Sad news from the US election front
Posted by: Justin on 17 October 2004
Honestly, I have no idea what is happening over here. Popular opinion after all three of the presidential debate and the vice presidential debate had the nod going to Kerry/Edwards. Polls for Kerry Edwards were very encouraging between the second and third debate.
Now, however, he is down an average of about 4 points in all the polls. I don't get it. The polls have turned on him to the tune of 3 to 4 points since the final debate - one he was credited with winning by most popular polls.
Bush seems to be pulling ahead daily and solidifying his lead. I can't figure it out. Given the bad news in Iraq, the record highs for oil and the lackluster economy, how is it that Bush had managed to pull ahead in the popular polls AND go north of 50% on job approval? Is Kerry simply that incompetent of a candidate?
Mystified in Cleveland.
Judd
Now, however, he is down an average of about 4 points in all the polls. I don't get it. The polls have turned on him to the tune of 3 to 4 points since the final debate - one he was credited with winning by most popular polls.
Bush seems to be pulling ahead daily and solidifying his lead. I can't figure it out. Given the bad news in Iraq, the record highs for oil and the lackluster economy, how is it that Bush had managed to pull ahead in the popular polls AND go north of 50% on job approval? Is Kerry simply that incompetent of a candidate?
Mystified in Cleveland.
Judd
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by Steve Toy
If Americans were silly enough the first time they can be as silly the second time.
With Bush what you see is what you get - a buffoon who makes the right noises.
Regards,
Steve.
With Bush what you see is what you get - a buffoon who makes the right noises.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by ErikL
I guess all the spinsters and pundits saying Kerry was inappropriate in mentioning Cheney's lesbian daughter worked?
Give the new ads some time to bite (check them out on johnkerry.com).
Only the approval rating matters, and the 12 polls differ from a few points above 50% to a few below. So quit worrying and start convincing your fellow Clevelanders to vote for Kerry, damn it.
Give the new ads some time to bite (check them out on johnkerry.com).
Only the approval rating matters, and the 12 polls differ from a few points above 50% to a few below. So quit worrying and start convincing your fellow Clevelanders to vote for Kerry, damn it.
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
quote:
Is Kerry simply that incompetent of a candidate?
Probably not. The Republican Party would appear to be leading the nation in a manner that suits the majority of the electorate. Simple really.
Jim
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by Deane F
I hope to God that Bush loses the election. I'm watching it as closely as I can given that I live in another country.
Does anybody know how accurate the polls have been in the past compared to the final results?
Deane
Does anybody know how accurate the polls have been in the past compared to the final results?
Deane
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
I hope to God he wins it. Polls on a state by state electoral basis are quite accurate.
Jim
Jim
Posted on: 17 October 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Lawson:
I hope to God he wins it. Polls on a state by state electoral basis are quite accurate.
Jim
Jim
Why do you want Bush to win the election?
Deane
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by matthewr
"Why do you want Bush to win the election?"
Yes I'd be interested to hear why someone would vote Bush from a typical (assuming Jim is typical) American as well. The rest of the world finds it very hard to understand why anyone would vote for Bush let alone 50 million or so people so it would be very interesting.
Is it like a "lifelong Republican" thing? An aversion to voting Democrat come what may?
How does one rationalise the difficulties with the Iraq situation and Bush's poor record domestically with the economy, healthcare, etc.
Matthew
Yes I'd be interested to hear why someone would vote Bush from a typical (assuming Jim is typical) American as well. The rest of the world finds it very hard to understand why anyone would vote for Bush let alone 50 million or so people so it would be very interesting.
Is it like a "lifelong Republican" thing? An aversion to voting Democrat come what may?
How does one rationalise the difficulties with the Iraq situation and Bush's poor record domestically with the economy, healthcare, etc.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Derek Wright
Bush has a greater affinity with the people in the country side who are put off by Kerry's liberal/east coast /Boston demeanour
The "good ole boy" approach appeals to a lot of dirt poor americans
Derek
<< >>
The "good ole boy" approach appeals to a lot of dirt poor americans
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by matthewr
The "good ole boy" approach appeals to a lot of dirt poor americans
Really? If you are poor surely the last thing you would do is vote for Bush?
Certainly virtually all the US Diabetics I know (who tend to be less well off and have obvious concerns about healthcare) are in favour of Kerry.
Matthew
Really? If you are poor surely the last thing you would do is vote for Bush?
Certainly virtually all the US Diabetics I know (who tend to be less well off and have obvious concerns about healthcare) are in favour of Kerry.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Derek Wright
Does Cheyney have a new name? <g>
Seen in a car park in Santa Fe (where there was a lot of pro Kerry pubicity)
Derek
<< >>
Seen in a car park in Santa Fe (where there was a lot of pro Kerry pubicity)
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Joe Petrik
This may give non-American readers some insight into the mind of the more rabid Bush supporter.
Makes me wonder how some in the U.S. would welcome British opinion if they had opposed the Iraq War and didn't commit troops.
Joe
Makes me wonder how some in the U.S. would welcome British opinion if they had opposed the Iraq War and didn't commit troops.
Joe
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Simon Perry
Matthew,
Some people I have met who are republicans claim that the economy was beginning to dip at the end of the Clinton era. And they don't care about healthcare 'cos, well, they just don't care period. Lower taxes (real or imagined) and bombing foreign countries are perfectly consistent with their wants and needs from a president. Lord help us.
Simon
Some people I have met who are republicans claim that the economy was beginning to dip at the end of the Clinton era. And they don't care about healthcare 'cos, well, they just don't care period. Lower taxes (real or imagined) and bombing foreign countries are perfectly consistent with their wants and needs from a president. Lord help us.
Simon
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by ejl
quote:
Yes I'd be interested to hear why someone would vote Bush from a typical (assuming Jim is typical) American as well.
Matthew,
It's mostly religion and wealth, or fantasies surrounding both, imo.
The religion part is well-known, I guess, but it's worth remembering that many believers, including those who don't identify themselves as fundamentalists, have this kind of inverted-spectrum view in which individual moral failings are the true cause of the scary things they see on t.v. So if the govt. enforces moral codes everything will improve.
A Catholic bishop in Denver last week expressed this attitude with shocking directness. He said that anyone who votes for Kerry will need to go confess their sin. Why? Because Kerry supports abortion. The Bishop said quite explicitly that abortion trumps all other issues, including unjust killing in war or through the death penalty.*
On the wealth front, you have to remember that Americans tend to quite optimistically and irrationally identify themselves with economic brackets considerably above their own. (There is some interesting empirical evidence supporting this generalization.) So they see tax cuts for the rich as ultimately benefitting them, since they're going to be rich one day. The illusion probably comes from this "land of opportunity" rhetoric that you're stuffed full of here from childhood on.
Eric
*He had a lame "argument" for this assertion that I'll spare you.
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
Short answer, I'd like the Republicans to win because they have done a good job of leading the nation out of a recession, have prevented further terrorist attacks on American soil and worked with coalition forces to bring about change for the better in Afghanistan. I think that they will do a better job of leading America than any of the other parties. I don't agree with everything that they have done or say that they will do but they are the best choice in my opinion. I have many friends who disagree with my opinion and some who agree.
Jim
Jim
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by ejl
Jim,
To the extent we're out of a recession, it's largely because of all-time record federal deficit spending ($413bn for '04), which generated a temporary boost with massive tax breaks.
Individual savings rates have shrunk to <1%, and consumer spending is currently above what even conservative economists regard as sustainable. In other words, we're almost certain to see continued sluggishness in the economy, and we're likely to see a return to recession soon.
In future recessions, it's going to be much harder to keep interest rates low as an economic stimulus because -- thanks to the enormous deficit spending -- the U.S. is going to have trouble selling securities. So low-interest rate stimulus programs are less likely to be around to pull us out in the future thanks to Bush's record deficit spending.
Interesting discussion of all this in last week's Economist (a conservative publication, fwiw).
So Bush's recovery plan (tax cuts and massive deficit spending) will cost us dearly down the road and was not sustainable. Arguably, it's a complete disaster for the future, but maybe you have reasons showing why not.
To the extent we're out of a recession, it's largely because of all-time record federal deficit spending ($413bn for '04), which generated a temporary boost with massive tax breaks.
Individual savings rates have shrunk to <1%, and consumer spending is currently above what even conservative economists regard as sustainable. In other words, we're almost certain to see continued sluggishness in the economy, and we're likely to see a return to recession soon.
In future recessions, it's going to be much harder to keep interest rates low as an economic stimulus because -- thanks to the enormous deficit spending -- the U.S. is going to have trouble selling securities. So low-interest rate stimulus programs are less likely to be around to pull us out in the future thanks to Bush's record deficit spending.
Interesting discussion of all this in last week's Economist (a conservative publication, fwiw).
So Bush's recovery plan (tax cuts and massive deficit spending) will cost us dearly down the road and was not sustainable. Arguably, it's a complete disaster for the future, but maybe you have reasons showing why not.
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Joe Petrik
Alex,
I don't know what percentage of the U.S. population is represented by some of the more offensive, misinformed and mindlessly jingoistic replies, but such people do exist. Thankfully, they are a minority and don't represent anywhere close to the mainstream view. But these people tend to be very vocal, so they get undue attention.
My views run rather left -- if I could cast a ballot and if so much weren't at stake in this election, Nader would get my vote -- so to say I occasionally feel like a fish out of water is a bit of an understatement. But, to be honest, I feel more that way when I watch Fox News or listen to talk radio than when I talk to people at work or on the street. Most Americans I have met have a more enlightened, cosmopolitan view of the world, unlike some of the rude ignoramuses among the compiled replies. But in a county of almost 290 million people, even a percentage or two of wackos amount to a lot of people.
Joe
quote:
Do people really think like that?
I don't know what percentage of the U.S. population is represented by some of the more offensive, misinformed and mindlessly jingoistic replies, but such people do exist. Thankfully, they are a minority and don't represent anywhere close to the mainstream view. But these people tend to be very vocal, so they get undue attention.
quote:
As a non-US person, how do you feel about it all?
My views run rather left -- if I could cast a ballot and if so much weren't at stake in this election, Nader would get my vote -- so to say I occasionally feel like a fish out of water is a bit of an understatement. But, to be honest, I feel more that way when I watch Fox News or listen to talk radio than when I talk to people at work or on the street. Most Americans I have met have a more enlightened, cosmopolitan view of the world, unlike some of the rude ignoramuses among the compiled replies. But in a county of almost 290 million people, even a percentage or two of wackos amount to a lot of people.
Joe
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
quote:
Economist (a conservative publication, fwiw).
That's funny.
The sky is falling.
Thanks for the lesson.
Jim
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by ejl
Jim,
Have you ever read it?
You're welcome, by the way.
Eric
Have you ever read it?
You're welcome, by the way.
Eric
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
The Economist ? Yes. I had a subscription while at Univertsity but never renewed it. The article you mention ? No I haven't.
Repecting your opinion, I will read it over. A friend has a subscription and I'll borrow hers. Is that still legal ?
Take care
Jim
Repecting your opinion, I will read it over. A friend has a subscription and I'll borrow hers. Is that still legal ?
Take care
Jim
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
quote:
But in a county of almost 290 million people, even a percentage or two of wackos amount to a lot of people.
Agreed.
Jim
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Justin
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Lawson:quote:
Economist (a conservative publication, fwiw).
That's funny.
The sky is falling.
Thanks for the lesson.
Jim
Are you saying that the Economist is nota conservative publication? Get to a few copies soon. In order to demonstrate its bona fides with you, check out a few issues from a year or so ago, when it didn't appear that Bush was handling this war as incompetently as he is/has. They were/are firmly pro-war and pro-outsourcing. For a magazine that does not (generally) get into social issues (gay marriage, stem cell research) etc., it sets forth all of the "conservative" positions with respect to foreign policy and the economy.
Judd
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Bhoyo
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
Makes me wonder how some in the U.S. would welcome British opinion if they had opposed the Iraq War and didn't commit troops.
Joe
Ahem. I warned of just this type of reaction last week when the Guardian first proposed that Clark County nonsense.
The US is a much more foreign country than most British people can possibly imagine, especially outside the major cities.
Remember that many Bush supporters are voting based on fundamentalist Christianity and deeply rooted conservatism; the effect on their wallets isn't a factor.
Regards,
Davie
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Bhoyo:
Remember that many Bush supporters are voting based on fundamentalist Christianity and deeply rooted conservatism; the effect on their wallets isn't a factor.
Interesting that you use the "F" word Bhoyo. I have never had the pleasure of visiting the US but the qualities of fundamentalist viewpoints don't change with religion. I suppose that a strong presence of christian fundamentalism in mainstream USA would explain the strong fear of islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.
Deane
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
quote:
Are you saying that the Economist is nota conservative publication? Get to a few copies soon. In order to demonstrate its bona fides with you, check out a few issues from a year or so ago, when it didn't appear that Bush was handling this war as incompetently as he is/has. They were/are firmly pro-war and pro-outsourcing. For a magazine that does not (generally) get into social issues (gay marriage, stem cell research) etc., it sets forth all of the "conservative" positions with respect to foreign policy and the economy.
Justin,
Put down the hash pipe and speak s-l-o-w-l-y...
Jim
Posted on: 18 October 2004 by Jim Lawson
ejl
I just read the article in the Economist that you mentioned. There’s no question that clear budget policy rules to limit federal spending would be wise pro-growth policy. Nor is there any question that entire departments, agencies, commissions, and unworkable and overlapping programs should be abolished. Corporations have done this time and again over the past two decades. Fair point. How will Kerry change the current policy ? How will his fiscal policy keep the majority happy ?
Regards,
Jim
I just read the article in the Economist that you mentioned. There’s no question that clear budget policy rules to limit federal spending would be wise pro-growth policy. Nor is there any question that entire departments, agencies, commissions, and unworkable and overlapping programs should be abolished. Corporations have done this time and again over the past two decades. Fair point. How will Kerry change the current policy ? How will his fiscal policy keep the majority happy ?
Regards,
Jim