Bush's approval rating drops To 34 % in California

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
And Bush Jr is a war president, and pwns Bush Sr. Just because Clinton could beat Bush Sr. in peacetime, doesn't mean that he is going to retain the 53 percent, even including the percentage alotted from Perot, against Bush Jr.

Bush Sr. was a wartime president, it didn't help him. You seem to be ignoring the fact that 60% of the American public now disapproves of the war and that Bush's approval ratings are in the tank.

Kerry did well to get 48% percent against Bush in 2004, also accounting for population growth, and the increase in voter turnout. To suggest that Clinton could have done better than Kerry is far from certain, given the political climate. After all, it was said well before that Clinton made a good peacetime president, and a poor wartime one.

Again, you're ignoring Clinton's infinitely better charisma than Kerry and the fact that he's an all-round better politician. Also, 2004 is substantially different than what 2008 is going to be. The issue isn't, "Could Clinton beat Bush in 2004," it's "Could Clinton beat Bush in 2008." Considering the direction Bush's ratings are going, you don't have much to stand on here.

All things considered, since Shrub did beat the Gore/Leiberman ticket in peacetime, I don't see Clinton winning in wartime.

Considering polls in 2000 showed Clinton handily beating Bush in a hypothetical match up, I'd have to heartily dispute this. Again, Gore was no Clinton, and to discount the large differences in their abilities as politicians is folly.

Beyond that, the war isn't helping Bush anymore, it's hurting him. Did I mention that 60% of Americans now disapprove of the war?

[notyoueither]

Bush Sr. was a wartime president? Wasn't the war over and it was the economy, stupid?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Come on... no one can reasonably believe that if Clinton ran against Bush II today that Clinton wouldn't trounce Bush. Clinton was beloved when he left office and, if anything, is even better liked now. Especially with the burgeoning friendship he has with Bush, Sr. It shows an ability to reach to the other side, something Bush II shows he can't do.

[Mr. Harley]

But he didn't tell the truth about committing adultery. Excuse me, but isn't that statment just a trifle oxymoronic.

[MosesPresley]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
But he didn't tell the truth about committing adultery. Excuse me, but isn't that statment just a trifle oxymoronic.

One should always tell the truth about adultery.

Wife: "Where have you been?"
Husband: "I have been banging your sister. She's hot."
Wife: "That's nice. I hope you had a good time."

[Spiffor]

Bush is an amateur

Chirac was elected by 82% of the voters, and now he has a whooping 28% satisfaction among the people (70% discontents)

[Tattila the Hun]

Soo, if Bush pulls out some stunt, something really bad, that basically makes every single american una...uni... namesously... every single american hate him, with passion...

Can the people do anything? Can they call up their congressman, and demand, that he move to impeach the president?

Is there some clause in constitution allowing a cue, if the prez clearly and undeniably has either lost his mind or is just a bloody fool , the next in line (Cheney ) can depose him?

Just curious. I should think he is responsible for the american people...

Hey, I got cencored. I didn't know it was that bad a word...
I'll change it to fool.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Soo, if Bush pulls out some stunt, something really bad, that basically makes every single american una...uni... namesously... every single american hate him, with passion...

Can the people do anything? Can they call up their congressman, and demand, that he move to impeach the president?

The President can be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Y'know what that means? Anything Congress says it means. Y'know what kind of evidence is needed. Anything Congress says is needed.

For example, if Congress really wanted to get rid of Bush, it would use the Downing Street memo, which charges that Bush was fabricating the evidence needed to justify going to war. That'd be enuf.

Is there some clause in constitution allowing a cue, if the prez clearly and undeniably has either lost his mind or is just a bloody fool , the next in line (Cheney ) can depose him?

That'd be the 25th Amendment:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

[Ben Kenobi]

Interesting Boris. The numbers don't bear out your conclusion. In 1992, where Bush Sr. lost the election, here are the numbers.

Assuming Perot's support is split precisely 50%, which is not a figure supported by your link, which declines to provide percentages.

Now, Perot got 18.91 percent support in 1992. Now, supposing 1/3 of Perot's support stays home, that leaves him with 12.67 percent.

Secondly, given the first assumption, 6.33 percent of Perot's support goes to Democrats, and 6.33 percent to Republicans, given their preferences in the exit poll.

In 1992, Clinton got 43% of the vote. Adding 6.33 percent onto it leaves you with 50.33 percent of the vote.

Bush in the last election got 50.75 in 2004, more than Clinton would have recieved in 1992 even given the percentages from Perot.

[Dinner]

Even the reddest states of Jesusland are turning on Bush.

America turns on Bush over Iraq
Three in five want troops out as President vows to stay
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

25 June 2005

Beset by fading public support for the war and growing violence on the ground, President George Bush flatly rejected any timetable for troop withdrawal from Iraq, vowing the United States would stay until the insurgency was defeated and democracy had been established.

"This is a time of testing, a critical time," Mr Bush acknowledged yesterday after a meeting at the White House with Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi Prime Minister. The insurgents "feel that if they can shake our will and affect our public opinion, we'll give up on the mission. But I'm not giving up the mission, we're doing the right thing". The President was speaking amid unprecedented challenges to his whole Iraq policy. A week of carnage in that country was capped by news that six marines were killed on Thursday in the former rebel stronghold of Fallujah, lifting the total American death toll in Iraq to a total of 1,730


,snip.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=649440

[Ben Kenobi]

Now assuming half of the democrat Perot supporters are found in California, New York and Massachusetts, that is a total of:

Total Perot support, 18.91

37.45 G. Bush

43.0 Bill Clinton

Assume Perot support split equally between Clinton and Bush

Assume 1/3rd Perot support does not vote

Assume 1/2 of remaining democrat Perot votes come from New York and California

6.334 percent Democrat percentage
6.334 percent Republican

Half of the democrat Perot supporters, 3.167 in NY and California, for a total of 3,828,693 Perot supporters in NY and California

Now, Perot got 2,296,006 votes in California an 1,090,721 votes in NY.

Okay, that's just not possible. 441,966 voters short. So throw in Massachusetts too, and that works.

So you still have 3.167 percent democrats to distribute among all the remaining states.

Now, the quick and dirty way to do that is to assume that for all the states, you bump up Dem support by 3.167 and Republican support by 6.334, so any state with less than 3.167 percent win for the Democrats goes to the Republicans

Nevada goes to G. Bush
Montana to G. Bush
Georgia to G. Bush
Ohio to G. Bush
Kentucky to G. Bush
New Hampshire to G. Bush
New Jersey to G. Bush

(3) (4) (13) (8) (21) (15) (4) (+68)

So we get 302-236 in the electoral count.

Possibles: Colorado, Tennessee, Louisiana, Wisconsin all wins by less than 5%.

(8) (11) (11) (9)

So we get +39 for Bush and -39 for Clinton

275-263 Bush victory.

[KrazyHorse]

Do you expect us to take any of your electoral analyses seriously?



You probably have as much clue about US demographics as you do about Canadian ones.

[Ben Kenobi]

The assumptions I have made are all there KH.

As for the predictions in the Canadian election, I worked off polls, that they themselves ended up being 8% off of the election results. So garbage in, garbage out.

And my original prediction is actually more conservative than the site provided by Boris, so I don't know why you think that my numbers are less accurate.

Interesting, the site gives Bush Maine, and does not consider Tennessee or Wisconsin, and considers Colorado to be solidly Bush.

[Ben Kenobi]

Here's Tennessee which was won by 4.65% Clinton, about the same as Louisiana, and Wisconsin Clinton won by 4.35%, yet the site does not put Wisconsin in the Bush column and puts Louisiana, where Bush lost by 4.6 percent, and gives Bush Maine, which Bush lost by 8.77%.

I don't really understand their analysis here.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Interesting Boris. The numbers don't bear out your conclusion. In 1992, where Bush Sr. lost the election, here are the numbers.

Assuming Perot's support is split precisely 50%, which is not a figure supported by your link, which declines to provide percentages.

Now, Perot got 18.91 percent support in 1992. Now, supposing 1/3 of Perot's support stays home, that leaves him with 12.67 percent.

I'll stop you right there. If 1/3 of Perot's voters stay home, then the percentages of the total voters in the race changes entirely. You didn't bother to take that into account, did you?

That's a lot of work to do and yet fail to take this into consideration.

On top of all that, this analysis is pretty pointless in determining how an election would come out today. 1992 is worlds away, and Clinton was an unknown quantity at the time. But he didn't have any problem winning a smooth reelection in 1996. And polls taken in 2000 all showed him easily beating up on Bush.

I guarantee you, there's little chance Bush would beat Clinton in a 2008 face-off. On top of the fact that the country has immense Bush fatigue right now, the nostalgia for the rolling good times of the 90s will prompt many to vote for Clinton, especially when comparing them to the past 8 years they've just undergone.