The "democrats" don't need to "campaign" against Bush - he's digging himself a hole. His highest approval rating for his second term is lower than Clinton's lowest. I think that this indicates that the public is growing dissatisfied with him.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]And you wonder why you got banned the first time. One: calling such a statement asinine is both uninformed, and downright offensive to all economically educated people--tax cuts promote spending, which promotes taxation. Theoretically, it works, and I wouldn't doubt it'd work in the real world too. Giving people money makes them want to spend it.

Two: asinine. aSinine. ASININE. Asinine. Got it?

Three: Walken '08[/QUOTE]

Bait: not taken.



I completely, wholeheartedly, absolutely, comprehensively, conclusively, exhaustively, extensively, thoroughly, entirely agree. I think most people far underestimate the bias they hold against the religion and personal values of presidential candidates.

It will be a cold day in hell when a Humanist agnostic gets elected president of the United States, I'll tell you that. It's because of the irrational bias most people hold against viewpoints they don't have the courage to consider.

It also doesn't help that people like Mort believe that theists have no place in government. It's not irrational to not want to risk voting in someone who may remove one's voice in government.

What makes you think you'd lose your voice if an atheist became president?

Um, Bush's approval rating is hovering around 40%. Republicans running for federal office are strongly suggesting that the president stay away from their campaigns, because his presence would actually damage their chances. Top Congressional and administration officials (as in party leadership) have been indicted on corruption charges. Bush's first pick for the Supreme Court was sent back. The Republican party is losing support and respect like a sieve leaks water, and there are several scandals still unresolved. Six years of a Republican Congress and White House and nothing has been accomplished.

60% of Americans want someone "completely different" from Bush in the White House. Only 38% want a Republican Congress, compared to 47% for a Democratic House and Senate.

You're living in a crazy fantasy land. The Bush administration was the worst thing that has happened to the Republican party in years.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]O rly?

You say that the campaigning isn't working--there isn't any official campaigning during off-years.[/quote]

No, what I said was we keep hearing how the popularity of Republicans is falling and that each upcoming election will go for Democrats. That hasn't panned out yet.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You say Democrats haven't beaten Republicans in any race--they still hold SOME part of the Senate/House. [/quote]

No, I said:



[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]You say the continued shift has remained right, yet it's obvious that people's opinions have changed drastically in the last two years.[/QUOTE]

It will be obvious if and when it is born out in an election. That is why I stated my opinion about this years election showing us the truth of the matter. And public opinion polls can't be trusted. It's simply something for them to talk about on the TV. I remember how GHWB was extremely popular in 1991 and then he lost the election the very next year. Let's say GWB is the most unpopular president ever by the next election. His popularity won't necessarily effect the next nominee. Likewise, there could be national opinion moves that would imply a shift back to the left but each individual race across the country won't hinge on national opinion polls.

For me this is an interesting time because I generally have the government the way I like and I believe there will be a continued shift right. Of course I could be wrong but even a short term leftward shift won't be a tramatic experience for me because, as I said earlier, it will doubtfully affect the overall makeup in one election cycle. I honestly empathisize with left leaning individuals because I know the current trend is very politically disheartening for them.

.

I didn't say that. I said:

[quote=Me! :)]It also doesn't help that people like Mort believe that theists have no place in government[/b].[/quote]

I've already expressed my opinion of popularity polls. If we compare election statistics of Bush and Clinton you see that Clinton never once received a majority of votes in either election and Bush's lowest percentage from the 2000 election is a higher percentage than Clinton ever received. Also, just looking at raw numbers Bush received far more votes than Clinton but, of course, both Gore and Kerry can claim the same minus the fact that they lost those elections.



I apreciate this opinion but I think coming back from a controversial election and an ever growing margin of republicans in the congress contradict this view. Of course there has only been two elections since GWB's initial term and the real proof will be in the next one.

He's not challenging the results of the last election. He's speaking on the current polls concerning Bush's popularity.

Myself, I don't take stock in popularity polls, due to the non-response bias. But that doesn't mean that Bush isn't popular.

I know. Like I said, popularity polls basically just give pundits something to talk about.

I suppose all the scandals are "just something to talk about", too. Oh I forgot, in the eyes of diehard neocons like you, Bush is not only infallible, his agenda is God's will.

1) I was baiting you? News to me.

2) I think you overestimate and overgeneralize, period. I don't think you understand that, it being a very modern age, a lot of people are past black, chinese and mexican differences, much less ones of a fellow caucasian skin tone. Nobody really cares so much if he's a Jew, unless it affects his opinions which it probably will.

3) The only thing that probably won't be elected any time soon is a non-religious person, just because the American people don't really identify with someone who believes in no religion, and "God" is a very powerful word that politicians like to throw around.



Wookie--Unless you like quasi-socialistic Big Brother states, Bush is disheartening for EVERYONE.

Please tell me your joking. Please tell me that you are not that emotionally attached to your political beliefs.

Seriously, I'm a republican, but I really don't like the Bush Administration (it's hard to point the finger just at Bush...especially when it's a well known fact that he does have the intellegence to be responsible for all of it's issues). In particular, he's Foreign Policy has been, for a lack of a better word, unethical. Not only did the Foreign Policy affect us negatively internationally, but it created a large problem domestically (economically speaking). In fact, I can not honestly say that the Bush Administration has done one thing right through their, thus far, 6 year reign (perhaps that's why Powell left). The only good idea that has come out of the Bush Administration (but have yet to see) is that of using Savings Accounts to serve as Insurance Policies vs forcing people to use Insurance Companies. Which makes sense since that would be a very Capitalistic alternative to a currently Socialistic system (for which I give my stamp of approval). Again, we have yet to even see that come to pass.

Ah well, the effects of the Bush Administration has had a possitive effect on the Investment/Real Estate Sector...

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]1) I was baiting you? News to me.

2) I think you overestimate and overgeneralize, period. I don't think you understand that, it being a very modern age, a lot of people are past black, chinese and mexican differences, much less ones of a fellow caucasian skin tone. Nobody really cares so much if he's a Jew, unless it affects his opinions which it probably will.

3) The only thing that probably won't be elected any time soon is a non-religious person, just because the American people don't really identify with someone who believes in no religion, and "God" is a very powerful word that politicians like to throw around.



Wookie--Unless you like quasi-socialistic Big Brother states, Bush is disheartening for EVERYONE.[/QUOTE]

Oh please. No one but a protestant is ever going to get elected reliably for a long time. You know it and I know it. Really, come on, you actually think we could have an Islam or Jew president? You overestimate peoples' people.

Exactly as I was saying--you have too much faith in your own opinions, and not enough faith in the people.

A Muslim in these times, no way, perhaps in a decade or 1.5, yes. As far as a Jew being elected. Ehh...it's possible. Lieberman has the right stances. He's not too far left or right. But I dunno. Is this nation really anti-semetic still?

I wouldn't look to Kerry's defeat of him being Catholic. Although being Catholic and pro- abortion choice doesn't help with his fellow Catholics esp. the more stringent ones.

Free: Not everyone is like the Old South.

The point that you two are arguing is fairly negligible in comparison to the rest of the thread, but I will say that Free has got a point. It is interesting that only 1 non-protestant president has been elected (I hope I've got my facts right there, PLEASE do not quote me on that) and even he happened to be a Catholic, so hardly much difference (some I konw would beg to differ, sadly).

Admittedly times are changing, and as Yoshi said, people are becoming more "accepting" but don't think that hard-headed, close-minded and limited perceptions of religion in a surprisingly large number of people in this country don't still exist. Need we forget the religious right? They're still as strong as ever. I go to a school with 500 of them every day. You want to know the 1 thing that turned them off Kerry before all other policies? Abortion. And btw, did I mention he was a Catholic? No, Free's right, regardless what open-minded and reasonable people like us would think, for many Americans, all it takes is one point (be it an issue or an ethnic background) to stop the train on it's tracks.

Tell that to Ireland.

They were turned off by his stance on abortion. While their stance is based in religion, it wasn't because of his religion that they didn't support him. I don't deny that some people won't vote outside of their religion, but, from the way you detailed your school, they didn't oppose him because of his religion.

Well, let's put it this way. At my school, Catholic's are not considered Christians. They are allowed to attend the school, but they cannot teach there (in other words, we'll take your money but there's no way we'll let you indoctrinate impressionable minds with your "heretical" dogma - Hip-hip-hooray for hypocrisy!).

I am an Episcopalian, and have been persecuted for my beliefs because apparently, "I'm an offshoot of the Catholic church". Never mind that we're all offshoots of the Catholic church, why do you think it was called the Protestant REFORMATION? So in short, the ammount of ignorance and prejudice even among freaking Christians is astounding, and I wouldn't put it past a lot of these people to deny someone the vote based on their "religion". I agree though, that abortion was the main issue with Kerry, but don't think his catholicism wasn't also in a lot of these people's minds.

If there's one thing everyone should have learned from the last election, it's that dissatisfaction with the incumbent does not necessarily translate to support for his opponent.

[QUOTE=Michael MacFarlane]If there's one thing everyone should have learned from the last election, it's that dissatisfaction with the incumbent does not necessarily translate to support for his opponent.[/QUOTE]

Seconded.

People don't quote and agree/disagree with me any more. Am I losing my antagonism?

cue eff tee

Not sure how you drew that conclusion but you're certainly welcome to it!

One series of questions is typically worded: "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a 'X' would you vote for that person?" "X" is Atheist, Baptist, Black, Catholic, Homosexual, Jewish, Mormon, and Woman. Percentage of unprejudiced adults (those answering "yes") in 1999 has been:

Atheist 49
Baptist 94
Black 95
Catholic 94
Homosexual 59
Jewish 92
Mormon 99
Woman 92

Source: "Americans today much more accepting of a woman, black, Catholic or Jew as president; Still reluctant to vote for Atheists or homosexuals," The Gallup Organization, 1999-MAR-29, at: http://www.gallup.com/

Which is much better than I would've hoped for ???

I'm actually surprised homosexuals is that high.

This thread, and whatever it may contain after this post, shortly:

I'm surprised mormon is that high. 99?! sheesh Mormons for prez are more approved than Catholics? Where the hell did they take this survey? Salt Lake City?

Hehe, that made me laugh. Thanks.

Considering one of the GOPs potential cantidates for the next election is Mormon, it makes sense for Republicans.

walken walken!

MORE COWBELL IN '08!

Bow for president Walken!

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Uh...I don't think most Americans honestly care what religion their president is (unless it's wicca, lol). Seriously, especially not a religion that shares a lot of core values/beliefs with Christianity.[/QUOTE]

"Americans don't care what religion you are, as long as you're Christian!"

:p Well, a Jewish president would be quite a bit different though. Think about it--the religion shares a lot of values with Christianity, so I don't see what the big deal would be.