48 percent would vote for Bush, 47 percent for anyone else
 

Interesting survey, even though many people couldn't even name most of the democratic candidates, as many people said they would vote for anyone *other* than Bush as said that they would vote *for* Bush.

Bush has some good news and some bad news in this survey. Personally, I wish the democrats could put a better candidate up for office. Dean is OK, but he's the only one running that I find really interesting. I'd vote for Hillary in a heartbeat!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...m/bush_poll_dc

Wait untill the economy gets rolling even better, and see how the numbers change for the better for Bush.

It seems that those who blame the bad side of the economy on Bush are unwilling to accept that he may be responsible for the positive side. The underdog will change the "facts" to fit the situation and support himself, and there will be a split between those who point out hypocrisy, and those who find "facts" to defend themselves from such allegations.

Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think a single issue can sway the polls more than a few points. I'm also admitting that my side of this argument is turning into a bunch of hypocrites.

Personally, I still know a lot of people out of work or underemployed, so I'm seeing the "jobless recovery" that everyone keeps talking about. I think a lot of people are in this situation, and until they or their friends get jobs the fed can reports all the numbers they want and it won't matter.

But yes, both sides play up the numbers they want. I can point to a few bad things that Bush has done to the economy: talking down the .com crash and making it worse than it needed to be; not using FERC to defuse the energy crisis; not putting credible people in charge of the SEC after the Enron crisis; and spending too much on a tax cut. I personally don't buy the story that a president can't really control the economy during their term.

Sure, there are macro forces at work that they can't control, but, in my opinion, Bush has been especially inept on the economy.

It looks like a lot of people in this survey agree.

Why don't they poll Bush vs. some actual candidates instead of Bush vs. "the perfect democratic candidate you can dream up"?

I also knew some people who have lost their jobs since 2000 and you know what they did..............they went out and got another job!! Amazing, isn't it!! Instead of blaming the government and living off unemployment, they actually wanted to work.

The economy isn't getting better. This quarter was an abberation caused by the tax cut.

The tax cut? See there! The tax cut worked!

Wrong, income is still dropping like a rock.

Spending, because of the tax cut stayed level while income did it's impression of David Caruso's career. They crossed each other with spending now on top and giving the impression of a real improvement.

The 4th quarter will not be as good because the tax rebate has now been spent. Their impact is gone.
_______
The economy will not be as bad as it is now - though it will drop again in the next couple months - when the election comes around. But it will not be much better and I put it at 50/50 that there will still be zero job growth (if not a continuation of job loss)

I think Hillary would make a wonderful pres--in the old Soviet Union where her brand of socialism was in vogue. Don't forget her plan for medical care in the US.

Yes, medical care for everyone. GASP, what a socialist! Did you know that providing basic medical care for everyone would actually be cheaper than what we have today? Today, people without medical care wait until they are REALLY sick and then go to the emergency room.

As far as I know, every major country in the world provides better healthcare to its people than the USA does, so your socialism comment just makes you look silly. Bush has budgeted $40 billion dollars to support his healthcare goals, including drugs for seniors, over the next decade. Did I hear you calling Bush socialist for giving seniors a benefit? Should we just let those old people die?

Healthcare is too complex to be reduced to a soundbite, and before you play the socialist card you should ask who created more big-government spending, Bush or Clinton?

Wait a second. I thought the tax cut was only for the wealthy? If so, how could the jump in consumer spending be attributed to the tax cut, certainly the rich don't make up enough of the consumer segment to influence it that much.

Seriously though, there's still a ton of money out there from refinancings, stock market gains, etc that is unaccounted for. Many are guessing that it will come out around the holiday season. I think people are hanging on to it as a cushion.

As to the main point of this thread, it will be a much different story when there is a name to that imaginary "anyone else". The baggage that goes along with a candidate heavily influences voters and without a specific opponent this poll says almost nothing.

Oh, and as far as the 4th quarter not being as good? Well that's a pretty safe bet since the third quarter was the best since like '84.

Yes!

Talk to your congressman/woman about that and see what they think. :) :)

That isn't a final number anyway that 7.2% It will most likely get revised down to 6%. Still a good number though.

Anyway, the proof will come when the 4th quarter report is out and you will see things dive.
No sense arguing, just wait.

No doubt it will be revised as just about all GDP estimates are. And what level do you foresee this number "diving" to? It's easy to predict slower growth compared to a stellar quarter, but coming up with the real number and the reasons behind it is a lot more challenging.

48% to 47% sounds about right. The country is split pretty much down the middle just like in 2000. At this rate, Bush may win the poplular vote, but lose the electoral vote. Wouldn't that be a hoot. :)

it would be the day of my life.

i remember something about bush plannin to sue the electoral college system if the reverse had happened in 2k (i'm thinkin i saw it on this board).

Bush won in 2000 with 48% of the popular vote.

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/news...0&doctype=806&

Out of work people vote, especially with job losses this sever. 4 million pissed off, newly, unemployed people can shift an election.

One man gets his penis sucked, and hes the worst thing since sliced bread, after all the people bush has pissed off and hes still this "great honourable" leader.

a small comment and just my opinion.

Here's an article that was posted tonight(11/04/03)on msnbc.com:
44% say they’ll vote against Bush<--(link)

I find it amazing that Gephardt did that well.

Wow Bush ganied 3% in only one day.

Most poles have a plus or minus margin of 2 to 3%.
Which turns results that are this close into the polling equivalent of a coin toss.