Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Oct 26, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

    Stable doors.......
  2. Too fecking late!
  3. The problem with that poll is the idea of "any democrat". He was in enough trouble as according to polls would have lost the election last year. The problem is the Democrats didn't pick ANY democrat to run. They picked John Kerry.

    Still, the next few days in Washington should make for some fun viewing. If I didn't have to move house right now, I'd be sat on the couch in my pants with a bucket of popcorn, a bottle of champagne and a grin on my face a mile wide.
  4. ...er it doesn't really matter, does it? There isn't an election this year.

    It's about as useful as saying "it would be nice today... if it weren't for the rain."

  5. Why this week in particular?
  6. The poll is a waste of time. Bush cant run for re-election. Right now polls show ANY Republican beats ANY Democrat. The 2006 elections will indicate where the electorate is heading. If the dem's can win more seats in the House and Senate then the Republicans will be in trouble. Loss of Senate seats to the dem's will be very key. If things are unchanged then I think the Republicans will win in 2008. Hillary has the inside track for the dem's. The primaries will determine the Republican candidate. McCain cant win in the south. Guilliani may be too liberal but I like him - he is a leader.
  7. It would be nice today... if it weren't for the rain.

    Couldn't resist - and it's true anyway :p
  8. Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is expected to announce indictments growing out of the "CIA-gate" grand jury investigation.

    Some of W's crew suspected of burning an undercover CIA operative, Valerie Plame, to frighten Iraq invasion critics into silence.
  9. Unlike Blur Bush's election timetable is fixed by law, and not withstanding the convention that US presdidents will only serve two terms.
    Blur held his election one year early for he knew as does Gorden that the UK economy is heading down hill.
    Bush could well provoke a major incident as did Johnson with the Tonkin incedent to rally the US folks around the flag and himself as C in C.
    He is finished he would like a legacy but the intrests of The GOP are paramount. Next years elections are the forthcomming Biggy on his political calander.
    Roosevelt extended his riegn in the White House during WW II, now shirly Georgei boy's Handlers cann't be think the same.
  10. Could McCain (who I personally find very impressive, albeit from the other side of the Atlantic) win the South with Condi as VP? Ditto Guliani?

    I think either McCain or Guliani would be a better president than Hilary Clinton.
  11. Hilary has no chance. Look what they did with hubby.
  12. Hilary has no chance. Look what they did with hubby.
  13. McCain was set to win South Carolina Primary in 2000 before Rove started push-polling, and spreading rumours implying that McCain was mentally unstable. I think a moderate will get the GOP nomination because there is a growing hostility to the hardliners, both within the party and the electorate as a whole and they are the ones with the initiative. The hard right has been on the defensive and will continue to be for some time, since the opposition to them is gathering momentum. McCain and Giuliani have a big advantage with name recognition, which 99% of potential conservatives don't (Brownback from Kansas, Santorum from Pennsylvania etc.) the only exception is Jeb Bush, but he has too much recognition- if you get my meaning- and not in a good way.

    Even a moderate would still clean up in the South in November 08. They could even afford to lose some of the South because a McCain or Giuliani would make states like California and New York (esp with Giuliani) competitive. They could lock up Ohio and Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Mexico and whole bunch of the swing states pretty easily with a moderate candidate.The only thing that could make things awkard for them it is a nut-case running on a third party ticket.

    Hillary is the best thing that could happen to the Republican Party. I think their best chance would be with a type like Joe Biden or Richardson from New Mexico.

    I don't think Condi is likely to be at the head of a ticket, even if she wanted to be- she just hasn't got the personality. She's a wonk, and furthermore, a wonk who has ties that are too close to Bush.

    I just hope that whoever gets the job next time out will do something to pull the country together. The country is polarized like it never has been before and it's starting to negatively effect the way the country is governed. It has got to the point where there is no room for debate, no room for compromise. If you are against the policy of the Govt, then you hate America/freedom etc. It's patent b0llocks. On the other side, if you are Republican, then you are automatically portrayed by democrats as a bible-thumping God-botherer with a 17th Century mindset who would prefer to have the business of governing sponsored like a NASCAR race car.