If Bush is unpopular, then why did us Republicans badly defeat the Democrats in 04'?

<p>This is a question which never ceases to puzzle me. Many liberals here have said,"OMG!!!!!Bush's approval is rating is at 30%, that means he is a bad President." That makes no sense whatsoever seeing that Bush absolutely CRUSHED Kerry at the 2004 Presidential elections. Mind you, this is around the time when supposedly most Americans disapprove of the Iraq War. What can we infer from this, colleagues? Perhaps approval ratings really haven't much weight when you look at the big picture. Maybe, America isn't such a "divided nation" afterall. I look forward to November 2008, yes?</p>

<p>62,000,000 to 59,000,000</p>

<p>and that is a crush...go to math school</p>

<p>Just maybe Bush didn't beat Kerry in 2004 anymore than he beat Gore in 2000.</p>

<p>"Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen?: Exit Polls, Election Fraud, and the Official Count." </p>

<p>Book Description from Amazon</p>

<p>On the afternoon of Election Day 2004, the world was abuzz with the news: Exit polls indicated that John Kerry would win the election and become the next president of the United States. That proved not to be the case.</p>

<p>According to the official count-that is the number of votes tallied, not necessarily the number of votes cast-George W. Bush beat Kerry by a margin of three million votes. The exit polls however had predicted a margin of victory for Kerry of five million votes. In every "battleground" state across the nation the final tally swung clearly beyond the exit poll's margin of error to favor the president.</p>

<p>How can one explain this eight-million-vote discrepancy between the Election Day exit polls and the official count? Either the exit poll data was wrong or the official count was wrong.</p>

<p>Was the 2004 Presidential Election Stolen? analyzes the exit poll data and looks at documented examples of conventional vote suppression and outright vote fraud. It investigates the possibility that enough election fraud occurred to determine the outcome of the presidential race. And it asks the question why neither the government, nor the Democratic Party, nor any major media organization did their own investigation.</p>

<p>Steve Freeman has a PhD in organization studies from MIT's Sloan School of Management. He is a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics, where he teaches research methods and survey design (a domain that includes polling). He has received four national awards for best research paper of the year-on four different topics in three different fields.</p>

<p>Joel Bleifuss, a journalist of 23 years, is the editor of In These Times. In his 18 years there, he has had more articles cited as one of the Top Censored Stories of the Year by Project Censored than any other journalist.</p>

<p>About the Author
Steve Freeman has a Ph.D. in Organization Studies from MIT's Sloan School of Management. He is a visiting scholar at the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics, where he teaches research methods and survey design (a domain that includes polling). He has received four national awards for best research paper of the year-on four different topics in three different fields.</p>

<p>:) Pretty loose with the language aren't we Mr. Lee?</p>

<p>Gee, you're right nothing has changed in the last two years.</p>

<p>Pres. Bush had all that political capital and he was going to use it to push through his agenda. Starting with social security reform. How did that go?</p>

<p>I suggest you give yourself a pat on the back for that "crushing" victory in 2004. </p>

<p>Come election day, you, and preferably thousands like you, should congratulate yourself for a job well done and spend the entire day at home, with you feet up, drink in hand, maybe a nice cigar, enjoying Fox news.</p>

<p>Keep telling yourself: "nothing has changed since 2004."</p>

<p>America isn't such a divided nation? Are you kidding?</p>

<p>This administration has done more to polarize our nation than any president in recent history.</p>

<p>Wow, CGM, it's so nice to know that everyone here treats each other with the utmost respect. FYI, numbers, shmumbers, we still won by a fair margin!</p>

<p>m&sdad, I will most assuredly heed to your advice in 08.</p>

<p>Mr. Lee,</p>

<p>Why wait until 2008? Spread the word to like minded family, friends and associates to take the day off and kick their feet up in victory on election day 2006.</p>

<p>After all, you earned in 2004.</p>

<p>Hmm.. I wonder if the real Robert E. Lee would have used "us Republicans" instead of "we Republicans" and "heed to your advice" rather than "heed your advice"...hmm, he did after all have a formal education...hmm.</p>

<p>thanks leanid, I was just about to post a similar comment...</p>

<p>
[quote]
This administration has done more to polarize our nation than any president in recent history.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Perhaps I’m just too young to be credible on this, but weren’t there riots across America in the 60’s—Watts, Detroit etc…troops called in, marshal-law declared--when the Democrats controlled all branches of government? Weren’t there peaceful and violent demonstrations across college campuses and in most major cities, in the late 60’s – early 70’s? Didn’t a president, a Republican, resign in a political event that called all our major political institutions into question? (the USA abides)</p>

<p>And this is the most polarized period in modern times?</p>

<p>...you do mean ‘now,’ right? </p>

<p>A period in history when the continental US came under attack by foreign terrorists, bombing our cities and government buildings? Killing thousands of our citizens going about their daily lives? Perhaps the terror of it all polarized America…if there is any polarization. </p>

<p>Myself, I think what Democrats call 'polarization' is encoded agit-prop which intends to say “we Democrats no longer control all branches of government, in fact not any branch of government; ipso facto, the government is polarized by our electoral absence from it.” That is, good ole 'sour grapes' and a short memory.</p>

<p>Good, leanid, GOOD! For a solid debate, prove your contention by pointing out trivial grammar mistakes. This is a MESSAGE board; surely, I am not writing a doctoral thesis here. </p>

<pre><code> Just to add to the fun:
</code></pre>

<p>
[quote]
This administration has done more to polarize our nation than any president in recent history.

[/quote]
</p>

<pre><code> That grammar is not too "good"; should be "any other president"
</code></pre>

<p>
[quote]
thanks leanid, I was just about to post a similar comment...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When using direct address, place a comma after thanks. Also, capitalize the first word of every sentence. The corrected form would have been "Thanks, leanid, I was just about to post a similar comment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Pretty loose with the language aren't we Mr. Lee?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Opie, "aren't we" is informal slang; indeed, not grammatically correct. Correct as follows: Pretty loose with the language are we not, Mr. Lee?</p>

<p>Leanid, your past post was just one long run on sentence. Come now, people, let us not delve into the "grammar police" game. If we do so, I will most assuredly delve into the grammatical festivities!</p>

<p>REL, Bush did not crush anyone in 2004. The entire presidential election hinged on a very tight race in Ohio and I will not get into all the voting irregualrities at the time.</p>

<p>However the Republicans did run a very smart presidential campaign by focusing on gay marriage, abortion and a strong military. To the extent that 25-33% of the voters are single issue voters against gay civil unions and abortion rights is just something that Democratic candidates have to deal with.</p>

<p>On the point of a strong military, it is shocking that Kerry's honorable military record was so successfully Swift Boated while Bush's disgraceful military record was virtually ignored in the press. All of Kerry's collegues with first hand knowledge of his actions in Viet Nam supported his actions which resulted in the military honors bestowed on him. By contrast, Bush's disgraceful ANG record was hardly reported on at all. And I am not talking about the apparent fabrication which disgraced Dan Rather. What is fact as per ANG records is that after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in pilot training, Bush eventually failed to take the necessary physicals to retain his flying status. What is known is that he left his Texan ANG unit in order to work on a political campaign in Louisana and the there are no records to show that he reported for ANG duty during this period of time. Records also show that he was granted permission to terminate his ANG duty short to attend the Harvard School of Business, which is interesting considering that he was denied admission the UT's mba program.</p>

<p>"All of Kerry's collegues with first hand knowledge of his actions in Viet Nam supported his actions which resulted in the military honors bestowed on him. "</p>

<p>Not true, but if you want to continue believing that it's your choice.</p>

<p>Mr. Lee :) I am amazed.</p>

<p>Ah, the 60's and 70's...</p>

<p>More polarized then...compared to now? Surely you jest.</p>

<p>Thank you, Mr. Lee, for showing your true colors, grammatically speaking.</p>

<p>I am one of the few (it seems) who puts great store in the correct use of language. I am not above reproach myself, of course, but I try.</p>

<p>I tend to suspect the user of intellectual sloth, no matter the merit of his argument, if he presents it in language that is below standard, and thus do not appreciate what ever intrinsic value the argument holds.</p>

<p>Since you, obviously, have a firm command of the language, why not use it here on this forum? Or, do we not merit the full benefit of your talents?</p>

<p>
[quote]
the 60's and 70's...</p>

<p>More polarized then...compared to now

[/quote]
Absolutely!</p>

<p>I'd say this is the malady that ails you:
[quote]
Myself, I think what Democrats call 'polarization' is encoded agit-prop which intends to say “we Democrats no longer control all branches of government, in fact not any branch of government; ipso facto, the government is polarized by our electoral absence from it.” That is, good ole 'sour grapes' and a short memory.

[/quote]

Yes, sour grapes and a short memory.</p>

<p>"I suggest you give yourself a pat on the back for that "crushing" victory in 2004. "</p>

<p>Maybe it wasn't crushing, but I'm darn glad it was clear.</p>

<p>Bush didn't "absolutely crush Kerry" in 2004, but even if he had, that fact would hardly be inconsistent with low popularity today. Nixon absolutely crushed McGovern in '72, but resigned in disgrace in August of '74.</p>