The only relevant polls right now are the ones about Bush, specifically. When the dem candidate and his RUNNING MATE, are decided then we can look at those polls.
You can't really argue with 42% disapproval rating on Bush, not exactly a winning hand to start from.
Okey, let's look at that.
The specific poll from Ohio breaks down the numbers for each candidate in great detail. For Bush, that begins at page 6 on this link:
ipr.uc.edu
Bush is rated at 59 percent favorable and 39 percent unfavorable. But amongst Republicans, those numbers are 91 percent favorable and 8 percent unfavorable. In other words, his base is very strong, about as solid as it gets. Among independents, Bush is rated as 56 percent favorable and 32 percent unfavorable. That's a little better than his overall numbers. So virtually all of the Republicans in Ohio have a favorable opinion of Bush, and Independents tended to approve of him as well.
Ohio is a swing state, but it tends to vote for Republicans more often than for Democrats. Republicans have won Ohio in 9 out of the last 13 Presidential elections, covering the past 55 years. In all but one of those elections (1960), the candidate that won Ohio was elected President.
It's a state Republicans do well in. Bush is extremely popular among Republicans there, and holds his own among moderates.
Clinton's negatives, BTW, were nearly as high as Bush's as he approached his reelection bid.
I can give you the same assurances that Bush will lose, to ANYBODY in the west and northeast
You mean, I assume, the West Coast, not the entire West. I agree that the West Coast is likely not to vote for Bush. The Northeast, except possibly New Hampshire and maybe one other small state, also is strong Democrat territory. But there aren't more electoral votes there than in the entire South and the other states in the West (other than on the Coast) where the Republicans traditionally are strong. Add Ohio to the mix, and Bush is likely left needing only Florida or, alternatively, a couple of smaller tossup states from 2000 (Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico) to win. Also, due to the census and reallocation of electoral votes, pro-Bush states stand to gain 7-9 electoral votes compared with the last election.
And Bush is directly responsible for the dearth of capex, he and his warmongering have made corporations shy to invest.
The fact that telecommunications and other networks were extremely overbuilt (as compared with actual demand growth) from about 1995-2001 surely had nothing to do with it? The uncertainty created by 9/11 had nothing to do with it? The collapse of the Naz and the dotcom stocks (the majority of which occurred before Bush even took office) had nothing do with it? The huge buildup in computer related capex spending due to Y2K in 1998-1999 (leaving companies with newer equipment which didn't need replacing) had nothing to do with it?
BTW there is speculation on investors hub that OPEC is deliverately driving oil prices up as a way to destroy the US economy so that Bush will go down.
I guess if Saudi Arabia and Iran are unhappy with my President, I should vote for somebody else. |
