The chimp is becoming vulnerable new poll suggests

[BarneyFife]

"Presidential Matchups
If New York Sen. Hillary Clinton jumps into the race for the White House, she gets 48 percent of Democratic voters, followed by 11 percent for Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, 7 percent each for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and 4 percent for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. No other Democratic contender breaks 3 percent, with 12 percent undecided.

With Clinton out of the running, Dean breaks into double digits, but Lieberman leads with 21 percent of Democratic voters. Gephardt gets 16 percent, with 13 percent for Kerry and 10 percent for Dean. No other Democrat breaks 6 percent and undecided gets 21 percent.

Bush beats Clinton 50 -- 43 percent. Against other Democrats, Bush leads:

51 -- 41 percent over Lieberman;
51 -- 40 percent over Kerry;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt;
53 -- 37 percent over Dean.

Poll"

It looks like the noose is tightening around the chimp and his followers are jumping off the bandwagon faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

The thought of Hillary as president scares me almost as much as a second term for Bush.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
"Presidential Matchups
If New York Sen. Hillary Clinton jumps into the race for the White House, she gets 48 percent of Democratic voters, followed by 11 percent for Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, 7 percent each for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and 4 percent for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. No other Democratic contender breaks 3 percent, with 12 percent undecided.

With Clinton out of the running, Dean breaks into double digits, but Lieberman leads with 21 percent of Democratic voters. Gephardt gets 16 percent, with 13 percent for Kerry and 10 percent for Dean. No other Democrat breaks 6 percent and undecided gets 21 percent.

Bush beats Clinton 50 -- 43 percent. Against other Democrats, Bush leads:

51 -- 41 percent over Lieberman;
51 -- 40 percent over Kerry;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt;
53 -- 37 percent over Dean.

Poll"

It looks like the noose is tightening around the chimp and his followers are jumping off the bandwagon faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house.

Those are electorial college landslide numbers.

 

[conehead433]

If Clinton would come out and defend Bush some more he'd probably continue to drop like a stone.

 

[conehead433]

"It looks like the noose is tightening around the chimp and his followers are jumping off the bandwagon faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house."

Shouldn't that be "going down faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house".

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
"Presidential Matchups
If New York Sen. Hillary Clinton jumps into the race for the White House, she gets 48 percent of Democratic voters, followed by 11 percent for Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, 7 percent each for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and 4 percent for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. No other Democratic contender breaks 3 percent, with 12 percent undecided.

With Clinton out of the running, Dean breaks into double digits, but Lieberman leads with 21 percent of Democratic voters. Gephardt gets 16 percent, with 13 percent for Kerry and 10 percent for Dean. No other Democrat breaks 6 percent and undecided gets 21 percent.

Bush beats Clinton 50 -- 43 percent. Against other Democrats, Bush leads:

51 -- 41 percent over Lieberman;
51 -- 40 percent over Kerry;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt;
53 -- 37 percent over Dean.

Poll"

It looks like the noose is tightening around the chimp and his followers are jumping off the bandwagon faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house.

Those are electorial college landslide numbers.

50-43 is not a landslide considering the elections are over a year away. Also considering the standard +/- error of the poll. I remember during 2000, the polls had Bush winning by 4-5 percent and we all know that wasn't a landslide.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
"Presidential Matchups
If New York Sen. Hillary Clinton jumps into the race for the White House, she gets 48 percent of Democratic voters, followed by 11 percent for Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman, 7 percent each for Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and Missouri Congressman Richard Gephardt and 4 percent for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. No other Democratic contender breaks 3 percent, with 12 percent undecided.

With Clinton out of the running, Dean breaks into double digits, but Lieberman leads with 21 percent of Democratic voters. Gephardt gets 16 percent, with 13 percent for Kerry and 10 percent for Dean. No other Democrat breaks 6 percent and undecided gets 21 percent.

Bush beats Clinton 50 -- 43 percent. Against other Democrats, Bush leads:

51 -- 41 percent over Lieberman;
51 -- 40 percent over Kerry;
51 -- 42 percent over Gephardt;
53 -- 37 percent over Dean.

Poll"

It looks like the noose is tightening around the chimp and his followers are jumping off the bandwagon faster than a teenage girl at Kobe's house.

Those are electorial college landslide numbers.

50-43 is not a landslide considering the elections are over a year away. Also considering the standard +/- error of the poll. I remember during 2000, the polls had Bush winning by 4-5 percent and we all know that wasn't a landslide.

IF there was a 10% split on election day, it would an electorial college landslide. But otherwise I would agree it is too early and there is a margin of error. Plus the economy is improving and Iraq reconstruction is going quite well. That 10% gap could be too small

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Originally posted by: charrison
IF there was a 10% split on election day, it would an electorial college landslide. But otherwise I would agree it is too early and there is a margin of error. Plus the economy is improving and Iraq reconstruction is going quite well. That 10% gap could be too small

First off, the Republicans have conceded that the nation is very divided and the election will be close. Also, the economy HAS been improving since it got out of recession Q4 2001. That doesn't mean its in a good state. Thirdly, your view of the Iraq reconstruction is obviously debatable.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
IF there was a 10% split on election day, it would an electorial college landslide. But otherwise I would agree it is too early and there is a margin of error. Plus the economy is improving and Iraq reconstruction is going quite well. That 10% gap could be too small

First off, the Republicans have conceded that the nation is very divided and the election will be close. Also, the economy HAS been improving since it got out of recession Q4 2001. That doesn't mean its in a good state. Thirdly, your view of the Iraq reconstruction is obviously debatable.

The state of the economy and iraq becomes less debatable as each day passes.

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
IF there was a 10% split on election day, it would an electorial college landslide. But otherwise I would agree it is too early and there is a margin of error. Plus the economy is improving and Iraq reconstruction is going quite well. That 10% gap could be too small

First off, the Republicans have conceded that the nation is very divided and the election will be close. Also, the economy HAS been improving since it got out of recession Q4 2001. That doesn't mean its in a good state. Thirdly, your view of the Iraq reconstruction is obviously debatable.

The state of the economy and iraq becomes less debatable as each day passes.

How so? The unemployment rate is going up and they still didn't find any WMD. People will forget about the Hussein brothers in a week or so. The only way it will ever become less debatable is if they find WMD. Right now soldiers are dying daily and people are upset. I was watching CNN interview people in Jessica Lynch's hometown the other day and people were bitter over the war. They were opposed to it after what has transpired. Some compared it to Vietnam.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla

Originally posted by: charrison
IF there was a 10% split on election day, it would an electorial college landslide. But otherwise I would agree it is too early and there is a margin of error. Plus the economy is improving and Iraq reconstruction is going quite well. That 10% gap could be too small

First off, the Republicans have conceded that the nation is very divided and the election will be close. Also, the economy HAS been improving since it got out of recession Q4 2001. That doesn't mean its in a good state. Thirdly, your view of the Iraq reconstruction is obviously debatable.

The state of the economy and iraq becomes less debatable as each day passes.

How so? The unemployment rate is going up and they still didn't find any WMD. People will forget about the Hussein brothers in a week or so. The only way it will ever become less debatable is if they find WMD. Right now soldiers are dying daily and people are upset. I was watching CNN interview people in Jessica Lynch's hometown the other day and people were bitter over the war. They were opposed to it after what has transpired. Some compared it to Vietnam.

I guess you have great abilities to ignore the constant stream of good news coming out of Iraq.
Can you do that with today employment data?


linkage

The Labor Department said weekly unemployment claims fell a steep 29,000 to 386,000 in the week to July 19, dipping below the 400,000 mark for the first time in 23 weeks. Analysts consider 400,000 a threshold below which jobs growth is enough to put downward pressure on unemployment

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The cup is always half full or half empty for you people but never 50% of capacity, eh?

Analysts were also quick to note that the weekly data can be distorted by factory closures in the auto sector which happen every July and cautioned it was too early to be certain that claims were in a downtrend.

 

[Pers]

not to offend anyone... but imagine the arab world's attitude towards the US if we have Lieberman as president.

EVERY decision the guy makes would be questioned...and would def. rouse more terrorism.

i'd rather see anyone than lieberman as president. And the guy is so conservative - he might as well admit he's

republican. oh well... let's hope americans aren't stupid and just don't vote according to name recognition - although

we all know that's the case.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

While Liebermann leads in the national poll, that's due to his name recognition. In the recent polls in New Hampshire, Iowa, and California (where the candidates have campaigned) the top 3 contenders are Kerry, Dean, and Gephardt, which is good news IMO.

 

[Pers]

too bad dennis kucinich doesn't look to have much of a chance.

unfortunately the criteria people use to vote for our president includes their appearance and whether they're cute or not

fortunately their votes don't count and we end up with the supreme court selecting the idiot who takes office.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
The cup is always half full or half empty for you people but never 50% of capacity, eh?

Analysts were also quick to note that the weekly data can be distorted by factory closures in the auto sector which happen every July and cautioned it was too early to be certain that claims were in a downtrend.

Must have forgot to keep reading

However, the figures do follow a string of upbeat numbers recently and stirred talk that the July payrolls figure due next week could show the first rise in jobs in six months.

But yes balance is being sought.

CkG

 

[heartsurgeon]

the democrats will not win the presidency in 2004

hillary will run in 2008 and loose (she is unelectable...trust me on this)

therefore, a republican will sit in the whitehouse for at least until 2012 (if reelected 2016)..count on it.

call him a chimp..i don't care.
your heroes (the disbarred, impeached, perjurer, adulterous ex-president, and his beastly "wife/senator") are making it
impossible for the democrats to regain the white house for at least 12 years (probably 16 years).

live with it.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hmmm Bill Clinton as First Lady.... Bwuahahaha. It would almost be worth it to see that!

therefore, a republican will sit in the whitehouse for at least until 2012 (if reelected 2016)..count on it.

Well who do you foree as the next President after Dubya? His Crooked Brother?

 

[chrisms]

Originally posted by: Pers
not to offend anyone... but imagine the arab world's attitude towards the US if we have Lieberman as president.

EVERY decision the guy makes would be questioned...and would def. rouse more terrorism.

i'd rather see anyone than lieberman as president. And the guy is so conservative - he might as well admit he's

republican. oh well... let's hope americans aren't stupid and just don't vote according to name recognition - although

we all know that's the case.

It sounds really bad, but it is true that it would be horrible to have a Jewish president in times like these. Arabs would hate us even more and terrorism would increase. The holy war would be even more justified for the extremists.

 

[Zebo]

Bush won't loose. Way to well designed PR FEAR campain, the mans in constant campaign mode, and way too much money. Only if 50% of americans are below the poverty level will a democrat win./

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chrisms

Originally posted by: Pers
not to offend anyone... but imagine the arab world's attitude towards the US if we have Lieberman as president.

EVERY decision the guy makes would be questioned...and would def. rouse more terrorism.

i'd rather see anyone than lieberman as president. And the guy is so conservative - he might as well admit he's

republican. oh well... let's hope americans aren't stupid and just don't vote according to name recognition - although

we all know that's the case.

It sounds really bad, but it is true that it would be horrible to have a Jewish president in times like these. Arabs would hate us even more and terrorism would increase. The holy war would be even more justified for the extremists.

If we could just come up with an alternative fuel source then what the Arabs think wouldn't amount to a pile of Camel Dung!1

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the democrats will not win the presidency in 2004

hillary will run in 2008 and loose (she is unelectable...trust me on this)

therefore, a republican will sit in the whitehouse for at least until 2012 (if reelected 2016)..count on it.

call him a chimp..i don't care.
your heroes (the disbarred, impeached, perjurer, adulterous ex-president, and his beastly "wife/senator") are making it
impossible for the democrats to regain the white house for at least 12 years (probably 16 years).

live with it.

Agree 100%, now if we could get fiscally responsible old skool republicans in office and not these masked big governmnet socialists I'd be very happy. So who for McCain? Well they already branded him the "i love you candidate" in 00".

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the democrats will not win the presidency in 2004

hillary will run in 2008 and loose (she is unelectable...trust me on this)

therefore, a republican will sit in the whitehouse for at least until 2012 (if reelected 2016)..count on it.

call him a chimp..i don't care.
your heroes (the disbarred, impeached, perjurer, adulterous ex-president, and his beastly "wife/senator") are making it
impossible for the democrats to regain the white house for at least 12 years (probably 16 years).

live with it.

Agree 100%, now if we could get fiscally responsible old skool republicans in office and not these masked big governmnet socialists I'd be very happy. So who for McCain? Well they already branded him the "i love you candidate" in 00".

We are going to need a few more senate seats before any president could really do anything to control spending.

 

[charrison]

Linkage

More economic bad news

Better-than-expected results from corporate America in the second-quarter reporting period so far have helped support stocks, but they have not proved strong enough to budge the market much higher over the past few weeks.

New orders for costly manufactured goods shot up in June at the fastest rate in five months, climbing 2.1 percent and beating forecasts for a 1.0 percent increase.

Sales of new U.S. homes jumped 4.7 percent in June to a record seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.160 million -- surprising Wall Street analysts who had expected sales to slip to a rate of 1.120 million.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the democrats will not win the presidency in 2004

hillary will run in 2008 and loose (she is unelectable...trust me on this)

therefore, a republican will sit in the whitehouse for at least until 2012 (if reelected 2016)..count on it.

call him a chimp..i don't care.
your heroes (the disbarred, impeached, perjurer, adulterous ex-president, and his beastly "wife/senator") are making it
impossible for the democrats to regain the white house for at least 12 years (probably 16 years).

live with it.

Agree 100%, now if we could get fiscally responsible old skool republicans in office and not these masked big governmnet socialists I'd be very happy. So who for McCain? Well they already branded him the "i love you candidate" in 00".

We are going to need a few more senate seats before any president could really do anything to control spending.

I don't know? Historically every New-republican administration of late (since RR) has increased speading... Admititly they did not have control of both houses until GW, but they have not shown a willingness to control it either. 450B this year is just insane and of course mostly spent by Bush because it's politically expediant to do so. Medicaid/Homeland Security etc all these new programs championed by Bush. I just don't see it. Then tax cuts. Well that's great but why spend MORE then. I just don't think it's responsible.