The US election

Judd,

After your first paragraph, I thought there was hope.

Then I read the second.......

If Bush does win in November, it'll be similar to here in the UK, though it has to be said that things are sooo one-sided here that Blair could spend the whole of the election campaign at his Tuscany holiday retreat and he'd still win.

Regards,

JonR

Something on NPR clicked with me the other day, and that is- the only poll/data that matters is Bush's approval rating, because on election day his votes will converge around it.

His approval rating history is here.

Re: Bush's competitiveness despite his failures, he has an exponentially superior campaign organization, and Kerry's people try to play hardball without offending anyone or losing moderate voters. Not possible as the challenger IMO. Also consider the size of the NRA, the number of evangelicals (40-50mm?), the number of single women and moms who Bush makes "feel safe", and the country's history of prefering the candidate with more "charisma" (stupidity?).

PS- I lost my voter card!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
er. I don't wish to appear antagonistic but I will anyway. Last year when many on this forum suggested that Bush/Blair etc were heading to war for no apparent reason I seem to remember you stood solidly behind your president (although my memory might be wrong). So now you see that the story was different, fair enough but how many of your fellow countrymen have your ability to see the story that's been told and to seperate the truth from the fiction. Surely it's safer to believe that the US has been right all along rather than admit there's been a tissue of lies from the Whitehouse and America has got it terribly wrong (along with blind boy Blair).

I

---

I supported going into Iraq in the first place because (1) I thought there were WMD there, and (2) I believe that when we can remove a tyrant, we should. All the while, even as baghdad was falling, I am on record in this forum denouncing Bush for the way he has prosecuted this war, the way he has enriched his friends while ignoring important interests both here and abroad, and how he has been a diplomatic failure. I called on Bush to go to the UN as soon as the military victory was clear. I would list 10 quotes of me disparaging bush, calling him the stupidest man on earth and any number of other derogatory remarks - but the find feature apears to be down. That said, as I have said, I favored going into Iraq at the time.

Now, however, I know that no WMD were there - which leaves only my second reason for favoring going into Iraq - which was to remove Saddam. And this does not even come close to providing a justification now, given how poorly the war has been prosecuted and the malfeasance of this administration. As Kerry has said (with which I whole-heartedly agree), PRECISELY because of the missmanagement of the war, Bush has traded a stable and somewhat secure Iraq (albiet one controlled by a despot) with a choatic mess that has actually left the US and the UK less safe and less secure.

This president has been the biggest failure in a century and I can't understand that people are still willing to vote for him - and these are people who MUST know by now that he is responsible for the mess over there due to a failure to plan and to execute.

judd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
This president has been the biggest failure in a century and I can't understand that people are still willing to vote for him...

---

And- what does this say about Kerry and/or about his campaign?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ludwig:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
This president has been the biggest failure in a century and I can't understand that people are still willing to vote for him...

---

And- what does this say about Kerry and/or about his campaign?

---

Of course it means that the campaign has been a failure. But it's been better for about a week now, and yet the polls are not showing it. Also, I'll admit that given how poorly things are going in Iraq, I would have thought that Kerry would have better numbers even had he been comatose. Re-elections are supposed to be referendums on the incumbant. To my mind that means that Bush should be losing to my Yorkshire Terrier, were little shnookums running, that is. But, somehow, he's got approval ratings in the low 50's, and in any event, is winning by 6 points.

All of this proves that the Republican "machine" has done a tremendous job at convincing Americans that Kerry is somehow "dangerous". They play to stupidity and fear and I think that even middle-American red-neckery will finally come out of thier trance around, say, December, when it is too late to do anything about it.

Judd

Yes, Tom, much of that is true. Unlike most of America (just slightly more than half, I guess) I believe now that Bush affirmatively "Lied" (that is, with a capital "L") about the weapons and that is reason enough to refuse him another term (among the many many reasons). I blaim Kerry for taking the wrong position on this issue. Kerry should have made these statements from the very beginning.

1. Knowing what I know now, OF COURSE I would not have invaded Iraq.
2. While I firmly believe that the resolution giving a president the power to invade Iraq was necessary - and I do not regret that vote for a minute - I would NOT have voted to give this president that power given what i now know about how horribly he has prosecuted the pre-war and post-war.

Judd

Chaps

Bush will be re elected because Kerry is weak.

Bush provided leadership and is a fighter.

Saddam is decomposing in jail and Iraq will soon be governing itself. There will be early problems but it will stabilise once the US forces leave.

You pinkos are out of touch with the electorate.

Regards

Mick

God Bless G W Bush

Frankly I don't see much to differentiate any of the US presidencies after 1945 so what's to worry about?

John

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Chaps

Bush will be re elected because Kerry is weak.

Bush provided leadership and is a fighter.

Saddam is decomposing in jail and Iraq will soon be governing itself. There will be early problems but it will stabilise once the US forces leave.

You pinkos are out of touch with the electorate.

Regards

Mick

God Bless G W Bush

---

This is the sort of reasoning (if you can call it that) carried out day after day across the middle-American red-neckery that will vote for Bush in November.

In fact there will be NO democracy in Iraq (perhaps in Baghdad only) if the current policy there is maintained. The US no longer controls any of the towns in the Sunni Triangle, and thier grasp on even baghdad is tenuous. There is no freaking way that elections will be held there in January (and in any event, the UN will not administer them as long as there is no security - and there is none). And so while I agree with Mick that a democratic and secure Iraq is a good thing (as would my winning the lottery) there is NOTHING on the ground today suggesting that is even possible, let alone inevitable.

Because of the way Bush has misshandled this war, the good money is on (1) a short-lived "psuedo-democracy" in Baghdad followed by (2) an armed coup de tet which installs Iranian style Shia-ism across Iraq (with the exception of the kerdish areas), which will lead to (3) a terrorist client state. Perhaps a bit better (or worse) is a democratically elected theocracy.

Both of these are immeasurably more likely that an anglo-style liberal democracy given the current situation.

Judd

Judd

We all know that you can reason more than the rest of the electorate.

They have their opinions and if you don't like it then tough.

They are as good as you How dare you refer to them as rubbernecks, you arrogant person.

Tom - You may have been the wisest bunny at the time, but many people were won over by the propaganda at the time before the war, (and I include myself in that) and I feel it unnecessary to rub it in (if you don't mind thankyouverymuch Tom )
However - now we have Bush dying on stage at every public outing, I find it astonishing that he keeps his lead in the polls.
I thought initially that the beheadings in Iraq would serve to go against Bush in illustrating the stupidity in starting the fucking war against people who will stop at nothing until the planet is wiped out, such is their insanity - but that plays the other way towards thinking - yeah - they are just not worth reasoning with - just wipe the fuckers out before they wipe us out. So I guess it could work either way.
Personally I would put money on Bush falling off fairly rapidly from this point onwards as Blair is now beginning to distance himself from Bush, and that probably has an influence in the US (for the life of me I don't understand why - but there you go).
Kerry is going to do this from here on in. People say it will be close, but eventually Kerry will romp home with a clear lead.
I just hope he knows what he will inherit! It will be the end of him.
Just watch.

Mick - Bush did not provide leadership - he ran away to a bunker in the next state and left the leadership to Rudy. And the pinko's are the electorate! The blinkered downtrodden are being replaced by those who can think for themselves (and are big enough to admit when we get it wrong because we are still working it out).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
Personally I would put money on Bush falling off fairly rapidly from this point onwards as Blair is now beginning to distance himself from Bush,

---

Really?? If so I would really like to see that!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
People say it will be close, but eventually Kerry will romp home with a clear lead.

---

Ditto.

Regards,

JonR

quote:

---

How dare you refer to them as rubbernecks, you arrogant person.

---

No no no, Mick - that's red necks.

Judd

I'd like to know just what percentage of the people polled actually vote!?

Isn't the US electorate famous for its low voter turnout?

It is easy to give a verbal answer to a question if polled on an issue. I doubt the follow through on Election Day is so uniform.

Perhaps the current state of affairs will inspire a reversal of voter apathy from the US electorate?

Deane

quote:

---

Originally posted by Deane F:
I'd like to know just what percentage of the people polled actually vote!?

Isn't the US electorate famous for its low voter turnout?

It is easy to give a verbal answer to a question if polled on an issue. I doubt the follow through on Election Day is so uniform.

Perhaps the current state of affairs will inspire a reversal of voter apathy from the US electorate?

Deane

---

Typically two polls are done. One counts people who are "registered" to vote. The other counts people who are "likely" to vote. The latter is a subset of the former. I think the percentage of "eligible" voters who are also registered is something like 50%. And of them, only some fraction are "likely" to vote. As I understand it, a typical president goes to office with something like only 30% of the people who could, if they wanted to, vote.

These numbers may be way off, but I think that is about right.

As ite happens, a month ago Kerry normally won the "registered" voter polls but lost the "likely" voter polls. This is evidence that Bush is better able to mobilize his base. Now, Bush appears to be winning both the registered and likely voter pools.

Judd

What's going on is this (assume pompous, pontificating tone); Americans generally are so busy trying to earn their crust that they pay very little attention to things like news analysis programs, polls, print media, political mags, etc.; their exposure to info about candidates is often the 30 sec. ads, during breaks in Survivor or CSI, of which the majority are Republican, and ALWAYS on-message. Check out the circulation figures for even well-known thinking mags like The Atlantic, National Review or the Nation, and you'll be stunned how small it really is. The presidency is won, essentially, by a marketing campaign to people who are too exhausted to think too much about it. Discussions like this one are relatively rare. If the issues are too much of a headache, Americans vote for the most likeable, less confusing, guy; advantage: Bush.

He who draws first blood defines the race as well ("Senator Flip-Flop"); why the Kerry people didn't suss this is unfathomable. No amount of explaining his Iraq position can extricate Kerry from the box he put himself in (and the Republicans are happily nailing shut).

Until the Dems learn the lessons, they will continue to decline as a party, until they're just a regional party (the West Coast, upper Midwest and Northeast). The R's will re-write the rules for Congress, and we'll have one-party government in the U.S. In fact, they're planning it right now.

Is Blairs' job really that secure?

Jon & Rasher

Sadly, the only ones who seriously think Kerry has more than an outside chance at this point are people who don't live here.

If it was just about the economy, health care, education and/or the environment, Bush wouldn't even be in the running.

But many Republicans are voting for the person who seems to represent and share their morality. Apart from the major metropolitan areas, this is a very conservative and puritan country. The working- and middle-class Republican voters don't even care that Bush has left them and will continue to leave them worse off financially. And once you factor in terrorism, and the astonishing fact that people believe what he says, Bush could be on his way to a landslide.

Bush will win, not because Kerry is weak (although he doesn't inspire me at all), but because he has run a vastly superior campaign.

Maybe things will improve for the good guys between now and the election. But I wouldn't bet my tax cut (and what a con that was) on it.

Regards,
Davie

quote:

---

Originally posted by bhazen:
Is Blairs' job really that secure?

---

Yes, I think it is. The only dangers he may face come from within his own party and, there, it's unlikely a challenge will come before the next election.

Steve

I know it is not too far away now, but things can change and I believe it will change. It isn't over yet. Don't be too down about it this early.

Blair has begun to distance himself from Bush. It began with a couple of swerves to avoid questions of who he would prefer to work with in the new administration, and being a clever politician he's not going to make statements - but I read the message behind what he didn't say.

With regard to those here that resort to personal insults and name calling, I would remind them that choice of a democtratic leader is about voting for the best person to run the country for all - whatever their views are on how best to achieve this. That means that we are a single body chosing a leader, not two bodies at war. Our differences in politics do not make us enemies. We have enough of those together already. We do all have a common goal even if we disagree on the route.

Predictable

First I read on My Yahoo page:

"Congress Passes Middle-Class Tax Cuts"

and then

"U.S. Worries Over Election Terror Threat"

and then

"House Blocks Court on Pledge Case Rulings"

What a day for the GOP.

quote:

---

many Republicans are voting for the person who seems to represent and share their morality. Apart from the major metropolitan areas, this is a very conservative and puritan country.

---

This is about all I can see that explains what's going on. On so many issues, like the extension of government power into people's lives, the use of government and its massive beaurocracy to acheive social goals, the Keynsian-style government spending in the face of recession, the two parties have reversed positions.

When people now say that they are Republican, I want to ask them What the f*ck does that mean?

Ludwig, the Republican's extra $140bn in tax cuts today was coupled with absolutely no indication of what was going to be cut to pay for it, as you probably know. Fiscal responsibility seems to be some kind of joke with these people. Of course we're going to pay for all of this in the future; higher taxes to pay for the massive debt load, reduced future control over interest rates, and thereby economic growth, reduced control over the value of the dollar, etc.

The Republicans don't give a fuck -- unless Mick or someone here can tell us how it will all work out.

quote:

---

We all know that you can reason more than the rest of the electorate.

They have their opinions and if you don't like it then tough.

---

Mick,

You've made this type of claim repeatedly, both here and other threads.

Since you have no argument to back up the claim that debate isn't relevant, and since your fellow forumers obviously find your insistence that debate is irrelevant to be unpersuasive, consistency with your own position requires that you let the majority decision here stand and stop posting.

If you don't like it, then tough.

You are the one moaning about the democratically elected leader.......not me.

Mick,

I noticed you and Tom Alves are often up and about on the forum at the same time, as you are now. Do you two wake up together?

Scandal!

quote:

---

You are the one moaning about the democratically elected leader.......not me.

---

Mick,

Of course, but I don't see how this is a reply to my point.

I'm glad to live in a society where criticism -- "moaning", as you derisively put it -- is not only tolerated but considered crucial to the proper functioning of government. Moaning is protected by the Constitution and was fiercely defended by America's founding fathers.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe that criticism of the majority is unavailing and shouldn't be engaged in -- an attitude shared by your friends in states like Communist North Korea.

Baby-killing pinko