Dean Has Strong Lead Among Gay Voters

[SensualMan]

You are entitled to your opinion...

I can't stop you from having your opinion, but it is wrong. The military we had in Desert Storm was still pretty much the same we had all through the Cold War. It was Clinton that drastically restructured and cut back the military. Whether or not you agree with the cutbacks does not matter, the result was a weaker military with the "politicians" getting the promotions...not the real leaders.

Now I am not trying to bad mouth Wesley Clark...I respect his service and agree that he can not be an idiot to be as successful as he has been in life. The problem is I have heard liberals talk about him like they have some sort of Eisenhower in their ranks now.....and that is a joke. Wesley Clark is no Dwight Eisenhower, not even close. And it does not change the fact that an overwhelming number of people in the military are still conservative, or more so than the general population. So he is definately the exception to the rule. He is far from a trump card that will somehow convince the public that the liberals support the military....

 

[Pookie]

Re: Wesley Clark....

I think you guys are going to find out in the next few weeks that Clark does not have much chance for a number of resons. The biggest reason is that he is entering the race too late in the game. He has no solid voter base yet, he is so far behind in fundraising, and the media exposure he has now will start to fade away. He is hardly a trump card to the mostly true argument that liberals are weak on defense. Sure he was a General, but he became a general under Clinton, and was successful under a Clinton led military.

Latest poll of Democratic candidates - Sept 20, 2003

Clark - 14%
Dean - 12%
Lieberman - 12%
Kerry - 10%


Head to Head
Clark - 43%
Bush - 47%

Kerry - 43%
Bush - 48%

Dean - 38%
Bush - 52%

(09-20) 16:02 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark already appears to be competitive in a new national poll released Saturday just days after he became the 10th Democratic presidential candidate.

Clark was among the leaders of the Democratic candidates in the Newsweek Poll and was not far behind President Bush in a head-to-head matchup in the poll taken only days after entering the race.

Clark, with 14 percent, was grouped among the leaders, along with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both at 12 percent, and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry at 10 percent.

Other candidates were in single digits.

Clark has a lot of work to do, however, in states with early contests, which will likely be key to winning the nomination.

The survey by Newsweek magazine also suggested Bush may be increasingly vulnerable on issues from Iraq to domestic concerns.

Disapproval of his handling of the situation in Iraq has increased 5 percentage points since the last Newsweek poll to 47 percent, about the same as the 46 percent who approved. Just under four in 10, 38 percent, approve of his handling of the economy, while 57 percent disapprove.

The president's overall job approval rating stood at 51 percent, about where it's been in several recent polls.

In a matchup with Bush, 47 percent of voters backed the president and 43 percent backed Clark.

Matched against Kerry, Bush had a slightly larger lead, 48 percent to 43 percent, and led Dean in a head-to-head matchup, 52 percent to 38 percent.

The poll of 1,001 adults was taken Thursday and Friday and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, and 4 percentage points for registered voters.


Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/09/20/national1902EDT0624.DTL

 

[SensualMan]

Polls....

Latest poll of Democratic candidates - Sept 20, 2003

Clark - 14%
Dean - 12%
Lieberman - 12%
Kerry - 10%


Head to Head
Clark - 43%
Bush - 47%

Kerry - 43%
Bush - 48%

Dean - 38%
Bush - 52%


- Like I said, Clark is the media darling right now and getting a lot of coverage. Once that coverage fades, his numbers will drop. as for the head to head numbers, just keep in mind a lot can happen in a year. I think it is pretty safe to say that Bush is as low as he is going to get in the polls. As things start to take shape in Iraq and the economy continues to grow, his numbers will increase. Those numbers should depress you....even at his lowest Bush still has your guys beat. Eventually people will get tired of all of the bad press about Iraq and the truth will start to get out about the good that is taking place over there. Anyway, like I said before, it will be an interesting year.....

 

[Pookie]

Re: Polls....

- Like I said, Clark is the media darling right now and getting a lot of coverage. Once that coverage fades, his numbers will drop.

You think the media will give Clark less coverage as time goes by? You're so fucking naive when it comes to politics.

 

[SensualMan]

Challenge

I challenge you to submit one post, just one, where you don't swear or call me names....

As for media coverage....it follows the money....Like I said, Clark is the media sweetheart right now and gets plenty of coverage...once that wears off and people start to see that he is not really a viable candidate, his coverage will decline...

(Here is the part where if I were you I would swear and call you names for not agreeing with me)

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Re: Polls....

You think the media will give Clark less coverage as time goes by? You're so fucking naive when it comes to politics.

He's just repeating what Rush Limbaugh told him...not an original thought out of him. Most of his Constitutional ramblings come from the racist states rights literature.

 

[SensualMan]

Logical fallacy

Where do you get the idea that those who support state's rights are racist? You are possibly the most uninformed individual here if you feel that way. Many educated, intelligent people feel that the federal government has amassed too much power in one central "area" and that is what the founders were trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with race.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

Re: Logical fallacy

Where do you get the idea that those who support state's rights are racist? You are possibly the most uninformed individual here if you feel that way. Many educated, intelligent people feel that the federal government has amassed too much power in one central "area" and that is what the founders were trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with race.

You are right...sometimes states rights means an Alabama judge violating the religious freedom of people who come into his courthouse. Sometimes it means stepping on homosexual's right to privacy. But, state's rights very nearly always means trything to keep some group down on a local level, because it isn't allowed at the federal level.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Challenge

I challenge you to submit one post, just one, where you don't swear or call me names....

Just one? Hmmmm ... lets see ...

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6143727#post6143727

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6143736#post6143736

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6143763#post6143763

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144357#post6144357

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144364#post6144364

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144377#post6144377

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144385#post6144385

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144394#post6144394

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=6144445#post6144445

How about nine? I stopped looking after that. I can find more if you want.

Learn to do your research before opening your mouth, especially when you don't know what you're talking about to begin with.

 

[Queersetti]

Re: Logical fallacy

Where do you get the idea that those who support state's rights are racist? You are possibly the most uninformed individual here if you feel that way. Many educated, intelligent people feel that the federal government has amassed too much power in one central "area" and that is what the founders were trying to avoid. It has nothing to do with race.

"States rights" during the civil rights era and ever since, was the slogan most often invoked by the defenders of segregation as a cover for their racism. I'm guess that you were sharpening your pencil or something when that era was discussed in your PoliSci courses.

Not every person who takes a strong state's rights stance is a racist.

But those who also bemoan the fact that the Confederacy lost the Civil War, are.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Challenge

As for media coverage....it follows the money....Like I said, Clark is the media sweetheart right now and gets plenty of coverage...once that wears off and people start to see that he is not really a viable candidate, his coverage will decline...

Media coverage follows the money? Explain that.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Polls....

I think it is pretty safe to say that Bush is as low as he is going to get in the polls. As things start to take shape in Iraq and the economy continues to grow, his numbers will increase.

President Bush's approval rating from the American public has fallen steeply over the past four weeks, dropping 9 points since late August to 50% today. This decline breaks a sustained period of level approval ratings averaging 60% since June, after reaching a wartime peak of 71% approval in March and April.


http://www.gallup.com/Images/Glances/gg030923.gif


http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030923vi.gif

 

[Pookie]

Re: Polls....

Those numbers should depress you....even at his lowest Bush still has your guys beat.

Latest Gallup poll of Democratic candidates - Sept 23, 2003

Clark - 22%
Dean - 13%
Kerry - 11%
Lieberman - 10%


Head to Head
Clark - 49%
Bush - 46%

Kerry - 48%
Bush - 47%

Dean - 46%
Bush - 49%

Lieberman - 47%
Bush - 48%

Gephardt - 46%
Bush - 48%

 

[Pookie]

Re: Polls....

Eventually people will get tired of all of the bad press about Iraq and the truth will start to get out about the good that is taking place over there. Anyway, like I said before, it will be an interesting year.....

You better hope it's sooner than later for your man Bush ...


http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030923i.gif



% Saying Iraq Worth Going to War Over By Gender
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030923ii.gif


Is the War With Iraq Over?
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030923iii.gif

 

[SensualMan]

My man Bush?

I am pretty sure I have posted more than once on these threads that while I voted for Bush once, I am not planning on doing it again. That hardly makes him "my man".

 

[Pookie]

Re: My man Bush?

I am pretty sure I have posted more than once on these threads that while I voted for Bush once, I am not planning on doing it again. That hardly makes him "my man".

You said ... "Those numbers should depress you....even at his lowest Bush still has your guys beat."

And I would ask that you not attribute another party's candidates with me, shithead. You don't know what party or candidate I support.

 

[Pookie]

POLL ANALYSES

September 25, 2003

Economy, Terrorism Top Issues in 2004 Election Vote

Terrorism, Iraq more important to Republicans; domestic issues more important to Democrats

by Joseph Carroll
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- With the 2004 presidential election just over a year away, Americans tell Gallup that the economy and terrorism are the issues most likely to influence their choice for president next year. Republicans are more likely to say issues related to terrorism and Iraq will be extremely important to their vote in next year's presidential election, while Democrats are more likely to assign importance to domestic issues like the economy and jobs, both of which are consistent with the political parties' issue strengths.

Most Important Issues in Election 2004

A new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Sept. 19-21, asked Americans to rate the importance of candidates' positions on 15 separate issues in influencing their vote for president in the next election.

The most important issues, according to the poll, are those related to the economy and the war against terrorism. Nearly half of all Americans, 49%, say that presidential candidates' stances on the economy and on terrorism will be extremely important to their vote next year. Creating or protecting American jobs and the situation in Iraq follow close behind in importance. Forty-six percent of Americans say each of these issues will be extremely important in determining their vote next year.

Other issues with slightly lower levels of importance include: education (45% say it is extremely important), healthcare (43%), the federal budget deficit (39%), Social Security (36%), taxes (36%), and Medicare (36%).

Further down the list comes the environment, with 30% saying it will be extremely important, and energy, with 27% saying it will be extremely important. The lowest rated issue on the list is policies toward gays and lesbians, with only 12% saying the candidates' positions on this issue will be extremely important to their vote.


Salience of Issues in the 2004 Presidential Election
(based on percentage saying "extremely important")
http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030925i.gif


Partisanship and the Salience of Issues in 2004 Election

The poll results confirm that Republicans and Democrats attach significantly different levels of importance to a number of the issues.

- Terrorism appears to be the issue that will dominate the minds of Republicans in their choice for president next November. Fifty-seven percent of Republicans say terrorism will be extremely important. The situation in Iraq is the second most important issue among Republicans, at 47%. The economy, at 45%, protecting or creating American jobs, at 42%, and education, at 42% follow next in the list.

- Democrats are more likely to indicate that domestic issues will be important to their vote in the next election. The economy is the top-rated issue among Democrats, with 57% saying the candidates' stance on the economy will be extremely important to their vote. Among Democrats, the economy is followed by the situation in Iraq (51%), education (51%), healthcare (51%), the job situation (50%), and the federal budget deficit (50%). Terrorism, the most important issue for Republicans, is perceived as important by only 48% of Democrats.

- Issues that are less important to both Republicans and Democrats include policies toward gays and lesbians, the environment, and energy.

- The largest partisan gaps in the perceived importance of issues are seen for several key domestic issues. Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to say the federal budget deficit, the environment, Medicare, healthcare, Social Security, the economy, and energy will be extremely important to their vote next year. Republicans are more inclined than Democrats to say terrorism will be extremely important to their vote.

(more details at the link below)

Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030925.asp

 

[SensualMan]

Federal budget deficits....that line always makes me laugh. When are people going to learn that it is all smoke and mirrors? It's all hypothetical numbers on paper based on best guesses. Want to know why the democrats are so mad about the supposed deficit? They are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing voters to fund expensive social programs if we are in the red. Where was all their outrage in the 80's when they were passing the budgets that put us into debt in the first place? They are quick to blame Reagan, but last time I checked, the President doesn't pass a budget, Congress does. Anyway, just a comment because it is ridiculous how wound around the axle some people get over these numbers.

Going back to Clark here for just a moment, it will be interesting to see how he handles his past here in the next few weeks. Getting fired from a position in Europe for integrity issues is no small deal. Add to that the fact that your old boss won't vote for you, and you have some serious credibility issues. The guy has no convictions, he waves the banner of whichever party will take him. I hope Dean and Lieberman (sp?) stomp him in the polls in the next few weeks.

 

[Pookie]

Federal budget deficits....that line always makes me laugh. When are people going to learn that it is all smoke and mirrors? It's all hypothetical numbers on paper based on best guesses. Want to know why the democrats are so mad about the supposed deficit? They are going to have a hell of a hard time convincing voters to fund expensive social programs if we are in the red. Where was all their outrage in the 80's when they were passing the budgets that put us into debt in the first place? They are quick to blame Reagan, but last time I checked, the President doesn't pass a budget, Congress does. Anyway, just a comment because it is ridiculous how wound around the axle some people get over these numbers.

Going back to Clark here for just a moment, it will be interesting to see how he handles his past here in the next few weeks. Getting fired from a position in Europe for integrity issues is no small deal. Add to that the fact that your old boss won't vote for you, and you have some serious credibility issues. The guy has no convictions, he waves the banner of whichever party will take him. I hope Dean and Lieberman (sp?) stomp him in the polls in the next few weeks.

Don't forget this ...

As for media coverage....it follows the money....Like I said, Clark is the media sweetheart right now and gets plenty of coverage...once that wears off and people start to see that he is not really a viable candidate, his coverage will decline...

Media coverage follows the money? Explain that.

 

[69forever]

Re: We'll see how it goes...

It should really be referred to as the GL voting block. Most issues that are of real concern are not critical issues to bisexuals. Issues like gay marriage and legalized unions and such don't mean a whole lot to the majority of bisexuals.

Guess again. You have no clue.

 

[SensualMan]

Opinion Polls...

http://www.campaignline.com/commentary/index.cfm?id=70


An interesting editorial on just how little opinion polls matter.....as it says, Reagan was polling in the 50's just before his 1984 landslide. Nixon also was not polling well before his re-election in 1972, and his peak was only 67%.

How is your man Clark doing Pookie? Are you still under the impression that polling well nationally is going to help him get the nod from the democratic party? If you belive that, it is just proof of your lack of understanding of the election process.

 

[Pookie]

Re: Opinion Polls...

http://www.campaignline.com/commentary/index.cfm?id=70


An interesting editorial on just how little opinion polls matter.....as it says, Reagan was polling in the 50's just before his 1984 landslide. Nixon also was not polling well before his re-election in 1972, and his peak was only 67%.

How is your man Clark doing Pookie? Are you still under the impression that polling well nationally is going to help him get the nod from the democratic party? If you belive that, it is just proof of your lack of understanding of the election process.

Your link is dead.

I don't have a man named Clark, but Bush has quite a bit to be concerned about ...

Daddy Bush had much higher ratings at this time before his re-election bid, and he lost. Carter had slightly higher numbers at this time in his first term too, and he lost in a landslide to Reagan. Both Daddy Bush and Carter had to deal with bad economic conditions. Reagan and Clinton didn't. Remember ... it's the economy, stupid.

At this time in 1983, Reagan was leading Mondale in the polls by 19 percent. The economy was booming, inflation and unemployment were down. Bush, Jr. doesn't have this luxury. He is either tied or behind in the polls, and the economy is doing poorly. His one trump card, Iraq, is now becoming a major liability causing his approval ratings to drop.


http://www.gallup.com/images/Poll/Releases/pr030828vi.gif

This is from a month or so ago ... and Bush, Jr. has lost 10 percentage points since then.


Oh yeah ... don't forget this ... AGAIN ...

As for media coverage....it follows the money....Like I said, Clark is the media sweetheart right now and gets plenty of coverage...once that wears off and people start to see that he is not really a viable candidate, his coverage will decline...

Media coverage follows the money? Explain that.