No modern party has weathered midterms with Pres as low in polls as Bush.

[DeepModem Mom]

WP: The Elephant in the Room
How Big a Problem Is President Bush for the GOP?
Monday, July 24, 2006; Page A08


(By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)

No modern political party has weathered a midterm election with a president as low in the polls as George W. Bush....

***

The best any party has done when its president has dipped below 50 percent was in 1978. That fall, President Jimmy Carter's approval rating was 49 percent and the Democrats lost 15 House seats -- exactly the number Democrats need this year to win back the chamber.

With his approval rating hovering around 40 percent (NOTE: The Post is being generous, I think, with this approval number.), Bush has put his party on the wrong side of history heading into November.

If there is a glimmer of hope for the Republicans, it is that Bush has beaten the odds before. In 2002, his party gained seats in the House and Senate, the first time any president had accomplished that in a midterm since 1934. But his approval rating then exceeded 60 percent.

For all practical purposes, Bush's approval rating is a matter of concern for every GOP candidate, which is why the White House is working to boost the president's popularity. Some races will be competitive in almost any situation, but if the president starts to dip even lower, he can put at risk Republicans who otherwise would not expect a difficult race....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300435.html?nav=hcmodule

[MadMaddie]

1. They will attempt to start another war to boost his popularity.....

[The_Casual_Observer]

6. If he did, it would have to be high altitude bombing

And that has none of the glory of heroic solders killing arabs, all the while keeping us safe.

No, starting up yet another war isn't going to fix a broken chimp anymore.

[genieroze]

2. Never fear Diebold is here.

[Skittles]

8. watch for "surprise results", just like in 2004

thieving bastards

[petgoat]

37. Stunning Upset Victories always go to Republicans, and

started happening routinely in 1996 when Chuck Hagel ran for Senate in
Nebraska and 80% of the votes were counted on machines made by the AIS
company, which changed its name the next year to ES&S.

Hagel had neglected to reveal the fact that he had been the CEO of AIS
until March of 1996. His non-disclosure habits got him in some hot water
with the Ethics Committee. http://www.hillnews.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx

[Arugula Latte]

44. Only when hackers start flipping the "surprises" to the D column will

we see real election reform.

[davidlynch]

51. That was an idea I proposed, but the moderator locked my thread

You cannot advocate illegal activity (see, we're the GOOD GUYS).

[Arugula Latte]

55. Oh, see, I'm not advocating, I'm just making an observation.

;)

[rniel]

50. They'll put the spin drive on overcycle

to explain how every poll in the entire US was wrong. Bush was never at the 33% they said he was. People love republicans. Pollsters are all a bunch of liberal crackpots.

[calmblueocean]

9. My thoughts exactly. (n/t)

[TankLV]

12. Exactly. They didn't have the wonders of computer cheating.

Makes "miracles" happen!

[genieroze]

15. Read this "The Diebold Bombshell"

Most computer scientists have long viewed Diebold as the poster child
for all that is wrong with touch screen voting machines. But we never
imagined that Diebold would be as irresponsible and incompetent as they
have turned out to be.

Recently, computer security expert Harri Hursti revealed serious
security vulnerabilities in Diebold's software. According to Michael
Shamos, a computer scientist and voting system examiner in
Pennsylvania, "It's the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a
voting system."

Even more shockingly, we learned recently that Diebold and the State of
Maryland had been aware of these vulnerabilities for at least two
years. They were documented in analysis, commissioned by Maryland and
conducted by RABA Technologies, published in January 2004. For over
two years, Diebold has chosen not to fix the security holes, and
Maryland has chosen not to alert other states or national officials
about these problems.

Basically, Diebold included a "back door" in its software, allowing
anyone to change or modify the software. There are no technical
safeguards in place to ensure that only authorized people can make
changes.


http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_di_060723_the_diebold_bombshel.htm

[helderheid]

17. Exactly. No party... until Diebold.

[Sherman A1]

21. Agreed

[Raster]

46. Once again we will be treated to jeb bush telling dumbya that "we're doing

much better than expected..."

[Triana]

47. Exactly - that was back when we had elections instead of...

..Selections. :mad:

[midnight]

57. That's exactly what I fear.

Tiebold and electronic voting machines need to have a paper trail.

[OneTwentyoNine]

84. Correct....what other party had a major $$ contributor adding up votes?

......

[Drum]

3. Well, that is the mystery...

just where DO we find those Bush poll #s nowadays?

[tridim]

4. Will they still try to steal it?

Or will it be too obvious this time? That's the question.

Honestly I don't know what the Republicans are going to do. A few progressives with subpoena power can make it real ugly for them.

[jaysunb]

20. They can't afford not to steal it....

There is BIG TIME criminality to answer for.....

[Ian_rd]

42. Like they answered for it in 2000, 2002, and 2004. Oh wait ...

[samsingh]

5. i hate bush's ugly (inside and out) face

[TwentyFive]

7. Maybe the economy is ready to tank? Maybe Repugs WANT us to win.

I have a feeling the economy is ready for a nosedive and the repugs don't want to be anywhere near when it blows.

[genieroze]

10. Don't hold your breath they will steal power if they have to.

They ain't gonna give it up. I pray I'm wrong and hope they loose big time.

[Robbins]

11. 1998

Remember Democrats picked up 5 house seats,and keeped Republicans from Increasing their majority In the Senate.In 2002 Bush was at high approvol ratings and the Democrats were largly bowtowing to Bush.
Bush Is worse off than Bill Clinton was In 1994. The fact Is we are going to pick up seats In the House and Senate. The question remains will we win enough to take a majority In the House or Seante(or take the Senate back to 50 50)

[AX10]

87. A 50/50 Senate and the House along with the Governorships is good...

enough.

60% of Americans disapprove of *. I don't see that number going too much higher. Still that is virtually all Democrats and the 20% that sits in the middle. If we cannot get a majority with these kind of numbers, then there is something severly (possibly fatally) wrong. A net gain of six Senate seats is not easy to attain, though it is most certainly doable. Remember, in 1994, the numbers were pointing to a 50/50 barely Democratic Senate and a 25 seat loss in the house. As we all know, those numbers were off. The same may happen this year, though in the reverse.

[erknm]

23. No incoming recession

There are no strong indicators of recession, energy prices have often signalled the beginning of recession, but we seem to have survived the local oil price peak.

However, much of the growth has been fueled by cheap borrowing, so look for slow growth as rates rise. Nonetheless, the indicators tend to be strong.

I really irritated alot of my democrat friends when I indicated that the economic stability of the 1990s had nothing to do with Clinton and I repeat that now. The economic stability we have enjoyed during W's term (albeit more striking during such international problems) has absolutely nothing to do with W.

The republicans do not want to lose. If they hold a majority, they will call it a victory.

FH

[w4rma]

64. Nothing to do with the leadership? That's absurd and deluded.

If that is true why do we even bother holding elections? Why not just let the magic and the voo doo run wild and see what happens?

Nothing to do with the leadership, indeed.

Btw, thats "DemocratIC friends" with a capital "D" and an "ic" at the end. Use proper English, please. Democratic is an adjective. Democrat is a noun.

[erknm]

74. Do we elect our Federal Reserve Board?

Of course not. Be very careful about imparting credit for the economic condition on the shoulders of the president, you might not be too happy about the credit you would have to give to Reagan.

The fact is, that beyond raising and lowering taxes, large fiscal policy solutions, the president has no palpable impact on the condition of the economy. Our current economy is in very good condition, regardless of what some other DUers may believe. W has had no more to do with the current economic conditions than did Clinton during his term or Reagan during his term.

So you criticize my grammar? First, if you are going to do this, make sure to check your own. No space in the word voodoo. But these are childish mechanisms normally left to those who lack any substantial commentary. Aside from this, I will make you a promise; if you attempt to show some improved understanding of the factors affecting the performance of our economy, I will capitalize democratic. In other words and to borrow from your post; use proper reasoning, please.



FH

[w4rma]

77. Essentially yes. They are appointed by the president and approved

(or disapproved) by Congress (the Board of Governors part is, that is). They also keep doing what our elected government officials want if they want to be re-appointed. And their main power is control over interest rates which they can sanely either move upwards slowly or downwards slowly.

Also our elected government can dissolve the Federal Reserve and modify it whenever they want.

You're living in magic land where everyone with power has none.

[erknm]

83. Study the difference between a democracy and a

representative republic. We do not elect, be it directly or indirectly, the Fed board, the Treasury dept., etc. Nominating Ben Bernanke was one of the rare enlightened moves that W has made. While we will never know, it is likely that Gore would have nominated the same person.

As I have already said, beyond large scale fiscal policy measures, the president cannot be credited for the positive condition of our economy. If you are a Keynesian, then so be it. You have good company, Reagan, Bush Sr., and W --- all Keynesians. Nixon was much more forceful, he agreed with price controls, not exactly a republican ideal, unless of course you are propping up a political supporter.

People always credit Reagan with a great economy. To be sure, we saw tremendous growth and widespread improvements in our standard of living during his tenure, but then again he bought our success. Good or bad, the success during the Clinton terms was much more genuine. While Clinton was being challenged for enjoying the odd BJ under the desk, his large fiscal policy programs were not getting passed. Essentially the government stayed out of the way of the economy and most citizens benefited.

FH

[Skittles]

65. "we have enjoyed during W's term" ???

who is this WE? I am not enjoying this crappy economy and neither is ANYONE I know

[erknm]

76. Meet more people

The world is not just what you experience, it is far bigger than that.

FH

[Skittles]

80. I'm sure rich f***s are having a great time

the average American, though, is SUFFERING under these thieving bastards

[LSK]

73. except the stock market has been tanking for 2 months now

[erknm]

75. Is that what has been happening? I must have missed it.

So regardless of where the home ownership numbers, the productivity numbers, the employment numbers are; regardless of where our standard of living is, since the stock market has been trading between 10,500 and 11,500 for a few years now, the economy is in the toilet.

And to think I wasted all those years in graduate school. I should immediately steer my students in your direction, you clearly have superior knowledge in this arena.

FH

[RagAss]

61. You and me both....took all my money out of the markets...

A word to the wise.....

[DeaconBlues]

13. unfortunately, redistricting and Diebold will probably weaken the

historical connection between presidential approval and congressional electoral results

[ecstatic]

14. based on that, I hope researchers do not disregard exit polls

when they once again don't match the actual result. Democracy is at stake!!

[Glorfindel]

22. Democracy is dead. We are now blessed with the Bush/Repuke

kleptocracy: Government of the people, by the thieves and swindlers, for the benefit of the hyperwealthy. But, hey, count your blessings. "God" is still in the Pledge of Allegiance and fags can't get married except in Massachusetts. Now if we could just protect the Holy Fetus, all would be perfect in this best of all possible worlds.

:sarcasm:

[erknm]

25. Respect what we have

Democracy is alive and well and the US is still a prime example of it. Republicans screamed about 100,000 dead voters in Chicago in 1960, but democracy survived. It survived hanging chads, supreme court decisions, dead voters, etc.

I get more than a little uptight to read such posts when I just returned from Belarus. People there are dying for democracy, but, , ,

We have had it good and continue to be fortunate to have such choices. It isn't perfect, and certainly will never be perfect. But it is far superior to what we see elsewhere.

FH

[nxylas]

26. So, we're better than Belarus?

Big fucking compliment.

[Thoreau-Ly]

35. Um, Sorry, That is Total Bullshit

They stole two fucking elections, for Christ's sake.

Tell me they didn't. The evidence is massive.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080205F.shtml

[petgoat]

38. Besides, Belarus isn't set on Global Domination Mweee hah hah! nt

[daveskilt]

45. democracy isn't dead, it's been locked in a box and hidden

democracy (people choosing by consensus who leads them) is no more in national US elections.

The difference between the US and Belarus is that the suppression of democracy is more open there than here. Here apathy and complacency are the weapons as opposed to military might.

This is the same reason people in the US refuse to believe we are now a fascist country. Because the jackboots are not out on the streets cracking down on dissent inside the US it is easy to be complacent. We are the new Roman empire - bread and circuses with the illusion of democracy for the home state citizens - brutal suppression of resistance in our imperial conquests (iraq, afghanistan), and states we allow to continue to oppress to suit our political needs (saudi arabia, pakistan, belgium)


on edit: wait we have a better system than what you see elsewhere?? I would take a parliamentary democracy where the executive cannot issue signing statements and seize power. checks and balances, separation of powers - the loss of these under bush is far worse for me than any of the other crimes they have committed.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

53. Kennedy didn't need Illinois to win the Presidency.

He won 303-219, with Illinois accounting for 27 EV's. This is why Tricky didn't say "Boo!" Not to mention, he was guilty of the same practice.

[walldude]

27. Hey, just because the exit polls were right in every election

up until 2000 doesn't mean that something fishy was going on. :eyes: :crazy:

[petgoat]

40. Right, and just because Mitofsky's explanation of the

discrepancy makes no sense whatsoever doesn't mean there's any
cause for concern.

After all, the 9/11 Commission Report doesn't make any sense
either, but it's good enough to shut up the Democrats.

[Clark2008]

16. No modern party has had electronic voting machine companies

in their back pockets, either.

:puke:

[Blutodog]

52. Absolutely !!

The experts will be all wrong again as GOP values voters save the day by appearring like magic on all the rigged voting devices Karl and his team are busy preparing as the Nov. surprise. I predict a narrow GOP victory with the GOP adding 5 seats and confounding pollsters everywhere.

[Javaman]

18. This is code for, "they are going to throw the election again". nt

[Ian_rd]

19. Yea, and remember "No party has retained majority in Congress with their

president in office since BLANK"?

And then, bam, Congressional Republican majority in 2002.

As soon as you think it won't happen, it will. This is the most talented political machine in American history.

[Beetwasher]

28. "This is the most talented political machine in American history."

"Talented"??? Are you serious? I have news for you, it's not "talent", it's deceit and theft and a compliant media. Talent has nothing to do w/ it.

Is the Mafia "talented"? No, just criminal. It's easy to win when you stack the deck and has nothing to do w/ being a "talented" card player.

[Ian_rd]

43. Still in office aren't they? Not caught are they? Criminals can be

talented too, y'know.

[Beetwasher]

58. Bullshit,, What A Load Of Crap

Criminals aren't talented. They're lazy, that's why their criminals.

Am I a talented fighter if I pull out a gun and shoot you? I win the fight, but talent has nothing to do with it. How idiotic.

[Ian_rd]

69. Do you honestly believe there is no such thing as a talented criminal?

I can understand your reluctance to attach a flattering adjective like "talented" to such vile human beings. But failing to accept the fact that there are dumb criminals and then there are clever criminals is highly irresponsible and if too many Dems dismiss the talent of the Republican criminals like you do, then they will - again (for the fourth time no less) - stand around confused this November and wonder how they got beat by people who are supposedly just dumb and lazy.

[Beetwasher]

70. They Would Be The Exception, Not The Rule (Clever Criminals)

And we're not talking about any criminals, we're talking about the Bushco. criminals, and they are not talented. They are ruthless and vicious and they own everything and that's why they are successful. Talent would have been taking Chimpy's 90% approval ratings after 9/11 and keeping it there. It doesn't take talent to lie to start a war or to steal an election and to scare everyone w/ threats of terror attacks. It's doesn't take talent to lie and cheat and steal in broad daylight and that's all they do. That's not talent and it's not original. They own the system so they don't get "caught" or held responsible, that's not talent.

[CHORONZON]

63. Just an observation.

If the mafia wasn't talented they would have perished long ago. Criminal they are, but incompetence doesn't win you that kind of notoriety and survival besides.

[Beetwasher]

71. Wrong, Ruthlessness is Not Talent

The Mafia is ruthless and willing to kill anyone who gets in there way. That's not talent.

[LaPera]

24. Yes, and NO party has ever owned the voting apparatus so solidly as

the republicans now do!

Their machines count the votes...So please until there is a change...(which appears years down the line at the very least, unfortunately)GET FUCKING REAL!

You expect a change in November/ What will you do if the republicans hold the majority? Will you again say the Dem's must change their ideology as the media will say (via the White House/Rove will direct them to say is the reason) So the stupid Dem's will again make changes just as the repukes laughingly want --- and again they'll go into 2008 with high hopes...

And again they'll say Gee...we must change our message, after the lost How could the exit polls be so wrong (of course they NEVER are, but don't tell a Dem that).

When the voting machines owned, OWNED by these republican fucks (and republican Secretary of states, who count the votes, are exactly in places were needed California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, Georgia, etc. etc.) and only in the fringes of places of our universe like DU will it ever become under a bit of suspect!

TOO LATE!!!

Man, if was so fucking serious it'd make for a great long running sit-com!!!

[WI_DEM]

29. "around 40%" most polls are around 36%

but also there are fewer competitive seats than in the past thanks to GOP redistricting.

[Thoreau-Ly]

32. It's Overstated

White House polling has it around 28%, I hear.

I don't understand the Washington Post less-than-surrupticiously cheerleading for Bush's status quo. Where's Bernstein and Woodward when you need them?

Oh...never mind.

[AtLiberty]

30. No modern party has had so much Diebold, either...

The Republicans have absolutely nothing to fear this November or any November, for that matter...

[Pacifist Patriot]

31. Let me look in my crystal ball.

[windbreeze]

33. Think Diebold....

that's what they are for, after all...to make sure he doesn't fail...and isn't rover saying already that they will keep control of both the House and Senate???...(makes me wonder how he knows)
windbreeze

[racaulk]

34. "Bush has beaten the odds before." Bullshit!

Bush has cheated the odds before, and there's a big difference. And if the past is any indication, Bush will cheat the odds again this November.

All they need is a simple majority to retain their stranglehold over the Legislature. I'm sure we will gain seats in both Houses in November, but I entertain no delusions that we will gain a majority in either House. Diebold will guarantee that, and the Repukes have put in too much time and money into the infrastructure and power they have to just quietly let all of it go.

:mad:

However, great find in the WP! K&R

[Thoreau-Ly]

36. Indoubitably

Yeah, as well--Bush is some great Comeback Kid.

I'm so sick of people sucking up to this idiot. I don't care if knows how to remember people's names and is somehow really much smarter than we think, he acts like a total fucking idiot (ask his poodle, Blair).

No, really, what is so great about George W. Bush? Why should anyone kiss this puppet loser's ass?

And why mince words?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. It is not only diebold; there are other reasons

Let's honestly look at the 35-37%. Most of it is devoted, brain-dead, irrational, religious based and/or true believers in PNAC-dumb or AIPAC-based NeoConMan-ism. If you find this hard to believe, turn on C-span in the morning and listen. I guarantee that you will walk away, shaking your head.
Worse yet, this percentage views the rest of America as dirty, sinful, heathen, pagan-worshiping, sex fiends who support the abuse of little children, but refuse to defend our country from imminent invasion. (see Iraq, Mexico, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, China, Russia, France, Germany, Venezuela, Cuba, New York, Monaco, San Marco, Tanzania, Belgium, most of the 'stans, North Korea, Yemen, Libya, Switzerland, Austria, Norway, Sweden, India, Thailand, Japan, Canada, Puerto Rico, Haiti, and England as countries just aching to start a war against us and invade us because of our freedoms)

Worst of all, they vote.

Secondly, Even though the vast majority of the US does not believe or trust the maniacs in control, we do not vote in the same numbers of percentages as the religious reichists. Why? Because of a number of reasons, but mostly, because both sides of the aisles in congress and the senate, tend to have no spines and less recognition, much less effort to follow the path of honesty and integrity. Too many of us non-kool-aid drinking public look at the whole branch of government and shake our heads in shame. It depresses people, it turns them away from being active citizens and it demoralizes them. The famous statement "I don't vote, it only encourages them" is more of a truth to them than any news article or MSM story aired on TV. The frauds, the cheats, the lobbyists and the trainloads of broken promises stick in your craw. You know, Fool me once, shame on me - you - - - fool me twice . . . . .

Diebold is certainly an important issue. Theft of votes, the deliberate and illegal challanges to african american voters in Florida and Ohio, the fraudulent mechanical theft of votes and the great disparity between exit polls and actual numbers - what more needs to be said? Well, actually, a lot more. We need to say this over and over again, we need to shout it out and we need to hold congress accountable for its failure to investigate these crimes. and we need to hold local officials accountable. These are CRIMES and they put our nation at incredible risk. Sure, it gives a party temporary control and power, and all the no-bid contracts it wants at its disposal, but those filling their pockets fail to see, or more likely, deliberately ignore the downside of their actions.

Another problem is the fact that despite the most dismal poll numbers, a lack of public support across the board, actual dislike of decisions (stem cells, Iraq, social security etc) the large mass of Americana has done nothing to stop these thieves and scoundrals from continuing on their merry way to self-enrichment and global war.

There are many more issues and reasons, but in summary, despite the polling numbers, I still very much fear what will happen in November and in 2008. Because.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

41. You are being generous

I have a strong feeling the repubs will hold onto their majority. Maybe a little smaller majority. I do not attribute this to Dieobold, but rather to the way they repubs get the base out to vote. Create fear of terrorists, gays, baby killing stem cell research, Al Quieda, Hezbollah, WWIII, pig poop, whatever sounds good!!!!!!! Then you can win an election. This is Karl in top gear.

The democratic party does not need a Karl Rove. They need a person who is not fearful of telling the truth. A person who does not have to become a center-left politician to win. They need someone like Al Gore to come back. Maybe Bill Clinton could run as his Vice-president. I read there was nothing in the law to prevent that from happening.

[daveskilt]

49. they get out their base and suppress the vote elsewhere

diebold is a problem but it has nothing on the suppression of minority and lower income votes with jammed phone banks, last minute moving of polling places, fewer than needed voting machines in dem leaning districts, purging voter rolls, outright intimidation of voters. diebold is only one of the dirty tricks.

and really how many neoluddites are out there voting the fear and rapture cause? these people are an embarrassment even to most of the republican base - their real role is not to vote but to mobilize to prevent others from voting.

[Sam Odom]

48. "October Surprise" n/t

n/t

[DallasNE]

54. But There Are Always The Wedge Issues

Come September the Republicans are set to bring up immigration. Of course the bill is long on enforcement and short on practicality. Check it out here.

<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072401004.html?referrer=email>

Missing from all of the debate to date is what will the illegal immigrants do when faced with the provisions in the bill. When you read this it becomes clear that there is no chance of any type of significant compliance. I know I wouldn't.

So what is the purpose of even debating a bill that has zero chance of being effective. The answer is clear, the Republicans are not interested a bill. Rather, they are interested in fanning the flames of hate with still another wedge issue.

With things going to hell in a hand basket around the world the Republicans have spent the summer on Constitutional amendments defining marriage as only a union between a man and a woman and, of all things, flag burning. And come September, an ill-conceived immigration bill. All designed for there wedge issue effect come November. Now that is real leadership for you (not).

[JerseygirlCT]

56. Yes, but has any party controlled the voting apparatus before

the current GOP?

That's the real question: will we have fair elections this time?

[SheilaT]

59. In 2004 Bush's numbers

were below 50%. No sitting president was ever re-elected with numbers as low as his. And yet, even some who should know better think that he actually won fairly because his side got more voters to the polls.

The WILL steal this next election. Look for some anomalous results, for some incumbent Dems to lose who were always ahead in the polls. At the very least they will not lose seats overall. And I wouldn't be surprised if somehow they actually gain seats. Watch and giggle (if you can) at the convoluted explanations that will be put forth as to why all the polls were wrong.

And don't take it too seriously that Republicans are supposedly distancing themselves from Bush. If they really were, then the stem-cell veto would be overturned. And even those that are actually putting a little distance between themselves and Bush don't want Democrats in power. We've entered a truly dark era in our history, and it's going to be a long time before we're back in the light.

[Gman]

60. Gerrymandering has made this a moot point

Dems will likely pick up a few seats in the house, but I'm not expecting the 15 needed. The senate is where the battle will be fought.

[zonkra]

62. Yet, on the other hand

it may be true no modern political party has weathered a midterm election with a president as low in the polls as George W. Bush, but then again, no modern political party has ever faced such wimpy opposition. Ergo, we are in uncharted waters. Between Diebold and the DLC, as between the Scylla and Charybdis. With nary a whimper we drown in an ocean of uncounted ballots from an abandoned ship.

[paparush]

66. No other modern party had Diebold on board.....

[Vogon_Glory]

67. No Modern Party Had Programmable Electronic Voting Machines.

No recent sitting US President or incumbent political party had programmable electronic voting machines that could have inconvenient voter tallies altered to something they'd find more agreeable--until now.

Rutherford B. Hayes, inaugurated despite electoral fraud, had to deal with critics who called him "His Fraudulency" behind his back. Our gutless corporate media cuts the incumbent considerably more slack.

[Catfight]

68. Democrats will continue to lose as long as diebold is in control. nt

[NicRic]

72. At this point a war wont help !

If anything it would make him look even more incompitant ,and more like he has lost total control over any situation in the worlds hot spots. As the dumbest and lalziest pResident ,its all catching up with him now ,failing to spend the time and do the hard work past presidents have done to keep the peace in the mideast. Instead his policy has aggravated the entire area ,risen the ranks of anti jewish, moslems willing to fight instead of talk and work things out. I wonder how our judges on the supreme court are sleeping at night knowing they had a hand at installing the most incompitant person possible ,after President Clinton worked tirelessly at moving this country forward ,bush has trampled all over those accomplishments ,erased the surplus, put us into heavy debt ,ruined our standing around the world as a country to envy and look up to ,and most of all depend on to do the right thing ! What a waste of lives and resouces ,in a losing battle that is going to get even worst ,with no end in sight !

[Exiled in America]

78. No modern party has managed a LOT of things this party has.

Historical precedents no longer comfort me much. They're rewriting history every day.

[jenmito]

79. Bush "somehow" beat ALL the odds to "win" in '04...

ALL indications showed Bush should've lost-from no president EVER winning re-election if the stock market falls .5% or more (which it did) to a certain football team losing in EVERY presidential election when the incumbent loses. (There were MANY more serious indicators which held true throughout history that I can't now recall) but Bush "won" still. Why? He STOLE it with help of Diebold, voter suppression, exit poll manipulation, and vote "disappearing".

[okieinpain]

81. funny, one of the repugs in the primaries had the line "endorsed by

2 reagan cabinet members". now how's that for distancing yourself from bush.

[leftofthedial]

82. No modern party ever had Diebold and ES&S et al

working to ensure they'd win either

[OneTwentyoNine]

85. Diebold rigs up necessary machines,CNN changes its exit polling...

at 2:00 AM like they did in Ohio in 04. No problem....

[Awsi Dooger]

86. Based on this thread, plenty of misconceptions about 2004

Thus cycle favors us and we will win.

But 2004 favored Bush. That's always ignored or reversed on DU. Not only was in in the incredibly advantageous situation of an incumbent with his party in power only one term, which is now 9 of 10 re-elections since 1900 and most by overwhelming margin, but also the economic numbers and favorability rating were not representative of dismissal. Not even close. Here's a link I saved from election day 2004, written by Democratic pollster MarK Mellman: http://www.thehill.com/mellman/110204.aspx

"First, we simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime. After wars surely, but never in their midst. Republicans have been spinning this fact for months, and they are correct.

Democrats have spoken often and powerfully about the nation’s economic problems. But by historical standards, they are not that bad. The “misery index” is 7.8 today but was 20.5 when Jimmy Carter was defeated. Economic models of elections show Bush winning 52-58 percent of the vote.

One could simply suggest that the models are off, but there is more to it than that.

These models essentially confirm that the level of economic pain we are now feeling is not commensurate with voting an incumbent president out of office.

Unemployment and inflation are lower than they have been when incumbents have been defeated. Growth is higher than it has been when presidents have been tossed out of office."

<snip>

"We often point to the fact that a majority of Americans say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Fifty-two percent hold that view. But when Bush Sr. was defeated, 72 percent thought the country was seriously off on the wrong track.

Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.

Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.

Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote."

[AX10]

88. Currently, 65-70% of Americans are dissatified with the way the...

country is going.

[AX10]

92. kick

[ChiciB1]

89. Oh, Don't Hold Your Breath.... Thye'll Do Something....

CROOKED CORRUPT Assholes alway do!!!!

[MrBenchley]

90. As unpopular as Pretzelboy is

many polls have the GOP Congress about ten points LOWER.

[AX10]

91. True.