Trump '19 v. Dubya '03: who is/was in better shape for re-election?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:50:08 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2020 U.S. Presidential Election (Moderators: Likely Voter, YE)
  Trump '19 v. Dubya '03: who is/was in better shape for re-election?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Trump '19 v. Dubya '03: who is/was in better shape for re-election?  (Read 3196 times)
ηєω ƒяσηтιєя
New Frontier
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,229
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 26, 2019, 01:29:37 PM »

Bush. As you indicated, he was still riding high after the Iraq invasion, and the war had not yet started to show signs of going badly. His approval ratings were better than Trump's at this point.

The guy with approval ratings in the 70s or the guy with approval ratings in the low 40s?

How is this a question?

Logged
Agonized-Statism
Anarcho-Statism
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,802


Political Matrix
E: -9.10, S: -5.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 26, 2019, 03:30:25 PM »

Bush. 9/11.
Logged
Blue3
Starwatcher
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,035
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 26, 2019, 06:28:42 PM »

George W Bush, by every metric.

Still in post-9/11 patriotism "high".
Iraq had not yet turned sour.
Katrina had not happened yet.
Recession had not happened yet.

I was paying attention then. I never thought he had that much of a chance of losing.
Logged
UnselfconsciousTeff
Rookie
**
Posts: 238
Egypt


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 26, 2019, 06:30:37 PM »

Trump. Outside of his Twitter crap, he's not really having an effect on your average Joe's Daily life. I think the average perception of America, from an economic standpoint (which, at the end of the day, is what matters) is that things are good and getting better.

Bush in 2003 was preparing to send us into a war. He was much more direct and lines were being drawn. Kerry's weakness and the Presidency incumbency + Being a wartime President saved him. The War in Iraq, while not as unpopular as later, was on everyone's minds at this point in 2003.

This
Logged
SN2903
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,676
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: 3.91

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 26, 2019, 11:43:54 PM »

Trump. Outside of his Twitter crap, he's not really having an effect on your average Joe's Daily life. I think the average perception of America, from an economic standpoint (which, at the end of the day, is what matters) is that things are good and getting better.

Bush in 2003 was preparing to send us into a war. He was much more direct and lines were being drawn. Kerry's weakness and the Presidency incumbency + Being a wartime President saved him. The War in Iraq, while not as unpopular as later, was on everyone's minds at this point in 2003.

This
I agree with a previous poster that Trump is on an upward trajectory. I think he will get more popular in 2020 than he is now and if he wins in 2020 which I think he will he will end up getting into the 50s in approval for his 2nd term on average. Bush was on a downward trajectory in approval in 03 04 cause of Iraq.
Logged
pbrower2a
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,841
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 27, 2019, 10:11:41 AM »

Lean Trump ,but they are really two totally opposite situations.  Trump has weak-ish approvals and polling vs. challengers but appears to be on a upward trajectory.  Bush 43 looked like he was going to be reelected in a historic landslide at this point in his 1st term, then made a long string of unforced errors for the last ~18 months and only eeked it out by one state. 

There's a pretty long history of 2 term presidents being underwater in approvals and losing to challengers in horserace polls 2-3 years into their first term and then rallying back to majority approval and a win by election day.  Reagan looked very weak in 1982-83, as did Obama in 2011.  Truman was famously written off as a double digit loser until staging a comeback in the last 6 weeks of the 1948 campaign.   

Conversely, Carter and Bush 41 looked like strong favorites until the last year of their terms.  Bush 43 was basically following that path.  The most interesting part is that he still managed to limp over the line and win reelection. 

Trump is already offending enough people to have disapproval numbers consistently in the mid-50's or higher. He reeks of corruption and cruelty. If the economy is humming, it is humming only for the super-rich who are on a speculative binge sure to end in a crash.

Reagan was reeling from his economic contraction to put an end to stagflation. His solution was to turn over-educated people into store clerks -- and they were told if they thought the pay inadequate, then supplement the meager pay with another such job. People who dreamed of something else became the best salesclerks we ever had -- educated people hawking housewares  and underwear in the shopping malls. That may have strengthened the American economy. People learned that marketing was magic, and ivory-tower idealism futile.

Obama never had disapproval levels as high as those that Trump has consistently had.  Maybe he got re-elected over the dead body of Osama bin Laden -- but such is what happens if one has a foreign policy best described as a velvet glove over a mailed fist. It also helps that Obama ran a clean administration.

Donald Trump's America is a landlord's paradise and a nightmare for tenants.

Logged
Minnesota Mike
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,957


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 27, 2019, 10:22:36 AM »

Bush, absolutely. How is this even a question?
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,500
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: April 27, 2019, 07:50:49 PM »

W, he didn't permanently alienate nearly as many people as Trump has (at least not by 2003 when he was still fairly popular). Trump's brand is an extremely high risk one.

This.  Although I view Trump's potential opposition as being weaker as well.
Logged
Bootes Void
iamaganster123
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,682
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: November 27, 2020, 10:31:20 PM »

Lol at the people who said Trump
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: November 27, 2020, 10:54:51 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.

Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: November 27, 2020, 11:04:16 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.
Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,394


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: November 27, 2020, 11:13:39 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

That's not really the question, though.  The question was:  who was in a better position to win a year from the election? 
Logged
ηєω ƒяσηтιєя
New Frontier
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,229
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -1.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: November 27, 2020, 11:31:00 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

That's not really the question, though.  The question was:  who was in a better position to win a year from the election? 
In November 2003, George W. Bush had a 54% approval rating and still had a lot of political goodwill after 9/11.

In November 2019, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating and was in the midst of an impeachment scandal.


It's not even a comparison. Dubya was in a MUCH better position and that ended up coming to fruition in 2004 with his re-election. Trump lost.
Logged
South Dakota Democrat
jrk26
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,394


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: November 27, 2020, 11:37:06 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

That's not really the question, though.  The question was:  who was in a better position to win a year from the election? 
In November 2003, George W. Bush had a 54% approval rating and still had a lot of political goodwill after 9/11.

In November 2019, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating and was in the midst of an impeachment scandal.


It's not even a comparison. Dubya was in a MUCH better position and that ended up coming to fruition in 2004 with his re-election. Trump lost.

I'm not arguing with the person I quoted's conclusion...just their really stupid reasoning to get to that conclusion.
Logged
Hammy
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,711
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2020, 03:20:32 AM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

That's not really the question, though.  The question was:  who was in a better position to win a year from the election?  
In November 2003, George W. Bush had a 54% approval rating and still had a lot of political goodwill after 9/11.

In November 2019, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating and was in the midst of an impeachment scandal.


It's not even a comparison. Dubya was in a MUCH better position and that ended up coming to fruition in 2004 with his re-election. Trump lost.

I'm not arguing with the person I quoted's conclusion...just their really stupid reasoning to get to that conclusion.

It's no worse than citing how much the winning candidate won by as evidence the person that lost was in a better position because he lost by less--which was literally the point I was replying to.
Logged
Progressive Pessimist
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,547
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.71, S: -7.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: November 28, 2020, 08:15:51 PM »

At least this thread aged okay.
Logged
Mr. Smith
MormDem
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 33,072
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: November 28, 2020, 08:20:15 PM »


Not really lolworthy. Trump outperformed and still held in the 40's, and if some 45,000 votes went differently [or 110,000 votes...similar to Bush's Ohio margin], he'd probably have stayed flat to the end.

In other words, Bush needed to do more to get through, but also could afford to lose more things too...whereas Trump was always a careful balance.



Except..  Bush actually won reelection, and Trump didn't--thus Bush was clearly in a better position to win.

I could add that the College was against him, whereas Trump had quite the reserve.

Oh and ftr, I believe I said Bush had the advantage, only that I could see the arguments on the other side.
Logged
morgankingsley
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,018
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2020, 02:54:00 AM »

While trump was in his best ever state a year ago, mostly the march to july 2019 frame, bush in his first term after 9/11 was always the favorite to win. While I can see where somebody is heading by saying trump had a much easier path to win if you look at the results and how close both elections came to going the other way, there is not doubt bush had the better spot one year prior
Logged
MIKESOWELL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 535
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2020, 03:47:17 AM »

I get the feeling that some on this forum may remember the super unpopular Bush from late 2007-2008 but not the Bush from late 2001-2004 that routinely had approval ratings in the 60-80 percent range.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2020, 10:16:15 AM »
« Edited: November 29, 2020, 10:25:21 AM by Chocolate Thunder »

I get the feeling that some on this forum may remember the super unpopular Bush from late 2007-2008 but not the Bush from late 2001-2004 that routinely had approval ratings in the 60-80 percent range.

I just remember thinking he would have a hard time because he almost lost the first time and people were struggling after 9/11 and the IT bubble.

Afterwards, I thought he won because his religious stuff was really popular but it turned out in retrospect that the opposition couldn’t get their story straight on the war and people still thought it was going to end soon and well.

A lot of people thought that Trump was going to get the same benefit of the doubt and the way Republicans overperformed tended to show that. Or it could be that the incumbent ground game normally produces a few million extra voters.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.057 seconds with 12 queries.