Bush tied 43%/43% against any democrat

[MTAtech]

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=728

"Just over two in five (43%) likely voters say they would choose President Bush over a Democratic candidate, and a like number (43%) preferred a Democrat if the election were held today, compared to July polling by Zogby International where 48% would choose Bush and 43% would favor any Democrat."

[Telexen]

Even Bush is better than the current alternatives.

[J-Excel]

Pretty sad that 43% say they'll vote for a Democrat without even knowing who the candidate is and what he stands for.

[shahani]

My prediction is that Hillary will jump in despite all her denials. She just wants to make it more dramatic and grandoise.

Good strategy.

Bush and his cahoots must be getting more worried daily.

[MTAtech]

Sadly, any of the candidates are better than Bush. Bush has proven to be a failure in foreign policy - pre-empting when there wasn't anything to pre-empt, has done nothing for the economy, bankrupted the treasury, attacked personal freedom and rights, packed the courts with idiologs and racists, etc, etc, etc.

Hillary hasn't raised any money and the others have so much momentum.

[shahani]

Hillary doesn't need that much money. You need money if you don't have a national stature. And as Bill O'Reilly says, they (the 9 democratic candidates) are boring.

Hillary is already way ahead of any of these guys in terms of visibility and can afford to start a campaign late. But don't forget the Clintons' abilities in fund raising.

While I agree that many of the candidates would be better than Bush, I don't agree that all are. Not Sharpton for sure.

Dean or Kerry would make fine Presidents as would Lieberman but he's not likely to win in this country.

[MTAtech]

I originally agreed with you, JHS, about Sharpton. He never had a real job so why should he be prez? However, could he possibly do a worse job than Bush?

Bush has in three years given us a debt that in percent of GDP terms is worse than Argentina’s. He unnecessarily rushed us to war that we are now committed to for years – perhaps decades and makes us less safe, not safer. He passed legislation that tramples on our guaranteed rights as Americans and which go beyond anything conceivably necessary to fight terrorism (authorizing "sneak and peek" delayed-notification searches; the notorious Section 215, which allows the FBI to secretly access personal records from bookstores, libraries, medical and educational facilities without probable cause, and section 802, which defines "domestic terrorism" too broadly and could allow the FBI to harass advocacy groups for their political activity). He’s trying to pack the federal courts with reactionaries that have 19th century mind-sets and who some are racists. He’s rolled back environmental protection. He has no meaningful energy policy. He's tried to change the FCC rules so a few media conglomerates can control all the news and information in a regional market. Even the Republican Congress is up in arms about that.

Lieberman is more like Bush-lite. We saw from the mid-term elections how well that strategy worked.

As you know, I'm supporting Howard Dean. I would like him to ask Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) - former head of NATO to be the VP running mate. I also think, if elected, he should keep Secy Powell. Powell would be a much better Secy of State if he wasn't playing second fiddle to Rummy.

[osprey4]

Originally posted by shahani
My prediction is that Hillary will jump in despite all her denials.

Hillary's candidacy is more likely because of her denials.

Dean is the Republican's dream-come-true. Throw in another Nader run and they've got it sewn up.

[MTAtech]

Dean is the Republican's dream-come-true.

Karl Rove said that too. I assume you say this because the pundits have marked him as a liberal. However, when you look at his record, that is not so evident. He opposed the Iraq War, a position looking more and more wise which each passing day. He was Gov. of VT, a state that did not require a balanced budget and took a deficit budget and made it balance - by mostly cutting spending. In VT, because of Dr. Dean, almost everyone has health care coverage. He has a particular un-liberal high rating by the NRA.

What is most appealing about Dean is his willingness to say what is on his mind and he says it articulately - not at all like GWB. (He also earned his Yale admission and degree, unlike GWB.) When other politicians thought it was political suicide to speak out against the Iraq war or the Patriot Act, he was doing just that. History is showing that he was right. Now other candidates and politicians are mimicking his positions. We call that leadership.

[Epidemic]

Bush has in three years given us a debt that in percent of GDP terms is worse than Argentina’s.

Once again I ask.

Was the debt Bush's fault?

Sometimes taking out a loan makes a stronger company does it not? Investing in the economy through tax cuts is a possible solution.

What would the democratic candidates have done to strengthen the economy? Some of them agree with the tax cut but scaled down. Some would have increased taxes to improve the economy ??????????? Yea that is solid thinking.

I Have not heard a presidential democratic candidate submit one solid plan of action. I hear them say how bad bush has handled the economy yet none of them have an alternative.

SO bush handled the economy bad during a world wide recession after a tremendous terrorist blow. I see.

Oh yea and the economy seems to be chugging back to life by all accounts. If our GDP goes up revenues will go up and ummm deficit will be reduced.

So lets raise taxes to 99% on big business and CEO's and help boost employment?

"we will show them big businesses we won't give any assistance when they faulter" That way we can insure all the manufacturing towns prosper.

We will raise taxes on companies that way they can raise their prices and ultimately get the tax cut money back from the people with out them seeing a net gain.

Come on someone tell me how the democrats would have improved the economy. Please exclude the war from economy talks at this point. Assume the war had not happend what would your candidate do to improve things.