My sister is one of the most Pro-Bush people I have ever known and she too said just the other day that she wont vote for him again

Overall Mydd who do you think at this point will be the last two Dems standing in the home stretch? I think it will be between Edwards and Dean

GaDem, I can cautiously hope that this Bush presidency will flame out and crash, taking a number of overly conservative assclowns with it...

It just keeps getting worse and worse...

Bush's halo is disappearing. The common quote in mid-Nov. was "well, Bush's mid-term campaigning was effective because, after all, his rating is in the mid-60's" -- then came his fumbling of North Korea and Iraq and the economy, and he was in the "low 60's". Now he's in the "high-50's"--that's it--get used to saying it--"high 50's".

Bush has never had to earn his keep--either in college, business, or politics. 9/11 was a big slow softball that Bush hit well, and he's milked it for all it is worth. Americans are now realizing the poor economy and other Bush failures...you just don't lose two million jobs and no one notices. Americans are realizing that Bush has been given too much without earning it-- the presidency in a dispute, with fewer votes; high approval ratings for 1 1/2 years; and now control of Congress. Folks are saying: Now wait a minute--what has this guy really done for the economy and the health of our nation? For the middle class? ...

Bush may bounce back up, but I really think that Americans have taken off their rose-colored glasses and are looking at Bush for what he is-- a struggling, rapidly aging president out-of-depth with the job.

america is a land of loving & trusting people. we were hijacked by BUSH™. The whole iraq story just seems like some racist amway scheme spun up in a distant suburban rumpus room.

These things run in cycles, of course. The question isn't the trend and final resting place (down to the low 40s), the question is will the trend continue until 2004 in time for the election? Clinton was polling much lower than Bush at this point. Until we get closer to the election this trend is unfortunately more hype than anything else.

I think the only chance the Dems have is that BushCo overplays its hand, reaches too far. They're on the verge, but a swift Iraq victory would put the Repugs in good stead. We'll see.

They will launch the war in Iraq to coincide with the election season.

The poll results have to do specifically w/ Bush's foreign policy. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-01-18-iraq-poll_x.htm

The only reason Bush ever got so popular was because of 9/11, untill 9/11 his presidency was a dismall failure (ruined the economy, anatgonized both his allied countries and neutrals, destroying the environment,...) and the Democrats were planning to give him even more trouble than he already had so for him the terrorist attack was a real godsend. Some of these aforementioned policies he still pursues but since the aura of 9/11 is wearing of, people are becoming acutely aware of them again...

But can Bush be beaten in 04? Personally I don't think so... he'll capitalize on 9/11 even further to get re-elected. He'll pull a wag the dog if necessary... and I don't think that the Demopcrats will have learned how to effectively oppose him by them... I hope I'm wrong though...

This is the beginning of the end for Bush in terms of having such an easy ride. I still don't think he can be beaten in 2004 unless the Dems nominate the right candidate, and then run a perfect capaign -- but this round of polling will come to be seen as an inflection point.

Have I mentioned Bush is in trouble?

Bush can't turn it around. He has zero flexibility. In fact, he doesn't believe in adapting to political reality; he thinks he can dominate it with a disciplined team. There will be no quick victory in Iraq. The military aspect may be quick, but the aftermath . . . think Yugoslavia in early 90s. And that's the best case military scenario. It may be brutal. The only hope he has is a brokered end to the war (Saudis convince Iraq to take care of the problem on their own).

I'll repeat: Bush has NEVER been able to pull his poll numbers up. They went up initially in a little honeymoon bounce, then 9/11. Other than that: down, down, down. Why could he suddenly pull up his numbers now?

there's every objective reason to believe bush is quite beatable.

I think some people should ask themselves why they're so pessimistic, and consider the impact of spreading that around.

People, people.

I wish I could agree that Bush is in a tailspin he won't be able to pull out of, but in truth his ratings are low right now because he is appealing to one constituency only: the extreme right-wing base.

He had to convince them he wouldn't abandon them--even in this poor economy--so voila! His tax "growth plan." He also had to convince them he remembered his redneck racist roots--even after his haranguing of Trent Lott--by going to Michigan and opposing racial "quotas." Everything you see right now points to him massaging the radical Right, but he'll pull out of it soon--with an unjust invasion of Iraq and pseudo-sympathetic rhetoric near election time.

Bush may be as stupid as we think, but his advisors aren't. The Democrats need to find a platform quick, and it can't rely on taking potshots at a bulletproof president. They need a PLAN, and, dare I say it? a SPINE.

Bush is most definately beatable. The questions is is there any Democrat out there who can beat him.

Folks, the Democrats have the makings of a platform right now, if they'll only make the case.

"We all want the same things:

[1] We all want clean air and water.
[2] We all want companies to be honest with us.
[3] We all want insurance companies to not use our money to recoup their investment losses.
[4] We all want responsible leadership
[5] We all want safe streets and homes
[6] We all want safe travel
[7] We all want our liberties and freedoms safeguarded.

The Republicans have had the chance to let the private sector handle all of these things, and what did we get?

[1] Lower air quality
[2] Workers losing their pensions in the stock market because of high-level executive dishonesty
..."

and so on. Democrats, if they weren't afraid to, could make the case that only a democratically elected government can be trusted with these things because it's the only institution that is directly and completely answerable to the people affected by its actions. Far from being a monopoly, a democratically elected government is subject to change whenever the voters want; contrast that with your electric or cable company, who is the only game in town and if you don't like it, tough.

*That* is, believe it or not, a winning message.

MyDD:

JFK is getting good stories, see

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1740934

Also, Edwards will quit late fall, as I mentioned before. Yesterday a story had NC poll. Edwards will be the AG in JKF-John Lewis 2004-2012 administration.

Bush-Cheney will lose the north-east, south, west, and mid-west to JFK-Lewis. They will only get mountain states. 2004 will be the end of GOP as we know it. It will have to become alive with new Republicans, like Powell, Frist, Collins, and Chaffee.

This will take GOP at least another 12 years (or 3-elections.) The next time GOP will have a chance - a chance - will be in 2016 (when an incubent in WH messes - Edwards or Hillary - both intellectually light-weights).

AliKarimBey

I hate to remind everyone that in 1992, an overly popular president was beaten by a democrat with a new message of prosperity for our nation. That president was George H.W. Bush, the current president's father. With his handling of foreign policy and our faltering economy, it is still very possible for a democrat to win the next election, even in the aftermath of 9/11.

Bush has loaded his administration with old school Republicans; ones who are experienced and respected. While I support the Democrats trying to find a "fresh face," last time I checked, we had plenty of old school respected politicians as well.

The Dems need to get together their old brain trust and harken back to the party's roots. I don't mean go back to the "tax and spend liberal" era, but rather, find a voice and a spine. Whatever happened to Governor Mario Cuomo, Senator Paul Simon, or Senator George Mitchell? These guys are all still extremely respected and extremely popular leaders that can present an unified voice for the Democratic Party. Where are they when we need them most?

The Dems have the guns needed to take down Bush and the GOP. While none of these guys are going to run for president, when they talk, people listen. Thus, we need to pull these guys out of retirement and restore the backbone of the Democratic Party.

The next six months are critical. Public perception is behind political reality by a few weeks/months. If Bush's numbers stay in the 50's - for whatever reason- between now and August, he's in trouble in '04. If they bounce back up to the mid-60's and stay in the mid-60's between now and August, then a sense of inevitability will grow around his re-election. I suppose General Rove (oh? is Rove involved?) will time the Iraqi invasion for maximum political benefit, and yes, he'll get away with timing it for maximum political benefit.

Paras Bhayani,

Good point about the Brain Trust. Include Jimmy Carter and Gov. Rendall--yes, an incumbent Governor not running for president who gives good strategic advise.

Well, people are calling the election of 2002 the first "real" election of Bush. Well, two years after Clinton won big...he lost big. Bush won big in 2002. He can easily loose big in '04.
Lets switch it from all R to all D.

For those who feel downtrodden and keep insisting that Bush is "unbeatable," I think you're contributing to the problem. It seems to me that lately people have been relieved to see Bush's numbers go down-- it gives them the chance to say, "You know, I don't like him much, either." Words matter-- to your friends, coworkers, family-- and by keeping up your critiques of Bush and your optimism that his reelection is not inevitable, you contribute to the liklihood of his defeat. So, can the cynicism, folks. Bush can be beaten. Say it everyday to at least one person. Say it everday to yourself. On a certain level it is that simple. If everyone gloomily thinks that Bush will win again, he will.

There's my Sesame Street philosphy for the day. But I do believe it. I've been telling people about Dean lately, and I've seen the light go on in their eyes... "Maybe Bush can be beaten!"

The Republicans have 100 percent of the power in Washington, people gave them the keys now they have to deliver if they dont then they will be out in the street come Jan 2005. The economy is beginning to become a big issue and as states cut services and raise taxes Bush is going to be in a real pickle. The Dem nominee needs to stand up for the states and tell how Bush is really screwing the people in EVERY state from California to Georgia to Idaho

I'm thinking that if we can get the media going on the awolbush story, things could really start to fall apart. awolbush.com-- apparently Bush is a deserter.

Bush is definitely beatable. I read today where the new Governor of Georgia, Sonny Perdue had run on putting the confederate Flag issue to a vote. By playing the race card (surprise), he was able to beat a popular Governor Barnes. Well, the Republicans are terrified, because this flag vote will be on the 2004 ballot. Bush needs all the Southern States in order to win. If Edwards is somewhere on the ticket, N.C. will also be winnable.

AKB-I love your enthusiasm but Kerry (NOT JFK)-Lewis will not be the ticket. Secondly, even if Kerry (or another Dem) wins the presidency, they will not win the South as you suggest. How do you suppose Kerry and Lewis could steal the South from Bush??

Please do not insult President Kennedy by calling him John Kerry. Kerry like Bush was in the Skulls. I think he is the LEAST electable of the entire field except for Sharpton of course. Is Clinton going to endorse Edwards? What about Edwards/Hillary! 2004?

AKB-- I assure you that Hillary Clinton is not an intellectual lightweight. I also think that you are wrong in assuming that Kerry will be our next president. I think if he wins the nomination he'll lose to Bush. Why? Because he wimped out when we needed him to stand-up to his (if what you believe will happen) soon to be opponent.

Hopefully our next president will be Dean. Granted he is behind in the money department, but he poses the biggest threat to Bush, which even some Bush administration have admitted. Also the south, at least the deep south will go to Bush no matter what the Democrats do.

How about this: everyone who wants Dean to win, give him some money! Even a dollar helps.

All: It is beyond my understanding why you all faithful demos. think Bush has south under his control. Break him. He does not own people. This is American. Not Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Get over it?

So, how to break him?

First, let us realize this is post-Lott and post-Michigan era. The issues that affect us (all of us) include diversity, liberty, and race. Forget economy or foreign policy for the moment (I know these are linked, but give me a sec.) People are nervous of Bush. People are scared of Bush. They seem him as an ice-age man. They will vote for the person who talks with them about their liberties, diversity issuers,etc. South is up for grabs, if JKF selects Lewis. Trust me on this one.

Second, Edwards will be the AG in JFK-Lewis admin. Dean at HHS. Biden (who has endorsed JFK) at State. Gephardt at Labor. Hillary cannot have won the senate without the WH focused on her election. She is and will always be an intellectual dishonest leightweight. There are millions of women in NY who are much smarter than her. They just do not have left-hollywood-supported husband who can help them win a senate seat.

Don't be a cheerleader. Be a leader. Stop supporting holier-than-thou weaklings as leaders.

AliKarimBey

Do Dems even need the South? Win NH and Ohio. That doesn't mean give up in TN, GA, LA, etc. Bush can be beaten.

John Kerry acts holier than thou he is so arrogant when he shouldnt be. He married his money and when it counted he bent over for George W Bush. I can also say that John Lewis will NOT be the Vice Presidential nominee. If anything Mr Lewis should run for zigzag Zells Senate seat. Howard Dean, John Edwards, and Bob Graham are the three best candidates in this field. The top prospects for Vice President are Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Hillary!, and Wesley Clark

Gore should have gone after Ohio full blast, it was his biggest mistake. If Graham or Edwards is the nominee then the South is in play. With Graham Dems would likely win Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana that alone would make a Bush victory unlikely. Edwards would run well in those states as well as North Carolina, yes Edwards would likely lose North Carolina but he is the only Dem who would force Bush to spend energy and money there. I am voting my heart with Dean but I wouldnt be unhappy with Bob Graham or John Edwards as the nominee simply because they are who Bush most fears IMO

I agree with Matthew -- let's not help spread the media myth that Amerka loves W. Bush has been a terrible president by any measure and everyone knows it. Indeed, do the Busheviks even bother to seriously dispute it? The Constitution in tatters, the economy in the tank, our nation's allies alienated and it's enemies inflamed, how do the friends of Mr. "responsibility era" defend him halfway through his term? They tell us that Clinton is to blame! That's the best they've got. That may suffice to keep Republicans in Bush's column, but it hardly seems like a message that will win over Democrats and independents. There are reasons to be pessimistic about 2004 (like Republican control of the mainstream media, for instance), but they have nothing to do with the citizenry being impressed with Bush's performance in office, before or after 9/11! His approval rating polls went way up after 9/11 because all the talking heads on TV -- INCLUDING THE DEMOCRATS! -- told us that it was un-american NOT to "support" the doofis. His reelect poll numbers, though, show no sign that he has picked up a single vote since 2000.

I submit that the Republicans did well in '02 because the Dems DID NOT put Bush on the ballot for their voters, while, on the other hand, the dittoheads DID go out to the polls to show their love of Bush. Think about it. Would the Democrats have done worse if they'd run a sharp anti-Bush campaign saying, "vote for us if you're worried about Bush's recklessly belligerant foreign policy and his out-of-touch and counterproductive domestic policy"? I don't think so. Meanwhile, was it really a surprise that a good chunk of Republicans showed up to vote last November? After all, THEY KNOW that Bush LOST in 2000. Of course they were going to turn out -- TO TRY TO FINALLY "ELECT" THEIR "POPULAR" PRESIDENT! The mystery is, why did Dem pols mount such a week campaign in opposition?

Another mystery I wonder about is why do Republicans adore Bush with such a blind faith? An inherently weak candidate to begin with (a do-nothing Texas Governor who must hide the fact that he is actually a repeat offender "convicted criminal" drunk driver, not to mention that he was AWOL from military service during Vietnam!), he came as close as he did to winning in 2000 on basically the message: "things are good, why not Bush? what could happen???" Now after two years of catastrophe Republicans apparently still cling to him with a zeal that they never showed for his pappy. Why? And will they stay with him through '04? My theory is that they feel they MUST love Bushy BECAUSE they know that he stole Fla.; having pulled the lever for the crook, and having sat on their hands while Jebbie, Cruella, the Media, Congress, and the Supreme Court brazenly nullified a Presidential election, Republican voters are haunted by their own sense of complicitity in the steal of 2000. Denial and fear make them insist, shrilly, over and over, against all evidence, that W MUST be the right man. But anyone with eyes who is willing to see, can see that he aint.

Kerry will only beat Bush if its a landslide Democratic year which is unlikely given the even division of the country and Republicans total devotion to Bush.

Can anyone list some good reasons why lieberman will not when the dem nomination, i know the early primary states are not in his favor but will that really be enough to keep this republican from winning?

Personally I'll take any democrat over Lieberman, Dean,Kerry or Edwards would be just fine.

One reason is that people don't think Lieberman can win-- he doesn't measure up in personality and looks, and he's pretty conservative, creating the possibility of a 3rd party threat, and sadly, his religion might be a problem for some voters.

It would be all over if McCain just took a little walk .

Wait until after the Super Bowl, when the inspectons deadline comes up. If there is a smoking gun, war support will go up. And if the war is short and successful, Bush will be at 80% for a while.

What is needed is a unified message and hammer the rightwing extremism in the Bush administration. I think the drop
in Bush's ratings are due to Korea and his swing to the right.

GaDem-I think Graham would also have a very good chance to carry Virginia-not only would he attract rural voters like the rest of the South, it couldn't hurt that %90 of the swing voters in Northern Virginia read his nephew's newspaper every day.

I have to agree with many people that for a while, it has seemed that Bush would be "unbeatable" in 2004. I was especially disheartened after the outcome of the 2002 voting.

I think a big reason for my feelings and for others is that (especially without Gore in the race) there isn't any particular candidate who stands out as the "opposite" of Bush, or someone who naturally is the first person to go to for Democrats when they want a response for one of Bush's plans/policies.

But the more I look at it, I think this can be a real plus for the Democrats. The first thing to realize is that Bush is going to be the nominee for the Repubs in 2004. The good thing about it is that makes him a known quantity, and a known target for all of the Democrats to shoot at.

However, for Rove and the Repubs, it means that they will have to wait for quite a while to determine who the Democratic candidate will be. They can't tailor their policy decisions (which are all made based on what will get Bush s/elected in 2004, not on what is right and well-thought out) to counteract a specific candidate.

The more I look at it, the more I think that having lots of candidates (and even a brokered convention) means that the Democrats get to explore and debate many different points of view, and to emerge with a stronger candidate.

Plus, it captures the spirit of the media-driven campaigns and makes it almost like a political American-Idol. For a public always attuned to "whats new", it makes covering Bush seem boring...his views are already known.

This is very similar to 2000, when the Repubs had lots of candidates, and Gores ideas were all "boring", according to the media.

Faux News is doing it's best to demonize all the Democratic contenders, but the more they talk about the Democrats, the less they spew Bush-propoganda (well, SLIGHTLY less).

If the Democratic "leadership" doesn't panic and try and annoint a front-runner, Bush could be on his way back to Crawford faster than I can Fed-ex him another bag of pretzels.

The swing states that the Dems need to focus most on are Georgia, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, and of course, Florida.

Thus, a Graham candidacy for either VP of Pres would deliver Florida, and a Bayh or Landrieu candidacy would deliver Indiana and Louisiana respectively.

Graham is the most qualified person in the Dem. field, and also carries a swing state. The best running mate for him would be John Kerry, should Kerry lose in the early primaries. His military service will be critical for vets and other conservative leaning constituencies.

Thus, the Dems would start with California, NY, Florida, and Illinois in their column. Also, they would have an advantage in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn; all states that W lost in 2000 while they had Republican governors, and all of whom now have Dem governors.

That leaves Ohio for the Dems to pick up. Labor unions are powerful in Ohio, and a blitz of campaign ads as well as a powerful GOTV effort can deliver Ohio to the Dems as well.

Other states that the Dems should win this time include Tennessee, West Virginia, Georgia, and Louisiana. They should push hard in Oklahoma as well.

The Dems have a great opportunity to nail Bush. Lets hope that they do so.

Forget the South (I live in Georgia and I'm saying this) and focus on the swing states like Ohio, Illinois, etc. where liberals acually can win and you don't have to deal with shitheads who care about the Confederate flag.

Correct me if im wrong but i thought Illinois and Iowa are democratic states. I am from Ohio and can honestly say forget about this state. While Cleveland is heavily dem, Columbus has far too many suburban whites and people in Cincinatti are either rich or just plain racist, combine that with a large rural population and Ohio is just a little too republican to be worth trying for. The pro gun control stances also hurt dems in this state. I would just try for either Missouri or Florida and like Rich said, to hell with the south. We will just have to wait another 20 years or so before the racism finally sputters out.

Ohio will be a tough nut to crack, but didn't Gore narrowly carry Franklin County?

I do agree that the Cincinnati area is out of reach, but I would still try. It appears that the Democrats have to get better organized there.

Outside of Florida, the Dems should write off the South.

Illinois is not a swing state anymore. It's now a solidly Dem state much like California is. In both states, the GOP is in chaos and keeps nominating hard right candidates who keep losing in the general election. In California, the GOP holds no statewide offices, just got their clocks cleaned by an unpopular governor because they nominated the one guy who couldn't beat him and now are gettting ripped apart by a racial fracas in the ranks. Illinois is much the same, with a GOP reeling from George Ryan's scandals and wars between moderates and wing-nuts in the party, holds only a few major offices and whose biggest seat (the Senate seat held by Fitzgerald) is almost certain to be lost in 2004. Illinois is a state the Dems don't have to worry about in 2004, especially not with a Dem governor and legislature in power.

Florida must be focused on, but the Dems can also pick off Arkansas (except for the governorship, it's about totally dead with Tiny Tim Hutchinson getting tossed), Louisiana (especially if the Dems win the governorship this fall) and North Carolina (especially if Edwards is on the ticket). If Bush loses just ONE Southern state, he's finished. (Hell, if Bush loses New Hamspshire or Nevada, which is still steaming at him over the nuclear waste dump, he loses the election.)

IMHO, the 2004 election will come down to Florida, the three state area of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and the Missisisspi valley states of Wisconson, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana.

Clinton carried Ohio twice. Democrats can win it. True, Bush carried it in 2000, but only because of Cin-less-natti.

Indiana is NOT a swing state, unfortunately. It hasn't voted for a democrat since...

Should we be discussing as well the end of honest elections as a factor now? With the convenient end of exit polling by major media, full scale cheating can occur and there'd be no way to question it. I'm still surprised it was not mentioned much in November.

Indiana could be a swing state; could be. Its a possibility; not a probability. The state is not all red; its red & blue.Blue areas generally are higher population. It has to be managed properly. Carefully targeting Allen,Lake, Marion, Monroe, St Joe & Vanderburg Counties would be key. The I-69 route wars has shown me that there are more environmentalists in the state than I would have thought otherwise. There are lots of union people here & lots of union people without jobs. The City of Anderson will be on life support soon if Bushanomics continues onward.

GaDem, Kerry didn't marry his money. He had plenty of his own before. You should learn more about him before dismissing him; i recommend the Joe Klein New Yorker piece.

Kerry is far from the weakest Dem; I think that if any Dem pulls a surprise breakaway from the pack it will be him.

No candidate is flawless, but he has plenty of plusses.

I think the DNC has several pretty good candidates.... and Kerry is one of them. Dems have a great opportunity to not only strike at Bush's economic plans... but there are two candidates that can also talk about foreign policy. Can you ask for a better senario?

I believe we need to stop talking about writing off any area of the country, the south included. IMO, one of the reasons that the 2000 election was close enough to steal in Florida was because Gore focused only on the states where he thought he could win.

And one of the messages from G.W. Shrub was that he was a "uniter not a divider". That message is going to crash and burn this time, as Shrub has proven the only thing he can unite is the world - against us.

Post-9/11 people are afraid. Part of that was the sheer horror of wathcing those buildings fall. (I have to wonder if 9/11 would have had the impact it did, if they hadn't.) It shook people to the core that something that was so THERE, so SOLID could just not be within a couple of hours.

Then the corporate scandals hit and the same horror happened as people watched their stock portfolios and 401(k)s disintegrate as a result of the liars and crooks in business.

More fear.

What can we trust? people asked. Again, IMO, Shrubbies numbers stayed up because the people wanted to trust SOMETHING - they were afraid, and they desperately WANTED to believe that the president could "fix it" for them.

Shrub/Rove timed the Iraq crap to win the 2002 elections, but they shot their wad too early. In keeping with their fear, the people's initial response to the "threat from Iraq" was to support the president. But as it drags on, more and more people are actually SEEING the bluster and bravado of the Boy King for what it is - rhetoric - empty rhetoric. Where's the beef? As inspections continue, more and more people want to know why we have to invade, why we have to have war. Time enough has passed that some people are willing to look at our image in the world and see that playing cowboy diplomacy is creating more and more enemies, not less.

People need to FEAR Shrub.

And the Dems need to offer hope. I support John Kerry for President because I think he provides just such a thing - hope that this great nation is capable of focusing (like a laser beam, remember that?) on the technology to give us energy indepedence, and thereby allow our foreign policy in the middle east to not be so dysfunctional.

This entire country needs to come together in hope, not in abject terror. We need to get the message out that Shrub is making us less safe by his antics. That Shrub is intellectually incapable of understanding the nuances of living in a global community. That his message of good v. evil and us v. them sounds good, but is very impractical in the real world of Iraq, N. Korea, Israel, Palestine, India and Pakistan.

One other issue that I believe needs to be taken off the national debate table is the gun issue. Our message needs to be that we enforce, really enforce, the laws currently on the books. We don't want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, but we need to make sure that we can keep the guns out of the hands of those who would wreak havoc.

With the people fearing Shrub, and an alternate message of hope and strength through strong diplomacy and leadership in a world community, we can oust the pretender in 2004.

I'm sure of it.

So Kerry didnt quadruple his assest and money when he married Teresa Heinz? Yea thats what I thought and talk about a loose cannon. Ms Heinz will send conservatives into a tizzy. Why isnt it Teresa Kerry? I can hear them already. Im for Howard Dean, the rest are Bushlite or Bush-appeasers

I'm really quite surprised when I see people here digging in their heels to support a single Democratic candidate at such an early stage in the race. I don't feel like I know enough about any of these people to make a sound judgement yet. What's the rush? Open your mind and give them each a chance to impress you.

"I do agree that the Cincinnati area is out of reach, but I would still try."

Not me-I know a lot of people from there through college, and I don't think I'd want to be supported by most of them.

I disagree. The more candidates go down early, the more unified the convention will be, and the stronger the fundraising for the candidates who make it through. Also, the chances are higher that a front-runner will emerge early, and the Dems can start to concentrate on Bush.

In my opinion, all the people who have no chance of winning the nomination should suspend immediately. That includes Gephardt, Sharpton, and Mosley Braun (who should never declare a candidacy).

That leaves Lieberman, Kerry, Edwards, Graham, and Dean. Still a large field, but much smaller than before.

When all is said and done, it's still the "economy, stupid!". No amount of colorful images from Iraq will pay the bills of someone who's out of work, or restore value to a 401k not invested in war profits. Shivering in a cold house watching CNN like the last time just isn't good enough.

The one reason Shrub will go down in 2004 is just this fact. The irony is this: if Shrub had just let the economy alone, and didn't try to pander so much to bigots and bible thumpers, the opposition to Iraq might have been half the number seen so far. Not that people wouldn't have been uneasy, but many would have been willing to put up with a little bit more confident that he was doing something right.

During the campaign, Bush said he was a Uniter, not a Divider. I know he has united the World against us. Another thing he kept calling himself is a "compassionate conservative" - just another cute saying. What person who is "peace loving" would want to send others children off into a senseless war that is all about getting his Fathers friends rich and himself relected. Heard someone say that the Republicans believe that compassion starts in the womb and ends at birth! (Think about it)

Responding to AVADem--I meant the state of Ohio, not Cincinnati.

I see. I still think we can win the state, no question.

Ohio, Florida and Penn would move with the economy. Indiana would go Dem if Bayh is on the ticket..otherwise not. Bush will live and die politically with the economy.

A subsequent 9/11 type attack will NOT earn Bush any points or support. He is responsible now, no more blaming it on Clinton. GW Bush fought for and insisted on having it his way, he will be held fully accountable.

The Bush II war in Iraq is not at all politically equivalent to the Bush I war in Irag, don't count on the boost to occur in Bush II numbers as they did for Bush I.

Bush II has painted himself as an impatient, cowboy warmonger who (neocons) can't wait to get to SYRIA and IRAN next and will do nothing about the after math of the war he is creating, and let Afghanistan revert to chaos.

Has NOT made the case Osama = Saddam = 9/11.

The constant trend is against him, look at the chart, its a global trend.

The media magic is wearing thin, the real problems are constantly accumulating.

All the issues GW can reash for solidify his base but also build up the opposition.

He is not toast yet but he is well on his was to un-re-electability.

2004 will not be about personality or abstract political ideology, it will be about real issues and results.

By the way, 8 million people are unemplyed and the economy sinks. A $350 Billion dollar defict creating dividend tax cut for the wealthy (wont help for IRA) which kicks in next year will not create jobs.

You're right about a "global trend" against Bush. I just checked out Calpundit and he had a thing about TIME's newest cover story about anti-Amercanism around the globe, especially in Europe. What the article really says is that Europeans like Americans, but hate George Bush. They essentially consider him an intolerant, religiously-fanatic, dangerous imbecile. There's a part that quotes a member of the Britsh Conservative Party (the British equivolent of the GOP) calling Bush dangerous, stupid and "like a child running around with a grenade that has the pin out."

Compare this almost universal loathing of Bush by how well Clinton was liked around the world. Eurpoeans like and admire Clinton (hell, they love him) because they feel he is smart, knowledgable, aware of other cultures different from his and able to make wise choices. Bush is none of these, as he's out of touch with most people in his own country.

Take a look at the right track wrong track numbers they have crossed over;

http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

and the "national baromter" trends;

http://www.pollingreport.com/national.htm

I'm wondering, though- can we agree that Graham WILL be on the ticket somewhere, P or VP. Florida is just too important, both for Dem and Rep, Graham has the best chance of delivering.

Don't just assume that your vote will be counted accurately. There's a lot of strange hanky-panky going on with those electronic voting machines. Like a verbal contract, your vote in one of those things is only worth the paper it's printed on.

I've heard that the companies making the machines and creating the vote-count software are exclusively Republican. Anyone else have info. on this? My question is, how do we ensure accuracy in vote counting? I have no doubt the Republicans will do whatever it takes to steal elections (again!).

Bush will not ba able to time the Iraq invasion for maximum benefit. I think that given the cost of building up and maintaining an invasion force, and the seasonal nature of our invasion window, the invasion will have to happen NOW, in February. We are not keeping ou rforces there for a year. If we do, I think the generals will pitch a fit.
Bush is not inevitable, BUT anyone who claims the repubs are in their deaththrows needs to be a little less optimistic. They are going strong. They have a good 30-35% of the population that votes for them on abortion and guns alone, just like we have a good 30-35% who vote for us because of abortion/social rights, integration, workers and farmers rights protection, and the environment. Neither party is going to die for another 20 years at least

It's far from certain that Graham would be able to deliver Florida as the VP nominee. But he probably wouldn't accept the VP slot anyway - assuming the Democratic nominee won and served two terms, he'd be too old to run for president himself in 2012.

You failed to mention that two other polls in your link, CNN/Gallup and Fox News, had Bush at 61% and 63% respectively. Still, polls will go up and down. His polls now are similar to Reagan at the same stage (Jan., 1983). Anything can happen. If the economy is better, and Saddam is gone, Bush will win.

Chris, can you supply some link for Reagan at that level in January 1983? My recollection (I wasn't quite as committed a junkie then) is that his numbers were far poorer than that, as we were in the midst of a quite deep recession -- enough that the GOP lost 28 seats in the midterm election. Again from memory, I thought Reagan only got bumped over 50% around the time of the Grenada invasion. Coupled with a turnaround in the economy -- which boomed loudly in '84 -- this pushed the old guy's numbers very high in perfect sync with his re-election campaign. (Though some, like Alan Keys-to-the-Presidency Lichtman, had put Reagan as a good bet for re-election quite early on)

The difference with Bush is striking: Bush sat on his fattest approval numbers 2-3 years out from re-election time. It's unlikely he can get them back up; they seem to come one to a customer. Presidents with poorer ratings the first two years (Nixon, Reaga, Clinton) have actually shown MORE tendency to be re-elected in recent times.

Fox News and Gallup have quite consistently rated Bush well above the polling average.

By the way, I wasn't here when this conversation started, but I want to agree with what someone said way back near the top: no one seems to buy into the "Bush is unbeatable" crapola so fully as Democrats. They were saying the same thing about Bush the father, and many of them were going around saying Clinton was toast after the '94 midterms. (Some also bought into the idea they had to "distance themselves" from the most people president of the second half of the century) What congenital quirk causes these otherwise intelligent folk to believe in their opponents' inevitability even when emprical evidence suggests otherwise?

"Presidents with poorer ratings the first two years (Nixon, Reaga, Clinton) have actually shown MORE tendency to be re-elected in recent times."

Yet Clinton won re-election with less than 50% of the vote. I don't buy into the "One high polling period per president". Too many uncertainties in these times makes polling a somewhat invalid way to predict an election that is 22 months away. I don't buy into the fact that Bush has lost the momentum. We just got a royal butt-whooping in November and now we think the election is ours to lose? We need to attack the election like we are the heavy-underdog, set expectations low so when we exceed them, we look like we won a huge victory. Afterall, there are many independent voters who vote for the candidate because they want to vote for the eventual winner which is why incumbents do pretty darn well in politics

I wouldn't argue with your general attitude, Casey -- I'd certainly never say, everyone relax, Bush is dead meat. I'm simply pointing out general trends of political history. I'm also hopeful the defeat of '02 (which, contrary to your characterization, was paper-thin -- if devastating in impact, PR and real) was due to several factors (September 11th insulation, Democratic invisibility) unlikely to recur.

And one excellent reason to suspect Bush's numbers aren't going high again is the economy. By any measure I can see, the current trend is DOWNWARD, at a time when it needs to be headed up if it's going to register positive by Election Day '04 (recall, his father's economy had "recovered" by third quarter '91, yet was still perceived a negative over a year later).

Good luck--Bush will win unless a Democrat can make a compelling case. I still that can be done. Bush's sharp right turn must be attacked vigorously.

I just finished reading all of your posts and have found it wonderfully refreshing to hear democrats sharing thier views. I work in Colorado Springs Co and it seems the majority of people I run into here are Taliban like republicans. I just hope we can get our message out there to the swing voters. I cant imagine the current presidential imposter, Vietnam era AWOLer, silver spoon fed, spoiled simple child, intellectualy bankrupt, corporate lapboy, idiot bible thumping, war inciting, dunce to be re-elected!!