Poll: Bush would lose to a Democrat in an election

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Oct 25, 2005.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #1
    Link

    Some random thoughts on the results:

    Though encouraging, I'm surprised that the spread between those who'd vote for Bush and those who'd vote for a Democrat is only 16%.

    I'm genuinely puzzled why 10% of the public would suddenly start feeling that the Iraq war is justifiable again. What's different between the way people felt a month ago and now? Have we suddenly discovered some WMD?

    Once again we see proof that the U.S. is actually a rather liberal nation (its voting habits notwithstanding). Once again people support Democratic policies and issues.

    On the subject of fighting terrorism: if this is the Democrats' one weak spot, then it tells us that the next Democratic president (whenever that is) not only has to be tough on terrorists, but he'll have to thump his chest a lot to make sure everyone knows it. Hey, why not? Democrats have already reclaimed the issue of fiscal responsibility from the Republicans; why not defense, too?

    Finally, I have to take any poll like this with a grain of salt. The "guy" running against Bush in this poll is a generic Democrat who hasn't been smeared by the Karl Rove and the neocon goon squad.

    Still, interesting.
     
  2. Sogo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    #2
    Yea It was a nice odd read. The whole 10% difference was quite odd, but again people in America do what they want; to some extent. I was happy to read that a majority of people were democratic. As much as I want/wanted to believe that last year, It did not come to pass.
     
  3. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #3
    regarding the 49/59, the ratification of the constitution took place in between the poll dates, yes?
     
  4. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #4
    It sounds like the Dems have the numbers, they just have to get them to the polls. I'll drive somebody.
     
  5. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #5
    One thing that would make it a lot easier would be to eliminate the Electoral College and by doing so remove the restrictions on the locations you can vote. College campuses are a great place to find young people who would probably be more biased as Democrats and don't necessarily care enough to vote. Coupled with the fact that many people go to college out of state which would require the effort of an absentee ballot, it also leads to a large portion of them not putting forth the effort to get their vote heard. Of course we could just put some national election criteria in place that would allow you to vote anywhere and have your vote counted where it should be. With electronic voting it can't be that hard to set up a system where you can vote in your local elections from any polling station in the U.S.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    The problem is that it would be impossible to eliminate the electoral college. Small states would never ratify such an amendment, and there are more than enough of them to vote it down.

    I'd say somewhat more likely is getting DC its voting rights. That'd help out the Democrat side in the House and the Senate. Let's concentrate on that. :)
     
  7. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #7
    Unfortunately this misconception is what prevents the EC from getting eliminated. In reality the opposite is true, that the larger states get a bigger boost from the winner take all setup of the EC.

    link
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    Another reason to simply add up all the votes for president and the one with the most wins.:) This would also eliminate the state by state predictions 5 minutes after voting has started. They would have to wait for all votes to be in.
     
  9. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #9
    Just let Ohio pick the next president. Isn't that what happens anyway?
     
  10. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #10
    Of course if more states would go the route of Maine, and Nevada with the EC votes going as a proportion of the vote count it would have roughly the same effect. It would also force Presidential candidates to campaign on a national level rather than this whole focus on the swing states mentality where only a small fraction of the states actually gets to see a presidential candidate. I did the math last year and if i recall correctly a president could be elected by winning a simple majority (50% + 1 voter) in the 11 largest states. Even if 50% - 1 voter voted against in those states and 100% voted against in the remaining 39 states, this alone should make the small states realize that the EC is problematic.

    Of course the Dems need to get a coherent message together and start with the repetition. The way I see it they can currently claim morality, fiscal responsibility, and protection/disaster preparedness fairly easily with recent events. If they start calling the administration on the BS and make sure to keep it repeating in the media they should start making some progress. Repetition is the key, since this administration has managed to prove in the last two presidential elections that if you repeat it enough most people will start to believe it.
     
  11. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #11
    You mean like Wmds Wmds Wmds....................etc what do you mean there isnt any? i said it enough times it has to be true:rolleyes:
     
  12. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #12
    Well, that article doesn't say that smaller states don't get a boost:

    "The key would be to persuade small states that losing their disproportionate clout relative to medium-sized states would be balanced out by the loss of disproportionate power enjoyed by big states."

    In fact, many get three times the proportion of votes that they deserve. That's hardly nothing. The article even says that the EC gives small states an advantage over medium states. I understand the point of the rest of their argument. If Ohio or Illinois is on the fence, a huge proportion of campaign energy will be spent there. Even if a small state is on the fence, its three votes won't be that important. Still, I think small states would rather have three votes and be ignored than have one or two votes (relatively speaking) and be ignored. Switching to a popular vote would mean that campaigns would broaden out a bit, but they'd probably still focus on larger populations of swing voters.
     
  13. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #13
    Different polls taken by different companies over long periods of time tell us consistently that most Americans believe in liberal values. That's what makes it so infuriating when the radical right wins elections and claims that Americans basically have fundamentalist Christian values at heart. That's what makes it so infuriating when they trot out their smoke-and-mirrors campaign "issues" and use them to scare/trick people into voting their way.

    They simply couldn't win if they just ran on their own beliefs.

    Well, if you're gonna go minimalist, let's just let Kenneth Blackwell pick the next president. ;)
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Actually the fix I'd like to see to the electoral system would be the distribution of electoral votes based on congressional districts. One electoral vote for each congressional district won, plus the two votes for winning the state overall, either by winning the most districts or the most votes overall, I'm not sure.

    The one caveat is that congressional districts need to stop being gerrymandered. California has a chance to do this soon; I'm torn since it's a Schwartzenegger proposal, but it seems to be pretty benign except for the voter approval of the map part. I don't trust it, but I want it to work.

    I guess I've got a week or so to decide...
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    I don't know why the Schwartzenegger redistricting plan had to include so many screwy provisions. Simply handing the decennial redistricting process over to a panel of judges would have met with my approval. But no, it had to be a two-year process with voter approval of the districts, which guarantees a running political battle over the districts that would make the current fight once every ten years seem tame by comparison. And what happens if the districts aren't approved by the voters? Would the congressional election even be valid? This proposal is a mess. I'm voting no.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    I'm leaning 'no' as well. It just sucks, because it's something I've long supported and would love to see implemented. It's ridiculous that my parents and I share the same State Senator -- and that same person also represents the area where Michael Jackson was tried!

    But the voter approval is going to be the deal breaker for me as well I think, as is the off-year redrawing of boundaries. Also I hear that any new administration can call for a re-drawing too.
     
  17. FoxyKaye macrumors 68000

    FoxyKaye

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, Terre d'Ange, Bas Lag, Gallifrey
    #17
    Actually, I was just thinking. The Dems have the numbers, they just have to grow a spine.

    People will report they they vote Democratic in pre-election and exit polls, however, if the elections went the way of the polls, the Dems should be carrying the White House and possibly the Senate. At the end of the day, there's so little differentiation between the Democrats and Republicans that what people are really saying in the polls is that they want change, and a mystery Democrat might fit that bill. However, come election time, since people can't differentiate between a Democrat and Republican, they'll still vote Republican because it is the devil they know instead of the devil they don't.

    At this point, what the polls say is irrelevant. For all their posturing to keep pace with the Republicans, the Dems could be offered the head of George Bush on a silver platter along with a written notarized statement from him saying that he invaded Iraq because he was high on cocaine, and they'll still sieze defeat from the jaws of victory in 2006 and 2008.
     
  18. jelloshotsrule macrumors G3

    jelloshotsrule

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Location:
    serendipity
    #18
    hear hear foxy!

    this poll is with a generic democratic candidate, like someone said. sadly, a generic democratic candidate is better than the type we've been seeing lately.. :rolleyes: let's hope whoever it is doesn't hand their spine over to the reps prior to the race starting.
     
  19. FoxyKaye macrumors 68000

    FoxyKaye

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, Terre d'Ange, Bas Lag, Gallifrey
    #19
    I'd review what the California Teachers Association has to say about Prop 77 (redistricting) before voting yes: http://www.campaign05.org/?page_id=130
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #20
    A majority of the population considers themselves independent, but leans toward the liberal side socially, though somewhat fiscally conservative. Unfortunately they don't vote because they usually find both candidates deplorable. The majority of voters are not as open minded, and tend to vote on sound bites and for "their side". Doesn't matter what the truth is, if GW says he's a Christian, a vote for him is a vote for God. :rolleyes: Even if it's the exact opposite. I could say the same about liberals, but they aren't as well organized. They all seem to have different agendas, which would explain the Green party and Ralph Nader.
     
  21. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #21
    There is one democrat that the party needs to channel, and that's FDR. This guy, "trapped" in a wheelchair, navigated us through a depression and WWII. He also built a lot of the infrastructure in this country that we now take for granted including national electrification. If not for FDR, it's hard to see how we would have been strong and smart enough to win WWII and stand up to the Soviets, which would lead to a very different (and likely worse) global situation.

    That's what democrats need to be and what this country desperately needs in 2008 because we have a ton of problems to solve.
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    You know, I've been thinking about this, and I'm pretty sure Bush would lose to a mouse. Doesn't even have to be a charming or good looking one, any mouse will do. How bad does that make Kerry? He lost to this guy. I guess anyone but Bush, which is exactly what I was saying a few months ago, isn't enough.

    All you have to do is not suck... how hard is that?
     
  23. mac-er macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
  24. FFTT macrumors 68030

    FFTT

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    A Stoned Throw From Ground Zero
    #24
    The major problem we have now with any replacement of the Bush Dynasty is that there is not one single WORTHY candidate running for the office.

    This country needs someone who will not only clean house, but who is committed to the greater good of most Americans rather than the elite who have made such a mess of things.

    We need a clear and reasonable exit strategy to end our involvement in Iraq and a new commitment to
    revise our health and education systems to benefit
    anyone in need.
     
  25. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #25
    tuesday's november 2005 election was a warning to the gop

    new jersey and virginia voted democratic for their governors

    governor arnold lost in all 4 initiatives he pushed for in california and it looks like his future as governor beyond this term is doubtful

    i believe next year will be a bad one for the gop if they can't get some positive movement on the war, economy, and gas prices...whatever is or isn't their fault is not the issue but how americans increasingly blame bush for a country in a mess

    the last two double term presidents left a popular legacy of a strong economy and avoidance of a vietnam type of quagmire

    on some level bush knows he needs to cater to the middle for the supreme court, get a workable exit plan for iraq, and attack the defecit which has plagued us since the beginning of his term if he is to be considered even a mediocre president
     

Share This Page