Is Bush's appeal overstated?

[jobycom]

What has Bush actually done to demonstrate that he can win in November?

Despite many polls showing Bush winning the national vote in 2000 on the eve of the election, he lost by half a million. Despite polls showing he would win Florida, he lost by tens of thousands, as no one can dispute that more people went to the polls to vote for Gore, no matter how the actual ballots were counted.

Just before 9-11, Bush's "approval" numbers were in the mid forties--hardly popular. After 9-11 we were told his approval shot to the 90s, but how much of that high number was a false unity against terrorism, like all the car flags we no longer see? How much of that love was really Bush's, and how much was just for the office of the presidency in a trying time?

The protests leading up the Iraqi invasion were supposed to be small, yet millions took to the streets, and the media had to hem and haw to pretend we weren't there. The size of the protests even staggered Bush, and he began to falter, until he remembered he was god and went on with his plans. The media told us that most people supported the war, but the protests show that the most passionate feelings were on our side.

The media in the last few years have given up the pretext of objectivity, as each network has moved towards Fox to gain market share, claiming that liberal programs like Donahue didn't sell. Did they? Hard to say-- Donahue was intelligent, but far past his prime, and his style was not current. Were any actual liberals with current credentials and modern styles given shows? Carville and Begala are doing well on CNN, even though initially we were assured they were failing (who remembers the Roger Ailes email wars here on DU?) How much of the failure of "liberal" broadcasting was really a (perhaps deliberate) failure of the networks to find decent broadcasters?

We are told people are more conservative, and yet book after liberal book attacking Bush or defending our own top the charts, never sating the liberal market's cravings. That's not just a few wild-eyed liberals pumping up numbers, that's a marketing trend.

We were told Moore's film would break records but not be THAT big. Only wild-eyed liberals would go see it, because most people supported the war. Now all the headlines say the experts underestimated the interest in this film. How much have they overestimated the support for the invasion?

Time and again, the liberal viewpoint, the liberal buying power, and the liberal outrage is underestimated. We are told we are the fringe, despite winning more votes in the last presidential election, despite our radio shows drawing a bigger audience than Rush Limbaugh, despite us shattering book sales and box office records with our viewpoints, despite us flooding the streets with millions of protestors, despite our poor selves breaking all campaign contribution records for our political candidate, despite us uniting behind a man whom some question just to defeat Bush, despite our green automobiles becoming the hottest car in America, despite us proving wrong every pundit, movie reviewer, politician and pollster who steps in our way for the last four years.

I no longer believe Bush can win. I no longer believe he is popular. I no longer believe most Americans would want to drink a beer with him or trust him with their daughters or believe he is honest and moral. I no longer believe the invasion is popular. I no longer believe the world has really turned Republican. I do believe the Republicans are better at cheating, but I don't believe that will stop us this time. I don't believe ANYTHING will stop us this time. We are right, we are the majority, and the Republicans need to start making retirement plans.

Thank you for your time. Now, back on your heads.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Great Post.....

I'm guessing Bush will go down as one of the most tragic leaders of all time. Groomed and elevated by his compromising business relationships, his abilities were over-misestimated. Throughout his "career" he has benefited from his family name and not on his own ability. He was too willingly stage managed and uncurious. When he had to lead, he clearly couldn't.

So the question to the American people is: do you want Halliburton to run our Presidency for another 4 years?

[Bluebear]

2. Bravo. Excellent LTTE material there!

clap clap clap clap clap

[Corgigal]

3. It' s all they have to work with

We have to believe since hes the sitting Prez and we have a war on then it's inevitable. They just hope we believe that BS so we stay home.

[OHdem10]

4. You mentiontion Donnahue in your thread----

When Dononahue was let go--fired. This is a fact. He had ratings even higher than Chris Matthews. Pure and simple. If anyone remembers Donnahue was doing a series of town meeting type show in which the Anti- war Side of the equation was being presented. Someone in position of power--" we do not need this anti-war--- on our network". An inside Memo got out and I read it . There are many more Deomocrats who do not even particpate anymore.
The Media has permitted the RW to convince them there is all this conservatism out there. Conservaties have learned a lesson well. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. They have learned to be vocal loud and assertive. Keep in mind Donahue had the better ratings at MSNBC when he was fired. Michael Savage was supposedly his replacement. DUH???

[Warpy]

5. About 30% of the voters will vote for Bush no matter what

They are the hard-right, evangelical Fundies in the south, the heartland, in fact, in just about every rural area and small town in the country. If you want a frank and scary look at who they are and what they've been up to, check out http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant05252004.html They are a sizeable minority, they are passionate, and they are extremely well organized.

They are also fully in control, thanks to years of "stealth candidates" and the Bush junta. I'm terribly afraid that they won't surrender control just because an election told them to.

[coloradodem2005]

6. I wonder if the numbers of 45% are inflated now.

It does not seem like anybody except the staunch Republicans like hime now.

[jobycom]

7. My thought is that the polls are not measuring intensity of support

They are using the same formulas they always use, weighting the percentages of Dems, Repubs, and Indies and crafting polls accordingly. I don't believe that will work this time. Republicans may still prefer Bush, but may not feel that good about voting for him, whereas Democrats seem highly motivates, meaning they may turn out in higher percentages than normal. Thus, a poll can show the two even, while in reality the Dems have a big edge.

Pollsters are aware of this factor and compensate for it, but I don't think they expect quite the full intensity of Dems right now. That's part of what killed them in 2000, too.

So Bush may have 45 percent of those polled, but that percentage may not consider how much more Democrats disapprove than Repubs approve.

[seabeyond]

8. i had a flash, realization today

they so dont have liberals, democrats moderates on tv anymore that the media is that far out of touch. confirming what you say, listening to people talk about moores film today and watching them tell me who i am, the one interested in the movie, and others i know who want to watch the movie, they dont have a clue what is up with the liberal, not a friggin clue as they talk like experts, as if they are stating facts. they are in a bubble in what they report, out of the loop, no idea

[jobycom]

9. Yeah, good points.

I have ignored the media as much as they've ignored me since 2000, but that makes a lot of sense.