I've felt for some months now that the biggest roadblock to the Democrats ability to defeat Bush was the feeling among many Democrats that Bush was undefeatable so why even bother trying?

Polls like this might inspire those doom-n-gloomers to reconsider.

I've long thought Bush was undefeatable, but I'm definitely starting to come around. These days he's looking more vulnerable than ever - the SOTU went over like a lead balloon, but more importantly I think it's becoming clear to average Americans just how massive the deficit is, and just how wrong the prewar predictions about WMD were. Older voters especially see through the irresponsibility of all this...

how well do you think kerry will come across in the debates. i am thinking pretty horribly.

OK, but the glass is half-empty as well as half-full:

Any news that Monkey Boy is likely to lose office is good news, but your poll data also shows just how rotten and fascistic American society is these days.

I mean, more people care about the economy than illegal foreign wars of aggression?!? The ability to buy a widescreen TV and new SUV trumps the lives of others? So if the Iraq War had helped the economy, it would be OK with the body politic? Just like Hitler was OK with all the "good Germans" because he pulled the economy out of the shithole, I suppose.

Yeah, David B. I am that "fascist". Funny what losing your job will do to you.

Look, I still care - deeply - about the bullshit that Bush played on Iraq - but don't you dare trivialize my concerns about my tenuous hold on my career with your stupid remarks about SUVs and widescreens.

Both issues are important.

I've been saying this since 2000. No president has ever (that is EVER, unless I'm mistaken) won re-election when the economy has been significantly worse after his first term. Make of that what you will. OTOH, I never considered that the democrats would be as weak and complicit as they have been these last 3 years.

He's a looser. Look at the guy. What has he ever done right in his life? His first marriage, his drunk kids, his lack of service, his inability to find oil in Texas, his education BS as Gov., his national economy, his Iraq mess, and on it goes.............

He's a looser. Look at the guy. What has he ever done right in his life? His first marriage, his drunk kids, his lack of service, his inability to find oil in Texas, his education BS as Gov., his national economy, his Iraq mess, and on it goes.............

"Yeah, David B. I am that "fascist". Funny what losing your job will do to you."

My condolences. Welcome to the club.

Still, I may be without a job but others are without their lives as a result of Bush's foibles. I still consider the latter fact more important. In fact, I find it bizarre that anyone would consider otherwise. I guess the lives of darker-skinned peoples in the less-developed countries just don't count as much as the money of those in the rich countries.

An operating principle which explains a lot about the world we live in.

That's not to bash Steve or anyone else -- there's a tremendous amount if implicit violence and racism in the system, and it's all to easy to get sucked along into it.

The fact that the "deficit" rank high among concerns shows how the "right-wing" have actually won the issue of the budget.

The fact is that the "deficit" is not really the issue in fact we NEED deficit spending to really turn 20 years of blight around. The real issue is SPENDING PRIORITIES.

Running a deficit in itself is not bad if that borrowing is used for constructive investment such as infrastructure, health care, and jobs and job training. However much of the deficit and the accompanying debt has been accumulated via needless military spending and tax cuts for the wealthy.

However enbracing "deficit" as the problem means that ANY deficit spending will be argue against even if that deficit spending is needed to repair the ecomony and help working class citizens.

I hope the folks on this board can be clear of the difference between very needed deficit spending and spending priorities.

WB

Wilson,

I think most people on this board agree with you. But most people have also probably bought into the ABB approach to the 2004 elections, and given the ascendency of the DLC and their candidates in the primaries, were pretty much stuck with either (a) supporting a deficit hawk against Bush, or (b) not voting for the Dem nominee. So I think by going with ABB we've implicity agreed not to make your very valid argument very loudly this year.