp White House.

And then conservatives can figure out what took them out of the majority. They will find a leader with some vision and without the baggage that Gingrich carried around. The electorate will look at the mess the Democratic majority has made and vote the new conservative force into power. Thus the cycle continues.

the point is not to get him to quit. if he quit, CHENEY would be president.



You mean he isnt already? maybe hes doing a bad job deliberately and when he officially takes power hel suddenly be great.

http://www.woowoowoo.com/b3ta/titanic.jpg

Cue a good old Grudge Match War against Iran, to settle old scores.

There's nothing like a War to take people's minds off the last war still raging and domestic and administration 'issues', eh?

Cue a good old Grudge Match War against Iran, to settle old scores.

There's nothing like a War to take people's minds off the last war still raging and domestic and administration 'issues', eh?
Yep. I guess the real question for these guys is "How many points will a nuke get us in the polls?"

That's 33% higher than it should be.

http://heavylifting.blogspot.com/2006/04/gasoline-prices-iraq-or-both.html

Click the link, the correlation between gas prices and the president's approval rating is almost scary.

http://heavylifting.blogspot.com/2006/04/gasoline-prices-iraq-or-both.html

Click the link, the correlation between gas prices and the president's approval rating is almost scary.
The correlation between gas prices and bad news stirring in the middle east is even greater. The correlation between the bad news stirring in the middle east and neoconservative foreign policy is even greater.

Bush is the only cause for his own demise. Whether it is triggered by tax prices or not.

Bush hasn't had good poll numbers, it seems, since October of 2001, but his performance since his re-election has been positively dismal. It's long been said that about 35% of the US is conservative, 35% is liberal, and the rest are either moderate or apathetic, and that's where the battles are waged. Well, is numbers like these are any indication (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192468,00.html), Bush has not only lost the opposition and the independents, but he's losing his base as well.

I have to wonder who those 11% of Democrats are--Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller and their families I guess?..

Probably left-over Dixiecrats.

The funny thing is, this is a FOX news poll. Their polls are so slanted that there was a 90% vote on changing the $10 bill from Hamilton to Reagan. If FOX has him at 33% there's no telling where he really is.

This poll is unreliable because the bible belt are not aloud to watch fox:D

Poll numbers dont mean dick. The nature of the poll determines the outcome. Who was polled and where? How many were polled? How many were invited but declined to poll?
A good question, despite the idiots who automatically claimed you were supporting Bush and all that jazz.

However, that said, in this case, the poll was actually sampled from people who would be biased towards Bush, not against him. As others have said, if the Fox poll is at 33%, there is no telling what the real number is. Me, I think it's ~29%.

http://www.woowoowoo.com/b3ta/titanic.jpg

Isn't he the guy in the back of the lifeboat with his arms up shouting "Look what the evildoers did!"

Isn't he the guy in the back of the lifeboat with his arms up shouting "Look what the evildoers did!"
Nah, he's the guy being choppered away by his father's Saudi oil friends. Don't you know that it's only the people in steerage who go down with the ship?

The president has already said that he doesnt pay attention to polls (mabye because he doesnt like numbers lol) so to me that meant that he was saying I am going to do what ever I want. I still have that old school belief that the president is a representative of the people, and that he should do what the majority wants him to do, but not omit the minority. He is not a popular president. If he doesnt get done what he has "set up" then he will not be looked at very well in history. But in all honesty I think that he is more of a lame duck president than anything. I mean he signed the partiot act and the no child left behind act, and we are in a war. But realy he has not done much. Another problem I have with him and probably many people do is him not taking enough responsibility for his actions. Kennedy, Reagan and Carter all took on more responsibility than bush did for their actions. I think people miss that.

A good question, despite the idiots who automatically claimed you were supporting Bush and all that jazz.

However, that said, in this case, the poll was actually sampled from people who would be biased towards Bush, not against him. As others have said, if the Fox poll is at 33%, there is no telling what the real number is. Me, I think it's ~29%.

There is a sampling error of usualy about three percent in approval rating polls. If you have ever studied statistics you know that simple random samples are good, but you cant make confirmations with them, only implications.

There is a sampling error of usualy about three percent in approval rating polls. If you have ever studied statistics you know that simple random samples are good, but you cant make confirmations with them, only implications.
Now my focus with my stats minor was in survey stats but not specificaly Aproval rating surveys

They shooting for a 3* total error rate or just a sampiling error of 3* (we usualy use 5 percent in a non mechanical survey)

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president has already said that he does not pay attention to polls. So neither should you. It is all these laberals who like numbers. But you know what numbers cant like you back. Everybody should support the president because we are in war. If you dont support the president then you dont support the troops.

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president has already said that he does not pay attention to polls. So neither should you. It is all these laberals who like numbers. But you know what numbers cant like you back. Everybody should support the president because we are in war. If you dont support the president then you dont support the troops.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president has already said that he does not pay attention to polls. So neither should you. It is all these laberals who like numbers. But you know what numbers cant like you back. Everybody should support the president because we are in war. If you dont support the president then you dont support the troops.

Bullshit.

I hate my Prime Minister, but a lot of British soldiers are actually really nice people, and I support them in so far as I don't want them to die, despite disagreeing with the war.

Don't waste your time with Bushanomics. He's a one-note, unfunny joke. Sort of like Jon Lovitz.

Don't waste your time with Bushanomics. He's a one-note, unfunny joke. Sort of like Jon Lovitz.

Or Chuck Norris.

the point is not to get him to quit. if he quit, CHENEY would be president.

no one wants that

low poll numbers mean that the republican congressmen who are running for reelection have to seriously consider running on the "bush sucks" platform. this is bad for the republican party.

is bush so bullheaded that he will destroy his party rather than admitting he needs a slight course change?

Actually, I do want that. You see, the whole reason why Cheney has been able to go Palpatine on us is because he as the Vice President is usually out of the public eye. The President isn't. The best way to fry this beast is with sunshine, and the best way to do that is to put him in the big chair and remove his ability to puppeteer from behind the scenes. Without those sleight-of-hands, we'll all see him (and by extension, the Republican Party he leads) as exactly what he is.

What we all seem to be forgetting only about 55% of our possible voters actually vote in elections.
Look Here (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html)

But being as it is from the Federal Election Commission, methinks those numbers might be inflated a bit. A non-partisan group (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501965.html) (See last paragraph) says that is fairly correct however. I am inclined to believe these two sources combined.

Therefore you can see that a 30% approval rating is more than enough to get you elected as 30% is more than half of 55%. He clearly would be able to get not only a sweeping popular vote victory but probably be able to go as far as to claim a mandate for his adminstration with such high rating as 30%!

Ah American democracy. It's great, 'cause you don't have to do it! :p

Don't waste your time with Bushanomics. He's a one-note, unfunny joke. Sort of like Jon Lovitz.
I think he's funny. Come on -- "numbers can't like you back"? :D

Actually, I do want that. You see, the whole reason why Cheney has been able to go Palpatine on us is because he as the Vice President is usually out of the public eye. The President isn't. The best way to fry this beast is with sunshine, and the best way to do that is to put him in the big chair and remove his ability to puppeteer from behind the scenes. Without those sleight-of-hands, we'll all see him (and by extension, the Republican Party he leads) as exactly what he is.
:eek:
http://hem.bredband.net/b232251/stuff/cheneyemperor.jpg

Thanks for the intro.

I think he's funny. Come on -- "numbers can't like you back"? :D
How 'bout when he drove into the vets' convention after getting the shoe polish above his lip? Priceless.

If past history is any indication, the answer is yes. I can only hope that translates into massive gains for the Democrats.
Yes, and when Hillary gets put into power, we move into a second civil war.
Ah, and everything will be right in the world.

Yes, and when Hillary gets put into power, we move into a second civil war.
Ah, and everything will be right in the world.
Could likely be, seeing as how misogynist the cons are, they could never handle being subservient to such a decisive and authoritarian spectacle as Hill.
http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/whips.gif

And they'd surely invoke scripture, put on their Puritan outfits and sandals and start the war with pitchforks and torches like their "good old days" ... you know instead of GOP it'd be GOD.

Ah nostalgia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/


Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 04/06 - 04/19 37.1% 57.1% -20.0%
FOX News 04/18 - 04/19 33% 57% -24%
Rasmussen 04/16 - 04/18 42% 57% -15%
Pew Research 04/07 - 04/16 35% 55% -20%
Gallup 04/10 - 04/13 36% 59% -23%
LA Times/Bloomberg 04/08 - 04/11 39% 57% -18%
Cook/RT Strategies 04/06 - 04/09 37% 56% -19%
CBS News 04/06 - 04/09 37% 56% -19%
ABC News/Wash Post 04/06 - 04/09 38% 60% -22%

This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president has already said that he does not pay attention to polls. So neither should you. It is all these laberals who like numbers. But you know what numbers cant like you back. Everybody should support the president because we are in war. If you dont support the president then you dont support the troops.
Funny how no one who is behind pays attention to polls and everyone ahead always mentions them.

Are you saying every President should go to war so they automatically get support?

Yes, and when Hillary gets put into power, we move into a second civil war.
Ah, and everything will be right in the world.

That's one thing I hope never happens. I really can't stand her. :mad:

I don't think it can go a whole lot lower. And I don't like the guy.

Hardcore supporters will not jump ship. So much of their political identity is tied up in being "THIS, not THAT" (in this case, REPUBLICAN, not DEMOCRAT) and in a two-party system, if you're not one thing, you're the other... or you're irrelevant.

Not that I wouldn't love a good, valid, third (fourth, fifth, etc) party. But it ain't gonna happen in the US any time soon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/


Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
RCP Average 04/06 - 04/19 37.1% 57.1% -20.0%
FOX News 04/18 - 04/19 33% 57% -24%
Rasmussen 04/16 - 04/18 42% 57% -15%
Pew Research 04/07 - 04/16 35% 55% -20%
Gallup 04/10 - 04/13 36% 59% -23%
LA Times/Bloomberg 04/08 - 04/11 39% 57% -18%
Cook/RT Strategies 04/06 - 04/09 37% 56% -19%
CBS News 04/06 - 04/09 37% 56% -19%
ABC News/Wash Post 04/06 - 04/09 38% 60% -22%

I did find it odd, Fox news recorded the biggest drop.

That's one thing I hope never happens. I really can't stand her. :mad:
I hold no major brief against her, but I'll admit to being tired of hearing nothing but President Bush and President Clinton--20 years is enough in my book. But I don't imagine Hillary will be the nominee. She's Lieberman in 2002--flush with cash because she's the obvious frontrunner. She's got nowhere to go but down.

Why oh why does every goddamn mention of Bush have to be accompanied by mentioning a Clinton?

There's a sick fascination the right has with the Clintons that seends a creepy chill up and down my back.

Why oh why does every goddamn mention of Bush have to be accompanied by mentioning a Clinton?

There's a sick fascination the right has with the Clintons that seends a creepy chill up and down my back.

Err, because their secretaries don't give them free BJs?

Err, because their secretaries don't give them free BJs?

They have to pay?

Err, because their secretaries don't give them free BJs?
Some do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Marshak)

Some do. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megan_Marshak)


Now, you have to admit, that might not have been a B.J.. I could have been mutual cross-dressing B&D roleplaying. Erotic asphyxiation. Infantilism. Rape fantasy. You name it.

We just don't know the exact form of the sexual act.

Whoa... if even the Bush propaganda channel FoxNews (clearly the most pro-Bush channel ever) only places him at 33%, then he must really be *seriously* unpopular now :D
As they always swindle him much more popular than he really is, his actual approval rate must be somewhere in the 20% range :D

How low will he go? Take the poll.
Which poll? There isn't any poll.

Bush and Cheney should do the honourable thing:

R E S I G N....... N O W!!

Bush and Cheney should do the honourable thing:

R E S I G N....... N O W!!
I find it rather ironic that the very offer Bush gave Saddam (leave or we end you) will likely be being given to Bush by the GOP in the near future.

Right now the GOP is demoralized, if they're not careful, they'll wind up campaigning on the same wavelength the democracts tend do: "We're not Bush".

If they want to revitalize their base, a show of cleaning house, starting at the top, would likely win a lot of those moderate conservatives back, and let them actually push a campaign forward on issues they want to raise, rather than on denying the issues they don't.

Which poll? There isn't any poll.
See post #2.

I find it rather ironic that the very offer Bush gave Saddam (leave or we end you) will likely be being given to Bush by the GOP in the near future.

Right now the GOP is demoralized, if they're not careful, they'll wind up campaigning on the same wavelength the democracts tend do: "We're not Bush".

If they want to revitalize their base, a show of cleaning house, starting at the top, would likely win a lot of those moderate conservatives back, and let them actually push a campaign forward on issues they want to raise, rather than on denying the issues they don't.

*SNIFF SNIFF SNIFF*

Can't you smell it????

Lame duck!

Yummmmmmm.

It's midterm elections. He isn't going to win anyback as they are going to try and save their seats. The Coattail option is lost......

Doesn't change the point.
If the party as a whole doesn't differentiate themselves from his policies now, that's what they'll be doing come election time.

If the new Iraqi government can quell some of the violence over there, allowing US troops to come home...

and the US economy remains strong, with strong investor confidence, low unemployment, etc. (i'm puzzled as to how some think the economy isn't as strong as it actually is... at any rate, if the MEDIA -- yeah, right -- would call it like it is and put a positive face on the economy, Average Joe might finally realize, "Hey, our economy's recovered very well from 9/11 and is actually in good shape.")

the numbers will go back up.

If the new Iraqi government can quell some of the violence over there, allowing US troops to come home...
And if all the pigs in the factory farms down south started to shit gold and piss organic apple juice before the midterm elections...

and the US economy remains strong, with strong investor confidence, low unemployment, etc.
and real wages keep going down while fuel prices keep going up...

the numbers will go back up.
Anything is possible.

If the new Iraqi government can quell some of the violence over there, allowing US troops to come home...

and the US economy remains strong, with strong investor confidence, low unemployment, etc. (i'm puzzled as to how some think the economy isn't as strong as it actually is... at any rate, if the MEDIA -- yeah, right -- would call it like it is and put a positive face on the economy, Average Joe might finally realize, "Hey, our economy's recovered very well from 9/11 and is actually in good shape.")

the numbers will go back up.
That isn't optimism, that's willfull naivete.

Picking up your late edit:

(i'm puzzled as to how some think the economy isn't as strong as it actually is... at any rate, if the MEDIA -- yeah, right -- would call it like it is and put a positive face on the economy, Average Joe might finally realize, "Hey, our economy's recovered very well from 9/11 and is actually in good shape.")
And which pinko media-bastard was it who drove oil prices up to $75/barrel this week and then had the temerity to tell people about it?

Picking up your late edit:


And which pinko media-bastard was it who drove oil prices up to $75/barrel this week and then had the temerity to tell people about it?

...as if President Bush controls THE PRICE OF OIL.

rofl

if pinko liberals would let us drill in Alaska... it might go down.

(just kidding, i don't want us to drill in alaska).

Why oh why does every goddamn mention of Bush have to be accompanied by mentioning a Clinton?

There's a sick fascination the right has with the Clintons that seends a creepy chill up and down my back.

Because to the Republicans the Clintons represent the possibility of people from poor backgrounds with a lot of ability rising up to positions of power. To people of wealthy aristocratic backgrounds that's as scarey as Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

They never thought that a lecherous hillbilly could oust a president that had reached as high an approval rating as Bush Sr. after the Iraq war. Clinton did it, and they wanted to make sure that it never happened again. Newt waged war with his Contract on America. Richard Melon Scaffe started his slander machine telling the American public that Clinton was a coke addicted drug smuggler. That was a particularly odious lie since that was true of the Georges Bush put together, but it formed one more plank in the Republican strategic platform. Accuse Dems of the crimes of the Republicans.

Machiavelli said that you should attack your opponents strengths. Bush, a draft dodging cheerleader with the apparent intelligence of an Idiot Savant without the analytical skills attacked Kerry for being an overly intelligent war-hero. Now they're attacking what they see as the strength of the Democratic party.

A well known and talented politician who knows how to play both sides of the fence. How their attacking her doesn't matter. What matters is that they're afraid of her, so like a rabid dog, they attack mindlessly. And I truly mean mindlessly. What she actually is is irrelevant. What matters is how they make her look.

...as if President Bush controls THE PRICE OF OIL.

rofl

if pinko liberals would let us drill in Alaska... it might go down.

(just kidding, i don't want us to drill in alaska).

Nah. It's if we invade Iraq the price of oil will go down...

Well, maybe if we invade Iran. That's it. We got it wrong by one letter. ;)

Yes, and when Hillary gets put into power, we move into a second civil war.
Ah, and everything will be right in the world.

Maybe this time the North will really win and finally be rid of the slave states.

Actually, I do want that. You see, the whole reason why Cheney has been able to go Palpatine on us is because he as the Vice President is usually out of the public eye. The President isn't. The best way to fry this beast is with sunshine, and the best way to do that is to put him in the big chair and remove his ability to puppeteer from behind the scenes. Without those sleight-of-hands, we'll all see him (and by extension, the Republican Party he leads) as exactly what he is.
*shudder*

cheney would nuke iran before the ink was dry on the resignation.

sure we'd have complete proof that he's evil but what would it matter once ww3 starts?

Maybe this time the North will really win and finally be rid of the slave states.

Look, we all know that the Civil war was actually fought because Mexican influences convinced the CSA to secede. Since Mexico is now firmly in the pocket of the Russians, who would like nothing better than to see America split in two, it would seem that this is in fact likely. Actually, Canada is putting considerable pressure on the Russians not to pull that stunt again. So not likely.

Look, we all know that the Civil war was actually fought because Mexican influences convinced the CSA to secede. Since Mexico is now firmly in the pocket of the Russians, who would like nothing better than to see America split in two, it would seem that this is in fact likely. Actually, Canada is putting considerable pressure on the Russians not to pull that stunt again. So not likely.
This'd be some quantum parallel universe you're talking about - ?

This'd be some quantum parallel universe you're talking about - ?

No, just the shadow world evidently not apparent to the untrained eye.

AKA, a puppet used to post ridiculous conspiracy theories. But don't tell anyone.

and real wages keep going down while fuel prices keep going up.

But nominal wages are still rising, which means if fuel prices fall real wages will also increase; energy is very volatile.

Regardless, since the economy is almost at full employment, it will be much more likely that real wages will begin to catch up and will turn positive even with higher fuel prices.

In fact, that's started to happen; even though inflation last year was 3.4%, real wages only fell by $0.02 even with the two hurricanes and $2.50/gallon gasoline.

In 2004, inflation was 2.7% but real wages fell $0.07 even though energy prices on average were only 50% of the prices in 2005. If payroll growth remains healthy, wage pressure will lead to gains in real wages even with higher energy costs; the trend for this year is stronger than last year so that is almost a guarantee.

(i'm puzzled as to how some think the economy isn't as strong as it actually is... at any rate, if the MEDIA -- yeah, right -- would call it like it is and put a positive face on the economy, Average Joe might finally realize, "Hey, our economy's recovered very well from 9/11 and is actually in good shape.")

the numbers will go back up.

Hmmm I am sure the 25 people we laid off would belive you. Especially the company that was funding their project who laid off a bunch of people and ended product lines would agree with you too.

The economy is not that great.

The economy is not that great.

People get laid off regardless of how well the economy is doing; there's never been an economic expansion where no layoffs occured. Even so, a lot more people are hiring than are being laid off as the data shows.

The data shows that the economy is doing fairly well, especially given the amount of things that have gone wrong in the past few years; it will probably be better in 2006 than in previous years because growth worldwide is getting stronger.

...as if President Bush controls THE PRICE OF OIL.

rofl

if pinko liberals would let us drill in Alaska... it might go down.

(just kidding, i don't want us to drill in alaska).


Hmmmm, how many conservatives blamed Carter for the price of oil? Could it be....almost all of them?

People get laid off regardless of how well the economy is doing; there's never been an economic expansion where no layoffs occured. Even so, a lot more people are hiring than are being laid off as the data shows.

The data shows that the economy is doing fairly well, especially given the amount of things that have gone wrong in the past few years; it will probably be better in 2006 than in previous years because growth worldwide is getting stronger.

Some of the data shows the economy as a whole is doing okay. The problem is that it's not translating to better times for the typical person. Real wages are down. People have to work longer for less benefit. Healthcare costs are throught the roof. Energy costs are through the roof.

The thing is, most of the results of this "good economy" are funnelling upwards...and that's exactly how the GOP and the White house wanted it.

...as if President Bush controls THE PRICE OF OIL.

rofl

if pinko liberals would let us drill in Alaska... it might go down.

(just kidding, i don't want us to drill in alaska).
I hope you're kidding because a lot of average conservatives are talking out their arse when they stay stuff like that. Perhaps you're different and know why ANWR hasn't been opened?
Also, NPR-A, also in Alaska (obviously) [b]is[b] open for drilling, in a limited fashion.
Also, there's more in our reserves now than there has been since some time in the eighties. We're full ... and at $75 a barrel! You do the math. Don't forget to carry the one.

Hmmmm, how many conservatives blamed Carter for the price of oil? Could it be....almost all of them?

zing!

although, the point is people attack the figurehead. republicans are in bed with the oil people. bush symbolizes republicans. therefore bush is in bed with the oil people.

both parties attack figureheads, sometimes with no reason or clarity.

welcome to america!

But nominal wages are still rising, which means if fuel prices fall real wages will also increase; energy is very volatile.

So...if things change the economy will be good.


Regardless, since the economy is almost at full employment, it will be much more likely that real wages will begin to catch up and will turn positive even with higher fuel prices.

Again, you're basing your view of the economy on what you hope or expect to happen, not on what's happening.


In fact, that's started to happen; even though inflation last year was 3.4%, real wages only fell by $0.02 even with the two hurricanes and $2.50/gallon gasoline.

So, wages falling slower means the economy is good? What will the excuses next year be for why the economy isn't paying off for the average citizen?

In 2004, inflation was 2.7% but real wages fell $0.07 even though energy prices on average were only 50% of the prices in 2005. If payroll growth remains healthy, wage pressure will lead to gains in real wages even with higher energy costs; the trend for this year is stronger than last year so that is almost a guarantee.

If. If. If. Again, you're painting a rosy picture based on future optimistic projections that conservative pundits have been painting for years without it actually happening.

Nah. It's if we invade Iraq the price of oil will go down...

Well, maybe if we invade Iran. That's it. We got it wrong by one letter. ;)
Maybe if we bombed the entire middle east with enough nuclear weaponry, the heat and pressure will cause the entire place to metamophosize into a great big pit of oil (or something). Just a thought.

Maybe if we bombed the entire middle east with enough nuclear weaponry, the heat and pressure will cause the entire place to metamophosize into a great big pit of oil (or something). Just a thought.

what we really need is to rope off the middle east for 20-25 years. let them fight it out, and whoever is left controls the area.

including israel.

Maybe if we bombed the entire middle east with enough nuclear weaponry, the heat and pressure will cause the entire place to metamophosize into a great big pit of oil (or something). Just a thought.
That's a lot of glass sifting to be done, methinks.

That's a lot of glass sifting to be done, methinks.
I don't really know if that would work or not. But don't knock it til you try it, Right?! WOOOOOOOO!!

Explosions!! Oil!! Yeah!!

Actually the oil problem belongs to Reagan and whoever was his VP. Carter put through a tax law that let everyone write off the top of their taxes any money spent to conserve energy. Everyone was putting in extra insulation, solar panels, tankless water heaters, etc. Imagine if every house built in the last 26 years had solar panels just to heat water......

Well, Reagan and his VP (What's his name again?) decided that the energy conservation provision was an "unfair tax advantage" for the middle class. Since the rich already had energy effecient houses and the poor rented so couldn't use the provisions. The American people bought the arguement and all energy conservation ended.


26 years.......wasted......wasn't Reagan and his VP the greatest ever.....Consider Reagans smile as you fill up.

what we really need is to rope off the middle east for 20-25 years. let them fight it out, and whoever is left controls the area.

including israel.

Yeah, and you end up with one bitter super-power. Seems to be no good solution, eh?

Yeah, and you end up with one bitter super-power. Seems to be no good solution, eh?


How exactly would the region become a super-power?

So...if things change the economy will be good.

Barring an unexpected and severe economic shock, it will happen. It requires no change in the price of energy because real wages inevitably catch up with the nominal in a full employment labor market.

Again, you're basing your view of the economy on what you hope or expect to happen, not on what's happening.

Well, yeah, Economics tends to be a forward looking science, with past data used to generate future trends. I'm more concerned about 6 months down the line than what's happening right now because fiscal and monetary policy affect events several months in the future rather than immediate.

So, wages falling slower means the economy is good? What will the excuses next year be for why the economy isn't paying off for the average citizen?

Good is somewhat subjective; healthy is a better term. A healthy economy is not necessarily a good one, and vice versa. If wages are falling, but are falling slower at a higher rate of inflation then that means the labor market is healthier than it was in the past and wages are catching up with the rate of inflation...to workers, that is a good thing but to economists it can be a sign of possible demand-pull inflation.

If. If. If. Again, you're painting a rosy picture based on future optimistic projections that conservative pundits have been painting for years without it actually happening.

No, my views are based on the economic data today and macroeconomic theory applied to the current situation. It's only optimistic because the data points to bettering conditions rather than worsening ones. Were we debating in October of 2000, my predictions would be pessimistic because the data of the time corresponded to a slowing economy.

Actually the oil problem belongs to Reagan and whoever was his VP. Carter put through a tax law that let everyone write off the top of their taxes any money spent to conserve energy. Everyone was putting in extra insulation, solar panels, tankless water heaters, etc. Imagine if every house built in the last 26 years had solar panels just to heat water.

What about Bush Sr. or Bill Clinton, both of whom did little to improve our energy situation? Under their watches, the fuel economy of our vehicles stagnated and we built dozens of gas-fired power plants that prolonged our dependence on fossil fuels.

We could have used our cheap oil to prepare for the future, but instead we sold off the SPR to lower the deficit (with the cooperation of the Republican Congress) and left ourselves utterly unprepared in the face of any oil shortages.

No, my views are based on the economic data today and macroeconomic theory applied to the current situation. It's only optimistic because the data points to bettering conditions rather than worsening ones. Were we debating in October of 2000, my predictions would be pessimistic because the data of the time corresponded to a slowing economy.

Unfortunately, you're using the same excuses that have been used for several years now, so excuse me if I'm skeptical.

Wealth continues to be concentrated more and more to the already rich at the expense of everyone else. The fortunes of the rich and powerful are the pretty shining gold plate on the turd of our current economy.

Good is somewhat subjective; healthy is a better term. A healthy economy is not necessarily a good one, and vice versa. If wages are falling, but are falling slower at a higher rate of inflation then that means the labor market is healthier than it was in the past and wages are catching up with the rate of inflation...to workers, that is a good thing but to economists it can be a sign of possible demand-pull inflation.

Aren't we Orwellian in our double-speak. An economy that is bad for the average member of society is a good -- I mean healthy -- economy, "and vice versa."

Unfortunately, you're using the same excuses that have been used for several years now, so excuse me if I'm skeptical.

It's not an excuse if the data corresponds to improvements in the economy.

Wealth continues to be concentrated more and more to the already rich at the expense of everyone else. The fortunes of the rich and powerful are the pretty shining gold plate on the turd of our current economy.

That's not a new trend; income inequality has clearly accelerated since the mid 1980's and reached its current levels during the late 1990's...this is just the continuation of a trend that likely had its birth during the 1970's energy crisis. In fact, 1967 could be the start of the trend because it was the peak year of US real wages, and after that real wages never achieved their levels of the 1960's.

Actually the oil problem belongs to Reagan and whoever was his VP. Carter put through a tax law that let everyone write off the top of their taxes any money spent to conserve energy. Everyone was putting in extra insulation, solar panels, tankless water heaters, etc. Imagine if every house built in the last 26 years had solar panels just to heat water......

Well, Reagan and his VP (What's his name again?) decided that the energy conservation provision was an "unfair tax advantage" for the middle class. Since the rich already had energy effecient houses and the poor rented so couldn't use the provisions. The American people bought the arguement and all energy conservation ended.


26 years.......wasted......wasn't Reagan and his VP the greatest ever.....Consider Reagans smile as you fill up.

Well said.

Aren't we Orwellian in our double-speak. An economy that is bad for the average member of society is a good -- I mean healthy -- economy, "and vice versa."

All of economics is doublespeak.

A good piece of data could in fact be very bad for the economy and a bad piece of data could be very good. As long as it keeps the value of the US dollar stable, a healthy economy is desirable, and if it doesn't that economy is not desireable.

It's not an excuse if the data corresponds to improvements in the economy.



That's not a new trend; income inequality has clearly accelerated since the mid 1980's and reached its current levels during the late 1990's...this is just the continuation of a trend that likely had its birth during the 1970's energy crisis. In fact, 1967 could be the start of the trend because it was the peak year of US real wages, and after that real wages never achieved their levels of the 1960's.
MID 80's........This started with Reaganomics, aka. trickle down, aka voodoo economics. Reagan said give the money to the rich and they would create wealth and share it with the poor. 26 years....the rich got the money and kept it.

All of economics is doublespeak.

Then perhaps what you call "economics" is bullshit.

A good piece of data could in fact be very bad for the economy and a bad piece of data could be very good. As long as it keeps the value of the US dollar stable, a healthy economy is desirable, and if it doesn't that economy is not desireable.

Now you've reduced the measure of a healthy economy to whether the value of the US dollar is stable.

Really, screw the general welfare of the population. All that matters in economics is fiscal stability.

MID 80's........This started with Reaganomics, aka. trickle down, aka voodoo economics. Reagan said give the money to the rich and they would create wealth and share it with the poor. 26 years....the rich got the money and kept it.

Even if it was not Reagan's fault per se (even though I feel his policies played a role in it) 1982 marked both the end of the inflationary spiral of the 1970's and the recession of the early 80's, and triggered a secular stock market boom that lasted until 2000.

There seems to be direct correlation between the rapid growth of the stock market and the rise in income inequality; in fact, the best year for the stock markets, 1999, also saw dramatic and continued shifts in public opinion towards the existence of a clearly "have and have-not" economy.

Then perhaps what you call "economics" is bullshit.

It's not called the dismal science for nothing. Policy economics' purpose is to maintain the monetary policy goals of the central bank, even if those goals seem impersonal and unfeeling.

Now you've reduced the measure of a healthy economy to whether the value of the US dollar is stable.

If you strip away all of the terms, the focus of policy economics is a stable dollar and a stable dollar is a product of a healthy economy.

Really, screw the general welfare of the population. All that matters in economics is fiscal stability.

People can't do well without a fiscally stable economy. The experiences of the past have proven that allowing inflation or deflation to get out of control leads to serious and possibly irrecoverable economic losses.

Good is somewhat subjective; healthy is a better term. A healthy economy is not necessarily a good one, and vice versa. If wages are falling, but are falling slower at a higher rate of inflation then that means the labor market is healthier than it was in the past and wages are catching up with the rate of inflation...to workers, that is a good thing but to economists it can be a sign of possible demand-pull inflation.


And thats why the average person thinks the economy is bad, because they don't give a damn about the health of the economy, they care about the ease of them being able to buy the things they need and/or want. When real wages go down all they care about is that it is harder for them to buy things they once were able to buy.

And thats why the average person thinks the economy is bad, because they don't give a damn about the health of the economy, they care about the ease of them being able to buy the things they need and/or want. When real wages go down all they care about is that it is harder for them to buy things they once were able to buy.

Generally, the people who are able to analyze the economy in depth are also the ones who don't feel its effects. That's why the perceptions of the economy in the 1990's vary wildly depending on where and who is polled.

Generally, the people who are able to analyze the economy in depth are also the ones who don't feel its effects. That's why the perceptions of the economy in the 1990's vary wildly depending on where and who is polled.
Yeah, that wasn't the question. The question was why do the people seem to think the economy is bad, and the simple answer is they see the rich getting richer while they stay the same or get poorer. Its as simple as that they give a rat that the overall economy is healthy so long as they aren't getting a piece of that pie.

Yeah, that wasn't the question. The question was why do the people seem to think the economy is bad, and the simple answer is they see the rich getting richer while they stay the same or get poorer. Its as simple as that they give a rat that the overall economy is healthy so long as they aren't getting a piece of that pie.

The people who analyze the economy are the ones who are rich...it's perfectly understandable that the poor don't like the economy because for the past 30 or so years they've been royally fucked by both boom bust regardless.

Generally, the people who are able to analyze the economy in depth are also the ones who don't feel its effects. That's why the perceptions of the economy in the 1990's vary wildly depending on where and who is polled.

You've adopted a very narrow and elitist definition of the economy and economics. It's rather neatly self-fulfilling, however.

You've adopted a very narrow and elitist definition of the economy and economics. It's rather neatly self-fulfilling, however.

Policy economics is dominated be wealthy people; the guys who sit on the Federal Reserve are all wealthy with expertise in economic theory and the effects of monetary policy on the economy. Therefore, their analysis of the economy does not often correspond with the actual experiences of a lot of people; it's based on what they feel is best for their policy goals, not what is necessarily best for ordinary people.

The intentionally caused 1982 recession is a case in point of Federal Reserve policy acting counteractive to the well being of American workers; in the long run, it turned out to be the right thing to do, but in the short run a lot of people suffered economic hardship because of it.

The people who analyze the economy are the ones who are rich...it's perfectly understandable that the poor don't like the economy because for the past 30 or so years they've been royally fucked by both boom bust regardless.
Than why are you people who say the economy is healthy/good so suprised when these people who are geting screwed bitch about that by saying the economy, as they experiance it, is crappy?

Than why are you people who say the economy is healthy/good so suprised when these people who are geting screwed bitch about that by saying the economy, as they experiance it, is crappy?

I'm not surprised. It's been a trend for a while that the economy does not benefit everyone, and the gap between the beneficiaries and those left behind is getting wider with each successive business cycle.

...as if President Bush controls THE PRICE OF OIL.

rofl

if pinko liberals would let us drill in Alaska... it might go down.

(just kidding, i don't want us to drill in alaska).
Bush controls the price of oil to the exact same extent the media control how badly he fucks up his job. That lame game of blaming the media for being nattering nabobs of negativism boils down to essentially this: Nobody would know what a crappy president Bush is if they weren't told.

Well, (A) they've been told so learn to cope, and (B) even if the media kept stum, the prices at the pumps tell us all we need to know.

All of economics is doublespeak.

A good piece of data could in fact be very bad for the economy and a bad piece of data could be very good. As long as it keeps the value of the US dollar stable, a healthy economy is desirable, and if it doesn't that economy is not desireable.
Especially when you explain it.

I'm not surprised. It's been a trend for a while that the economy does not benefit everyone, and the gap between the beneficiaries and those left behind is getting wider with each successive business cycle.
You might not be but the guy who started this train of discussion was doing just that.

You might not be but the guy who started this train of discussion was doing just that.And so do the media whores who try to spin economic data in favor of Republican policies. They're not lying when they say the economy is doing well or that it's healthy--they're just not telling the whole story. The difference right now is that more working class people than ever are getting screwed, and they're not buying it anymore. The economy is great for the wealthy and for corporations. For most everyone else, it's dismal with signs of shitty.

You might not be but the guy who started this train of discussion was doing just that.

Then that person was wrong. I agree that the economy is healthy, but it has its dark side that has to be addressed as well.

I know that the economy is healthy, but I also know that the benefits aren't reaching everyone, and that everyone is a fairly large segment of our population; that might change in the future, but income inequality remains a serious and likely worsening problem that has to be considered even when the economy is growing strongly.

Because to the Republicans the Clintons represent the possibility of people from poor backgrounds with a lot of ability rising up to positions of power. To people of wealthy aristocratic backgrounds that's as scarey as Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

They never thought that a lecherous hillbilly could oust a president that had reached as high an approval rating as Bush Sr. after the Iraq war. Clinton did it, and they wanted to make sure that it never happened again. Newt waged war with his Contract on America. Richard Melon Scaffe started his slander machine telling the American public that Clinton was a coke addicted drug smuggler. That was a particularly odious lie since that was true of the Georges Bush put together, but it formed one more plank in the Republican strategic platform. Accuse Dems of the crimes of the Republicans.

Machiavelli said that you should attack your opponents strengths. Bush, a draft dodging cheerleader with the apparent intelligence of an Idiot Savant without the analytical skills attacked Kerry for being an overly intelligent war-hero. Now they're attacking what they see as the strength of the Democratic party.

A well known and talented politician who knows how to play both sides of the fence. How their attacking her doesn't matter. What matters is that they're afraid of her, so like a rabid dog, they attack mindlessly. And I truly mean mindlessly. What she actually is is irrelevant. What matters is how they make her look.
Good post. And good old Macchiavelli, my hero, inventor of the funnest game in the world that everyone can play.

Attack your opponent's strengths -- i.e. his honesty (Plame leak denials, NSA program denials), military prowess (Iraq quagmire, dissenting generals), dedication to stop terrorism (Osama bin Who?; what southern border?). Add in a light seasoning of falling wages and high gas prices -- and if you really want those statistics to hurt, ask Vetalia to explain why what's good for Halliburton is good for America -- a few comedic press conference clips (for color), stir, pour, crush your enemy, see him driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.

Heartwarming vision, isn't it? :)

Policy economics is dominated be wealthy people; the guys who sit on the Federal Reserve are all wealthy with expertise in economic theory and the effects of monetary policy on the economy. Therefore, their analysis of the economy does not often correspond with the actual experiences of a lot of people; it's based on what they feel is best for their policy goals, not what is necessarily best for ordinary people.

The intentionally caused 1982 recession is a case in point of Federal Reserve policy acting counteractive to the well being of American workers; in the long run, it turned out to be the right thing to do, but in the short run a lot of people suffered economic hardship because of it.

So after all that:

Rich people: The economy is good or great depending on who you ask.

Everybody else: The economy sucks, is ok, is going down depending on who you ask.

I'm not surprised. It's been a trend for a while that the economy does not benefit everyone, and the gap between the beneficiaries and those left behind is getting wider with each successive business cycle.

So if you are not benifiting from it; you are still supposed to say its a good economy?

I don't know where Reagan got his genius--read: idiotic--idea for trickle-down economics in the first place. It's just as idiotic as socialism, because it relies far too much on an aspect of human nature that is rare-nonexistant in most people: generosity. Simply put, the rich will just use that money to enhance their own lives.

No, Reaganomics does not work. We need something else.

I don't know where Reagan got his genius--read: idiotic--idea for trickle-down economics in the first place. It's just as idiotic as socialism, because it relies far too much on an aspect of human nature that is rare-nonexistant in most people: generosity. Simply put, the rich will just use that money to enhance their own lives.

No, Reaganomics does not work. We need something else.

of course we need something else. because it seems everything we've tried since right before Andrew Jackson has not worked.

Thanks Andrew Jackson. One more example of personal vengeance screwing up an entire country.

So if you are not benifiting from it; you are still supposed to say its a good economy?

Hell no...you should say what you think because nothing improves if you just go along with what people tell you. If your personal experience suggests the economy is good, then say it is and if it doesn't, say it's bad.

Even better, tell your Congressional representatives about it. A lot of our economic problems go unaddressed because people voice their opinions and raise concerns but don't take the next step to get it translated in to action.
Another good step would be to increase your own personal economic and financial literacy to help craft well informed suggestions to the problem, address your financial situation, and help others around you with their financial difficulties.

I honestly think economic and financial illiteracy may be responsible for a good deal of our economic difficulty; how can you make educated financial decisions when you haven't the knowledge necessary to properly manage debt and investments? If we were to do that, I think everyone would benefit because bad debt is one of the biggest killers of the middle and lower classes, and most people don't know enough to get out of it and climb up the income ladder.

Improving financial literacy would both enable consumers to make wise decisions regarding their spending habits and to avoid predatory lenders and others seeking to take advantage of lower income consumers.

So after all that:
Rich people: The economy is good or great depending on who you ask.
Everybody else: The economy sucks, is ok, is going down depending on who you ask.

And sometimes that's reversed, albeit rarely. Otherwise, you hit the nail on the head.

There seems to be direct correlation between the rapid growth of the stock market and the rise in income inequality; in fact, the best year for the stock markets, 1999, also saw dramatic and continued shifts in public opinion towards the existence of a clearly "have and have-not" economy.
Let's see, the stock market runs on supply and demand. How do you increase demand? Well, first you give money to the rich. If you gave money to the poor they would spend it. But give money to the rich, they are already spending all they want to spend, so they buy stock---instant demand---instant rise in the stock market. But what do you do when that begins to slow? Well, you give tax breaks to the middle to invest for retirement, in stock of course---instant demand----instant rise in the stock market. But what do you do when that slows. Invest Social Security money in the market---Well, if you could get it to pass, you would have instant demand, instant rise. Except why was SS started in the first place? OH, people were investing their retirement money in the stock market and it went bust when they couldn''t think of a way to increase demand.

Which is exactly why we should invest Social Security money in the stock market because, you know, ice cream has no bones.

Say he gets to 25% approval. Can we impeach him then? Then we can elect our new communist leader, and he will lead us to a golden age!

ouch

if fox puts it at 33% what is it REALLY? 25%??

gasp! How could you say that! They're 'fair and balanced'!:rolleyes:

Then we can elect our new communist leader, and he will lead us to a golden age!

Who do you have in mind?

Who do you have in mind?
Me. I wonder if thirteen-year-olds can be elected as communist leaders...

Me. I wonder if thirteen-year-olds can be elected as communist leaders...

Probably not, and you couldn't win the presidential election because you're too young, Constitutionally. Do you have another suggestion?

Probably not, and you couldn't win the presidential election because you're too young. Do you have another suggestion?
Ressurect Karl Marx. Here's to having a zombie leader!

Ressurect Karl Marx. Here's to having a zombie leader!

No, let's try someone more modern. Marx's theory needs a good deal of updating, but he could well be too arrogant to see it, especially his zombie version.

No, let's try someone more modern. Marx's theory needs a good deal of updating, but he could well be too arrogant to see it, especially his zombie version.
Umm... Fidel Castro?

Umm... Fidel Castro?

He'll be dead within a few years, and he wasn't born in the US, so he's ineligible, too.

I don't think it can go a whole lot lower. And I don't like the guy.

Hardcore supporters will not jump ship. So much of their political identity is tied up in being "THIS, not THAT" (in this case, REPUBLICAN, not DEMOCRAT) and in a two-party system, if you're not one thing, you're the other... or you're irrelevant.

Not that I wouldn't love a good, valid, third (fourth, fifth, etc) party. But it ain't gonna happen in the US any time soon.
Actually, a very interesting thing is happening. There seems to be a third party emerging but with no actual name or political standing. Over the years, both republican and democratic parties have seen a decline in registered support and more and more people are calling themselves independent or moderate. (approximate numbers . . . D 36% R 30% and the other is 34%) If someone is able to harness this group into an actual party then it can happen, especially with the conditions we have now.

Say he gets to 25% approval. Can we impeach him then? Then we can elect our new communist leader, and he will lead us to a golden age!
Article 2 section 4
Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high crimes and Misdemeanors.

Reagan committed treason and wasn't impeached. Clinton got a little and was. We're back to interpretation and who's in the Senate.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

Direction of Country
Poll Date Right Direction Wrong Direction Spread
RCP Average 04/03 - 04/13 27.0% 67.5% -40.5%
Gallup 04/10 - 04/13 27% 71% -44%
LA Times/Bloomberg 04/08 - 04/11 26% 65% -39%
Harris 04/07 - 04/10 27% 65% -38%
AP-Ipsos 04/03 - 04/05 28% 69% -41%
© RealClearPolitics 2006


How low can "Right/Wrong Direction" go?

Actually, a very interesting thing is happening. There seems to be a third party emerging but with no actual name or political standing. Over the years, both republican and democratic parties have seen a decline in registered support and more and more people are calling themselves independent or moderate. (approximate numbers . . . D 36% R 30% and the other is 34%) If someone is able to harness this group into an actual party then it can happen, especially with the conditions we have now.
If there were a single, unifying reason why these voters were refusing to identify with one of the major parties, then it might happen. But in practice, i the voting booth, I believe most of these so-called independents are just as partisan as the ones who self-identify.

Actually, a very interesting thing is happening. There seems to be a third party emerging but with no actual name or political standing. Over the years, both republican and democratic parties have seen a decline in registered support and more and more people are calling themselves independent or moderate. (approximate numbers . . . D 36% R 30% and the other is 34%) If someone is able to harness this group into an actual party then it can happen, especially with the conditions we have now.


It's a strange paradox of existence that most people think they are moderate and most are quite wrong.

Ressurect Karl Marx. Here's to having a zombie leader!

Actually a zombie Groucho Marx would be a learder I could get behind.

And for once we'd have a VP who kept his mouth shut (Harpo.)

About the only downside of Bush's decline in popularity is his diminished effectiveness when campaigning for other Republicans. On the other hand, there's Laura Bush. Her popularity is in the 80+ percent range and it looks like a circus parade to see all the Republicans lining up to get _her_ to campaign for them.

About the only downside of Bush's decline in popularity is his diminished effectiveness when campaigning for other Republicans. On the other hand, there's Laura Bush. Her popularity is in the 80+ percent range and it looks like a circus parade to see all the Republicans lining up to get _her_ to campaign for them.
This makes about much sense as driving into a brick wall at a 100 MPH. :p

I don't really know if that would work or not. But don't knock it til you try it, Right?! WOOOOOOOO!!

Explosions!! Oil!! Yeah!!
Are you turning republican on me? ;)

Actually a zombie Groucho Marx would be a learder I could get behind.

And for once we'd have a VP who kept his mouth shut (Harpo.)

Would Chico be Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense?

Would Chico be Secretary of State or Secretary of Defense?
Defense--the puns are better.:D

Defense--the puns are better.:D
Hail, Freedonia! :D

And VP Harpo would have the puritans longing to have Clinton back. Honk-honk! ;)