POLL: Do you think Bush should be replaced in the next election

Remove all ads!

As per the title

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 54 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Do you think Bush should be replaced in the next election (54 votes.)

Do you think Bush should be replaced in the next election (Choose 1)
* Yes - 76% (41)
* No - 24% (13)

 

Fingers, toes, arms, and legs crossed.

Should he be? Absolutely. Will he be? I'm scared to admit that I highly doubt it.

 

Yes. The bigger question is who. On another site I visit they're going to have a betting pool on who will win (Bush vs. someone else) with the "winnings" going to Doctors Without Borders. A fun way of increasing interest early in the stage.

 

Good God, yes.

The man is a retard, for crying out loud. And not only that, he's a retard who commands the biggest military machine on earth. He can't even string together words to form one (count'em: 1) coherent sentence without reading it off a teleprompter. His PR people must be wetting themselves with fear every time the man is near a TV-camera without a script in front of him.

The only problem is: what will Jay Leno, David Letterman and all the others do for material when Dubya is gone? They'll have to go back to making things up, instead of having it handed it to them on a silver platter day after day...

 

I don't think anyone better will come up to the plate. That doesn't mean he's a genius, just that he's about what we get these days, politician wise -- and it's not just the US!

I don't think that, fundamentally speaking, Gore would have done things very much differently than Dubya. I say, better the devil you know . . .

 

I notice a few people so far have said "no." I'd like to hear why.

 

I voted for yes, but I would like to add that the yes stems only from my disdain about external politics. Since I am clueless about internal politics in the USA I don't feel like I should judge anyone or anybody in that department.

 

It's not going to happen. too many Americans consider him to be a hero. it saddens me to say this however, most people in the U.S. have no idea how or why their government works (or dosen't work) and don't want to. as long as they have someone to cheer, or jeer as the case may be, they're happy.

I personaly could care less. as always i'll try to choose the lesser of two evils.

 

Ooooooooo yes, Shrub is the worst we've had in a long time; maybe since Jimmy Carter. I don't agree that someone in the center would be best. I think Howard Dean has the best shot, because he is a study in contrast to Shrub. Those who like Shrub will not change their vote for someone who is only somewhere in between. The conventional wisdom is that someone who is plain vanilla has the best chance. I just don't agree. That is the sure way to keep Bush. I don't think Nader will run this time, so Dean will get my vote unless he turns into something unexpected, like Satan.

 

The poll results are pret' lopsided - because of the way the poll is constructed. A much better question to ask is, "Do you think Bush should be replaced by [specific candidate]?". The problem with an open-ended poll question like this is that everyone fantasizes about their ideal replacement, and sets that candidate against Bush. Dean? Sharpton? Kerry? They all get lumped together in a poll like this, amplifying their collective strength and blanketing their individual weaknesses. But come November 2004, a single opposition candidate will emerge, a mess of the contradictions and compromises necessary to win both the primary and election.

I think a half-year from now, when the Democratic candidate has been firmly decided, we can run this poll again - and we'll see how many people think then that Bush should be replaced by Candidate X, whose vulnerabilities will be on full display.

 

(sorry for earlier .. grump comments ... apologies all around ... but still don't like comments like

I am very thankful that we have Bush in the White House for the past years, and not the Clinton administration (who let Bin Laden go many times, and who tried terrorists as criminals instead of combatants so that we could not use the Grand Jury testimony).

I could go on a longer rant, but it would open a can of worms I don't have the time to tie together.

So, in short, NO, I hope he stays.

[ September 12, 2003, 16:15: Message edited by: Mathetais ]

 

@Chandros

I think the worst president in history was probably Johnson. He kept the Vietnam war going for years, then Nixon pulled the US troops but kept paying Laos to fight the VC's.

@Beren

I totally agree with you about Mulroney. He's the one that started our 900 billion debt. Trudeau was the one that really began it, but Brian made an ass out of the country. I don't like Jean either because he's not doing anything about the debt, or giving us any hope for the next 500 years (which is how long it'll take us to pay 900 billion ). I hope Layton doesn't get in and I hope Martin doesn't get in. The one I want? Only Superman could get my vote. The least frustrating choice to me is Harper. Who knows.

 

Not at all. We may be the most right-wing party in Canada but we're more left-wing by American standards than the Democrats as we are absolutely in favour of keeping universally available health care and we don't have any interest in reducing taxes as low as the Americans. We'd just be happy to get total taxation for the average Canadian under 50%.

Unfortunately, because we are now the Official Opposition party, a lot of our policies are dictated for us - whatever the Liberals do, we have to take the opposite position regardless of our feelings, a bit like a defence attorney with a rapist for a client. I think that's the reason Stephen Harper is so gung-ho to send Canadian troops to Iraq and opposing gay marriage. Five years ago, Stephen Harper was totally in favour of gay marriage and he was more active within libertarian groups than with the authoritarian branch of right-wingness, it's just his present position as Leader of the Opposition causing him to take this stand against the Liberal party's sudden burst of actual liberalism. Well, that's my take anyway. I've sent him a very nasty note complaining about his reversals of position.

I don't have an opinion on Bush. I'd like to see his neocon advisors take a long walk on a short plank though.

 

If not him, then who?

 

Well, Johnson was a little before my time, but the thing about Carter was that he lacked competence. That seems to be Bush's biggest shortcoming, IMHO. Other than that, I thought that Carter was a pretty decent guy. My humble assessment of presidents was only in recent years. The all-time worst Prez on my list is Calvin Coolidge: The most know-nothing-do-nothing prez in our history.

But Johnson was also known for his "Great Society" programs. I agree with the tenor of this kind of social approach to government, although most of the programs had mixed results because of execution.

By the way, Mystra, it is Chandos. I'm sure the real Sir John Chandos would want you to know.

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/froissart/chandos2.htm

[ September 17, 2003, 04:26: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

two things...

a) I bet I'm younger than you, as I don't remember Carter when he was in.

b) Sorry I goofed on your name. I read "The Death of Sir Chandos" and "How Sir John Chandos
rescued the Earl of Pembroke". Frankly, I'm surprised you want to be known after someone who tripped on his robe and fell on a lance, no matter how hardy or valiant or courteous he was.

[ September 17, 2003, 05:17: Message edited by: Mystra's Chosen ]

 

Mystra - Yes, I remember both Carter and Reagan. The frist election I was old enough to vote was Reagan/Mondale. Some choice. But the hits just keep coming.

And you worry too much over little details. Chill out!

 

yeah