Four more years!

[Pure]

I agree with Ginger that Kerry is attempting an appeal to the centre.
Hence, as cant pointed out, K is trying to sound like the most right wing liberal possible. (Not that he was ever left of centre--they don't make senators like that, in general).

As to attack ads (attacks on Rep'ns), and avoiding them, Ginger says the idea is NOT to turn off the centre. I believe there's some evidence that *most* people say they hate attack ads, BUT they work. (Sort of like those commmercials you hate, but are memorable, which is the point.)

I think Kerry should go all out on "Do you feel safer?" and "Do you have a job?" Americans need some scary images. Maybe some Dem point persons, of outstanding character, and by prearrangement with the FBI, should start taking phony knives, and fake bombs on planes, to show how easy it still is. Then play the videos of the passing of the security check!

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog:

The dems pulled their antiwar candidates in '68 too, and substituted Humphrey. He was the only halfway winnable candidate that wasn't antiwar.

Remember, the #1 anti-war candidate was 'pulled' by Sirhan Sirhan. In 1968 I was a Goldwater Republican. After listening to Bobby Kennedy for a few months, I became an independant (which I remain today) who supported Kennedy. I believe he would have won the nomination. I believe he would have won the presidency. Maybe we wouldn't have returned to Camelot, but we would be a hell of a lot better off than we are today.

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Kerry is not a vote for Bush. That's the mathematics of today's election. 'Nuff said.

 

[Pure]

//A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.//

Actually, a vote for Bush is a vote for the electronic, no-trail, machines that will make voting for future Bushies superfluous.

 

[thebullet]

Pure, you sound like my wife. She, too, is fixated on the lack of an audit trail that is such an intregal part of the Nazi voting machines.

Many years ago I was involved in a audited physical inventory. This was in the early days of computing. I had written a lovely physical inventory system which allowed the factory's workers to count the goods, write the quantity and U/M on a computer punch card. The data was punched into the card and entered into the computer. Auditors came down from New York to our little corner of the world. They were most impresssed with the thoroughness of our systems. We started our counts on Friday afternoon, worked throughout Saturday. We were counting in 3 different factories.

On Sunday morning, I walked into the company Controller's office and asked her: "What number do you want to see?" She gave me a number and half an hour later our final physical report was printed, and miraculously the total inventory valuation was exactly what our Controller wanted to see. The auditors looked at this beautifully prepared computer-generated hundred plus page report and were joyfull. They lauded our professionalism. They had never been involved in a cleaner, more thorough, more accurate physical inventory count.

Why would anyone be concerned about a presidential vote with no audit trail?

 

[GingerV]

The last presidential election had a perfectly good audit trail, but it hasn't proved to be much use. Not sure losing it is going to change much of anything.

G

 

[cantdog]

Perhaps the American center is being appealed to by Senator Kerry. He doesn't appeal to me, nor to Colleen. Neither of us were able, in the end, to hold or noses hard enough. We do refuse to support Bush.

It is a fact, I think, that the Washington elite does not support Bush either. There have been public statements, many books and articles and interviews by these people, to that effect. There have been some rather strong objections from the professional leadership of our armed forces to that effect, too, and just this year.

Greens and democrats and actual conservatives, libertarians-- many groups of various political stripes oppose him. Add them up. Calculate the implications of the half million protesters in NYC. There is deep and widespread opposition to Bush, even if it does not translate directly into support for Senator Kerry in all cases.

I do not myself believe the pundits who say the race is foregone. There is an expected rise in the polls, which came, as we knew it would, directly after the republican convention. Yes, but there is no reason to believe it means much, despite the drumbeat of pundit moping.

Do not despair. Carry on boldly as though the democratic party were indeed fated, now, to unseat the new Bush-- after one term, as they did the first-- and I think you cannot help but prevail. Lose heart, as the commentators would have you do, and as Karl Rove would have you do, and you may well manage to defeat yourselves.

But you must realize there is a global, anti-Bush, pro-democracy movement which is only getting bigger and stronger as his coterie's program of world hegemony proceeds. Arundhati Roy has called for a global boycott of the United States, as a step to correct our government's excesses by means not involved with violent resistence or terrorism.

Byrd has made many brilliant and impassioned speeches to empty Senate chambers, believing, like Cicero, that the Republic can be saved if the people once realize that it is being set aside in favor of a military dictatorship. Kerry does not, for reasons of his own, and of his party's, actually propose to reinstate the constitution. He does not speak in a way to draw on the force of this sentiment in the population at large and in the ranks of the elite.

But the constitution is the issue. It may be the only real issue. If the constitution were in force the corporations would be, once more, held in check to some degree by the state, and many of their excesses which are resulting in economic calamity for America would be reversed or mitigated. That power, historically, has been the largest check on that kind of thing.

If America meets the legitimate expectations and addresses the legitimate grievances of the people around the world who constitute the passive support of world terrorism, who supply its ranks and shield it from retribution, the power base they currently enjoy will soften and dismiss them as over-reacting zealots. But if she continues to shoot the world's citizens in their streets and commit the crimes for which the terrorists say they are exacting punishment, they will continue to passively support terrorism against her.

War powers in the representative assembly, security from unreasonable search and seizure, separation of powers-- many features of the constituion do not apply at the moment, and the republic is perhaps already lost. We may have seen the Rubicon already crossed. Whichever candidate, Bush or Kerry, wins in November, empire and hegemony has a great appeal and a lot of powerful vested interests. But for what difference it may make, Kerry has still an excellent shot at unseating his rival.

cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's difficult to appeal to a center when there isn't one left. To many of the liberals on this board, I am just a little right of Hitler. To many of my conservative friends who now embrach the Neo-Cons, I am a little left of Jane Fonda. And yet my politics haven't changed significantly since I first voted in the 80s, when I was a fiscal conservative with a more moderate set of views on social issues.

The country is amazingly polarized. The left has moved out to what we used to consider the loony Left. The right has moved so far right they are now standing on principals once relegated to the lunatic fringe. Moderates of both stripes, Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans have become as scarce as hen's teeth.

Ginger said Kerry is trying to apeal to the 10% who can be swayed, the problem is, thay aren't the ones he needs. The group that will decide this election is even more select than just undecideds. Lets face it, an undecided voter in NY is as worthless to Kerry as she is to Bush. The only ones who really matter now are the undecided minority in swing states.

Kerry has given up on the South east, except for Edward's home state and Florida. With good reason, he really has no chance south of the mason Dixon line and east of the Mississippi. Except for perhaps Vermont and possibly Maine, Bush has given up on the North east, also with good reason, he isn't going to win many states there even with multi million dollar advertising.

Texas will go to the GOP, Cali to the Dems, unless the governator and Gay Marriage become the focal points. So what you are really left with, is the old northwest, mid-west and the west. Just a handfull of states really make the difference this time out, Penn. Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado etc.

In those swing states, the election will be decided. Bush's message is clear, I'm a war leader, I protect you from terrorism, I gave you a tax break, I support your church, I am against abortion. Kerry's position is murky. I am a democrat so you must infer, I support abortion, I support banning guns, I support a weakened militray, I support increased spending on social programs. The thing that bothers me most about his campaign is that I have to infer his stands, because he hasn't taken any. Because I must infer where he stands, it is quite easy for the GOP to define what he supports by being a democrat. That hurts, I don't care how passionatly you hate Bush, letting his party define your candidate is going to cost you votes.

The bottom line is that the candidates are fighting for a very tiny sliver of the populace now. Their political machines have to have already analyzed, deconstructed and broken down that percentage in every way possible. You have to assume their ads, words and energy are now directed towards capturing that painfully small minority of votes now. So perhaps, those of us who feel the Dems are running a lousy campaign are totally wrong. It just dosen't feel that way.

On another note here. A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Kerry Is a vote for Kerry. A vote for Nadar is a vote for nadar. A vote for Maynard the Milkman is a vote for Maynard. The declaration that a vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush is self serving to the nth degree. Thi country has always presupposed you could vote for whomever you pleased. I am not voting for Kerry, but I am not voting for Bush. I truly resent the implication that I am supporting Bush by not supporting Kerry. That's crap. I don't support either of them, not even a little.

-Colly

 

[thebullet]

Colleen wrote:

A vote for Bush is a vote for Bush. A vote for Kerry Is a vote for Kerry. A vote for Nadar is a vote for nadar. A vote for Maynard the Milkman is a vote for Maynard. The declaration that a vote for anyone other than Kerry is a vote for Bush is self serving to the nth degree. Thi country has always presupposed you could vote for whomever you pleased. I am not voting for Kerry, but I am not voting for Bush. I truly resent the implication that I am supporting Bush by not supporting Kerry.

Colly, in an election as close as 2000, a vote for Nadar was in fact a vote for Bush. There can be no denying it. Each Nadar vote meant one less vote for Gore. How many Nadar votes were in Florida? Something like 30,000, I think. How many votes did Gore lose by? 500, more or less. Had Nadar not been on the ballot, how would Bush/Gore have divided those 30,000 votes? Please don't insult my intelligence by saying anything but the truth, that the vast majority would have gone for Gore and we would have a different president right now.

You may resent the implication, but I'm sorry to say that if you vote for anyone but Kerry, in this particular election you are voting for Bush. Why is it that Republicans are helping Nadar get on the ballot in so many states? In normal times I would encourage you to vote your heart. These are not normal times. We are in danger of losing our democracy as you exercise your democratic rights. By your exercising those rights, you may well be contributing to the destruction of our Constitution.

Sorry to be so harsh. But if you hadn't noticed, our house is on fire. The only way to stop the burning is to defeat Bush. Nadar can't do it. Maynard the milkman can't do it. Perhaps Kerry can.

 

[oggbashan]

Manifestos

Does anyone read the actual manifestos published by the parties.

Years ago I read the manifestos issued by all 3 UK parties for the forthcoming general election.

All of them sounded as good as Mom's home-made apple pie. You had to work out what the difference was by what they didn't say, what they didn't spell out in detail. Any one of the 3 sounded like genuine solutions for the country's problems.

The British National Party (very far right) has a manifesto. Because it is in print, not the spoken word, they present it just like the other parties. You would never believe from reading their manifesto that what they actually want to do is horrific and divisive.

Marx's original Communist Party manifesto reads like a reasonable document.

Manifestos, and political statements, are uncontrolled by advertising standards. They mean what they say: They just don't say what they will actually do if elected.

How can an uncommitted voter make a rational decision if the choices are fudged and deliberately made unclear?

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen wrote:


Colly, in an election as close as 2000, a vote for Nadar was in fact a vote for Bush. There can be no denying it. Each Nadar vote meant one less vote for Gore. How many Nadar votes were in Florida? Something like 30,000, I think. How many votes did Gore lose by? 500, more or less. Had Nadar not been on the ballot, how would Bush/Gore have divided those 30,000 votes? Please don't insult my intelligence by saying anything but the truth, that the vast majority would have gone for Gore and we would have a different president right now.

You may resent the implication, but I'm sorry to say that if you vote for anyone but Kerry, in this particular election you are voting for Bush. Why is it that Republicans are helping Nadar get on the ballot in so many states? In normal times I would encourage you to vote your heart. These are not normal times. We are in danger of losing our democracy as you exercise your democratic rights. By your exercising those rights, you may well be contributing to the destruction of our Constitution.

Sorry to be so harsh. But if you hadn't noticed, our house is on fire. The only way to stop the burning is to defeat Bush. Nadar can't do it. Maynard the milkman can't do it. Perhaps Kerry can.

How many of those 30K are greens who would have voted for the green candidate reguarless? How many were inspired by Nadar as a dark horse and came out to vote when they normally don't? How many own guns and would have voted against Gore based on that issue alone? You don't know. You can't say. Assuming all 30K would have been good little democrats is the heigth of arrogance.

Assuming the current situation changes the traditional precepts is also BS.

What you are saying basically is that any vote not for one of the main two is a wasted vote, yet again and again third party candidates have forced one of the big two to include their pet gripe in their next election platform. Politics dosen't cease to operate because GWB is a doofus.

If Kerry hasn't earned your vote, it does not imply that GWB has, but thats what you are saying. I say it's crapola. In an election that is clearly a choice betwen the lesser of two evils, if I can find a thrid option that is even less evil, that does not in any way make me support one of the two greater evils.

Your position, like the Democrats scratching and clawing to keep Nadar off the ballots, smacks of desperation.

I love my country no less than you. I am apalled at the way things are going under this administration. But if I do not see Kerry as being any better equppied, prepared or set on doing better, then I can vote elsewhere.

If both are odious, and they are, then I may vote somewhere else. It isn't a vote for Bush, because you never had that vote to count as yours inthe first place.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You make a good point, but still, if Kerry's running an "Anybody But Bush" campaign, it wouldn't hurt to remind the voters why ABB is a legitimate reason to vote, and I don't think reminding voters of places where W has screwed up has to be done as persoanl attack ads. When policies have failed or are failing, you attack the policiies, not the personality behind them.

Kerry is terribly fuzzy it seems to me. I don't even know what his stand is on most of the issues, and party platforms have become such nebulous hives of positive buzz-words that they could mean anything.

---dr.M.

 

[LadyJeanne]

Ginger said Kerry is trying to apeal to the 10% who can be swayed, the problem is, thay aren't the ones he needs. The group that will decide this election is even more select than just undecideds. Lets face it, an undecided voter in NY is as worthless to Kerry as she is to Bush. The only ones who really matter now are the undecided minority in swing states.

It's time the US scrapped the Electoral College voting system and elected presidents according to a majority of the popular vote so that each individual vote counts - just like every other political office in the nation. It's past time, actually. Should have been done after the 2000 election.

 

[cloudy]

I agree with Colly.

I don't like either one of the two major candidates, and will probably just not vote at all this year, for the first time since I've been old enough to vote.

So, bullet, does that make my non-vote a vote for Bush? I think not. I wish it was that damn simple, really, but it isn't.

 

[Pure]

Colly,

I think what you are saying, partly, is that you don't *intend* to help Bush win; you don't support him.

the bullet contends
//You may resent the implication, but I'm sorry to say that if you vote for anyone but Kerry, in this particular election you are voting for Bush. Why is it that Republicans are helping Nadar get on the ballot in so many states? In normal times I would encourage you to vote your heart. These are not normal times. We are in danger of losing our democracy as you exercise your democratic rights. By your exercising those rights, you may well be contributing to the destruction of our Constitution.//

I think he's saying a vote for Nader is helping Bush, in objective terms.

Here, though, you supply some good arguments that the impact of 'third party' voting is not easy to ascertain. Many assumptions are made as to where those votes 'would have gone, if...'. As you point out, it quite possible that those who are 'third party' voting might not vote at all.

I find the Bullet is on shaky ground. He speculates about the 'ifs' of history-- suppose ALL groups against Hitler have joined forces and had single candidates on the ballot? Well, suppose Hitler had NOT decided to attack Russia?

It is correct, I think, to question whether scenarios of 'all joining in against X' are at all likely or feasible. Or just Bullet's pipe dream.

Further main parties do respond to 'disaffected' (third and fourth party) votes. The republicans are responding the 'religious right' disaffection. Those rightists will vote for Christian candidates who want smaller government (Judge Roy ___ in Alabama). Is theirs a vote for Kerry?

'Of course,' says Bullitt, 'that's why I support Judge Roy.'
(So do I.) BUT democrats, seeing voters shift to Judge Roy may feel relieved (because Republicans are weaker) and vote for *their third party candidate. With unknown results.

In all, Bullet is on shaky ground. The Republic needs defense, but voting for 'his' man is not established as the only option. His is the sort of argument of some military buffs who say, "If Robert E Lee had moved this unit west, instead of east, he would have won the battle of XXX (by strengthening the western units)." Yet, in reality, moves have several consequences (e.g., weakening the east, here), and the 'other side' (Union) can't be assumed to stand still while the 'other move' (west) is implemented.

In all, it's a sort of shell game, arguably, of the major parties; play our game or you're not playing; OR you *think youre not playing our game, but you really are, so why not give up your efforts.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Yeah! VB!!!

Two weeks ago, I saw a national poll in the newspaper that showed Kery and Bush neck in neck.

I think the *perception* that Kerry is already beat is what, if anything, is going to do him in. It's a perception that our enimies err- I mean opponents *want* us to have.

It's false.

Before our democratic gov was elected, my repub. b/f was heard constantly saying that she had no chance in hell- or something to that effect.

Don't fall for the mindgames.

We're doing better than you think.

I am getting sick and tired of listening to armchair experts pissing and moaning about how Kerry is bound to lose and the Dems aren’t really trying.

Dubya took a bounce after the GOP Convention. Did anybody not expect that? He has already lost part of it.

There are far too many people that believe the last loud voice they hear.

Unless you actually WANT George the Lesser to win, don’t let your voice be the one that convinces somebody Undecided not to bother voting. Not even yourself!

 

[sweetnpetite]

As to attack ads (attacks on Rep'ns), and avoiding them, Ginger says the idea is NOT to turn off the centre. I believe there's some evidence that *most* people say they hate attack ads, BUT they work. (Sort of like those commmercials you hate, but are memorable, which is the point.)

I'm so glad somebody said it!

I've been so sick of people bitching about attack ads lately. the fact is- they work. If they didn't work, they wouldn't use them.

People can be so completly ignorant of *themselves*- it amazes me. So few people have any idea of how even there own minds work or basic phychology or social awareness. And if you try to show them, or tell them, they simply tell you you are wrong.

Sometimes understanding people when they don't understand themselves is a real frustration.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Absolutley. It's all about morale. About 95% of any competition is won or lost in the mind, before the game even begins.

I do not myself believe the pundits who say the race is foregone. There is an expected rise in the polls, which came, as we knew it would, directly after the republican convention. Yes, but there is no reason to believe it means much, despite the drumbeat of pundit moping.

Do not despair. Carry on boldly as though the democratic party were indeed fated, now, to unseat the new Bush-- after one term, as they did the first-- and I think you cannot help but prevail. Lose heart, as the commentators would have you do, and as Karl Rove would have you do, and you may well manage to defeat yourselves.


cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

It's time the US scrapped the Electoral College voting system and elected presidents according to a majority of the popular vote so that each individual vote counts - just like every other political office in the nation. It's past time, actually. Should have been done after the 2000 election.

I totally disagree. The electoral college is there for a specific reason, to make candidates appeal to the largest crossection of the country possible. Direct popular vote appeals to liberals and democrats because urban majorities vote that way, but you are in essence saying we will always have a democrat as president.

Why campaign in rural areas? Why add planks that appeal to rural folks? Why waste money on campaigning anywhere but in the cities? Direact popular vote is more democratic, but far from making every vote count, it makes your vote mean nothing if you don't happen to live in a city or its suburbs.

I find that a very unappealing situation.

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Clinton even admitted that attack ads work... ultimately, it isn't the fault of the politicians, its the fault of the people. If the people hated them, they would run them.

 

[thebullet]

Pure said:

I find the Bullet is on shaky ground. He speculates about the 'ifs' of history-- suppose ALL groups against Hitler have joined forces and had single candidates on the ballot? Well, suppose Hitler had NOT decided to attack Russia?

I heartily disagree, Pure. On the contrary, i have selected a single instance in American history (the 2000 Presidential Election), the votes in a single American state (Florida) during that election. I am not speculating on the 'ifs' of history. I am pointing to a single point in time, a single instance where a change in a single candidate on the ballot of the state of Florida would have saved America and the world a shitpot full of grief.

I believe it was Colleen who said that I was extremely arrogant to believe that the 30,000 votes that went to Nadar would have gone to Gore had Nadar not been on the ballot. Colly, any statistacal analysis of voting patterns would indicate that of those 30,000 voters, Gore would have received far more than 500 more votes than GW. That isn't arrogance, it's simple fact.

Colly said that some other Green party candidate may have gotten those votes. Sure that person would have gotten some, even a majority of the 30,000 votes (though I doubt it). But Nadar was a far higher profile candidate than the normal Green nominee. Surely a significant percentage of the 30,000 votes would have gone to mainstream candidates.

My point is, for the good of the Green Party's own constituency, for its own goals, it would have been far better for Gore to have been elected. The Greens were self-destructive in putting a high-profile candidate like Nadar up for President.

Tell me the last four years of neo-con rule has treated the environment in exactly the same way that Gore would have done. Tell me that Gore would have negated the Kyoto Accords. Tell me that Gore would have emasculated the EPA. Tell me that Gore would have undercut environmentally friendly regulations designed to keep our water clean and our air clear for the sake of a few bucks in his campaign treasury. The last four years have been a Green disaster, and the Greens have only themselves to blame.


Colleen said:

What you are saying basically is that any vote not for one of the main two is a wasted vote

I am not saying that at all. Any vote for a Green Party candidate or for Ralph Nadar is effectively a vote for Bush, yes. Its all simple mathematics, Colly. One might speculate that a Libertarian vote may be a successful anti-Bush vote, though I'm not so sure about that one. Are there some budding little Hitlers out there on various ballots waiting to steal Bush votes? If there are, I'm unaware of them.

Colly, save your indignent feelings, your injured pride. DO THE MATH! Your argument is one hundred percent totally true IF:
* There is no difference between the neoconservatives and the Democrats
* The USA is not in danger of a Right wing takeover
* America is not close to being involved in perpetual war for perpetual peace
* America has not become the world's villain

If you believe all of these things, Colly, then all you say is true. By the way, want to buy a bridge?

 

[LadyJeanne]

I totally disagree. The electoral college is there for a specific reason, to make candidates appeal to the largest crossection of the country possible. Direct popular vote appeals to liberals and democrats because urban majorities vote that way, but you are in essence saying we will always have a democrat as president.

Why campaign in rural areas? Why add planks that appeal to rural folks? Why waste money on campaigning anywhere but in the cities? Direact popular vote is more democratic, but far from making every vote count, it makes your vote mean nothing if you don't happen to live in a city or its suburbs.

I find that a very unappealing situation.

-Colly

I disagree...it wouldn't lead to always having a Democrat as president. I think the voting record shows that in all but three presidential elections, the candidate who won the Electoral College also won the popular vote as well.

 

[thebullet]

Colleen said:

Why campaign in rural areas? Why add planks that appeal to rural folks? Why waste money on campaigning anywhere but in the cities? Direact popular vote is more democratic, but far from making every vote count, it makes your vote mean nothing if you don't happen to live in a city or its suburbs.

Not to belabor the obvious, but how does your scenario differ from where we are at right now? Why campaign in a Red state or a Blue state? Only put your money into White states. This country is so polarized that it is frightening and sickening.

Your contention that if we went to a popular vote format then only Democrats would win is an interesting one. Are you saying that the true majority of people in this country believe in the Democrat point of view, but it is only by manipulation of the system that Republicans win? Gee, that's an interesting point.

 

[cloudy]

Colleen said:
Not to belabor the obvious, but how does your scenario differ from where we are at right now? Why campaign in a Red state or a Blue state? Only put your money into White states. This country is so polarized that it is frightening and sickening.

Your contention that if we went to a popular vote format then only Democrats would win is an interesting one. Are you saying that the true majority of people in this country believe in the Democrat point of view, but it is only by manipulation of the system that Republicans win? Gee, that's an interesting point.

Hate to point this out to you, but.....

What she said was that it would be more democratic, not that Democrats would always win.

There's a huge difference. Read what she said again.

 

[thebullet]

See the next one

 

[thebullet]

Cloudy said:

Hate to point this out to you, but.....

What she said was that it would be more democratic, not that Democrats would always win.

There's a huge difference. Read what she said again.

Colleen said:

but you are in essence saying we will always have a democrat as president.

Sorry, Cloudy, but you misread Colleen's piece. She did indeed say that we will always have a democrat as president.