QUESTION FOR NALDS

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun

"Democrats support Medicare/MedicAid, Republicans (at least according to perception) do not." - Kevin

Wrong....according to the media.

You're ignorant.

"Surplus and economic strength are synonymous with Clinton, whereas recession and job loss have become so with Bush." - Kevin

Any moron can see through this if they choose to. Clinton never did nothing to spur economic growth while Bush Sr. gave Clinton a recovered economy. Bush Jr. obviously had trouble with 9/11 but managed to get a quicker recovery by pushing through tax cuts which were proven to help economic growth back in the 80's. And when Bush is reelected this year it's really going to blow you theory out of the water. How's it going to look when the economy is booming under Bush the next 4 years?

I'm going to avoid the errors and gross exaggerations you've given here, and stick to perception, since that's often what politics is, and is also the theme of the conversation. For an example, latest Zogby polls show that Kerry has a larger lead over Bush amongst those polled who belive that "economy/jobs" is the #1 issue in the election. This is not bad news for liberals, rather, it's bad news for BUSH, because economy and jobs always decide the race ultimately.

"Pushing Weekly Standard articles with data from the Cato Institute hasn't changed the perception of the average American that the economy isn't doing great. You're assumption that good economy = bad for Democrats can't be quantified." - Kevin

It will. It's only natural that people's opinions are going to be sluggish in times like this.....they always have been. But there are many more months before the election....very soon unemployment will be very low.....oil prices will have to drop before too long....The Iraq situation can't get any worse (the media has already maxed out on the amount of negative publicity without facing a public backlash).....

Thank you Nostradamus, you're right, things might change. But this has always been the case. Bush I was a successful war president who got beaten but the economy. Some polls showed him with a double digit lead over Clinton at this point. You could perhaps make the argument that what's bad for the country is good for any challenger, and bad for any incumbent, but your assertion that good things= bad for liberals is so stupid I'd have to chastize a 5 yr. old for saying it, let alone a grown man....

Usama may be captured or killed.....democrats are talking about picking a republican VP.....Kerry wants to delay his nomination but go ahead with the convention......

And here we drift off into Raygun Land. The world could end tomorrow, while we're speculating.

Democrats are talking about picking a real conservative to steal real conservative voters from a Republican. It isn't desperation, it's smart politics. It's equally smart that they just threw the possibility out there, even though it was unlikely, because it associates Kerry with a well respected senator.

The convention issue, IMO, is a bit unethical, but perfectly legal. Once again, smart politics, not desperation.

It's looks bad for you and all your little leftist buddies.

You need a self-help program, or something. You are off.