Heh, well, if that’s what you have to tell yourself in the morning.
Oh, I’m not worried – the Demos will nominate a Kerry clone come 2008 – and Rove will still be there to sniff the political air — old habits and all. I’m guessing Hillary -
Well, given that 60,608,582 people voted for Bush, and 57,288,974 voted for Kerry (results taken from CNN’s website) - well then, the answer to your question is yes. I does appear that the American people both like/love and dislike/hate Bush - and in nearly equal proportions.
That’s what this thread is about. Bush won, but with the smallest margin victory of any re-elected president since they started keeping track of these things.
Shit, Brutus, I survived eight years of Nixon. Nothin’ much scares me. You, on the other hand, have got to defend an asshole. A year from now, at least half of you will be swearing you never said any such thing. His approval ratings are going straight into the toilet, and you guys that are joined to him at the hip are going with him. Some Republicans are already eyeing the exits and mapping where the lifeboats are kept.
Say, how’s that Kerik nomination going? Some bang up job of vetting, huh? You think they apply the same stringent scrutiny about Cabinet nominations that they apply to, oh, say, invading another country? Yessir, you got lots to brag about.
To tack on to that: it appears to me that the people who didn’t much like Kerry didn’t much like Kerry. But the people who don’t much like Bush hate his guts.
And guess which way the trend is moving…
Firstly, I don’t believe that anyone “knuckle walked” into a polling place. That’s a big difference between you and me. Secondly, Kerry fell all over himself to make it clear that he did not support gay marriage, so I don’t think it was that much of an issue in the presidential ellection-- certain Congressional elections, maybe, but not the presidential one. Do you find it easier to think that some people would rather send their kids (or kids of their relatives and friends) to a war they don’t support than to suffer the vauge, slight, possibility of a president who wouldn’t ACTIVELY work against gay marriage? I doubt it.
I wouldn’t argue with that.
I don’t have the cite handy, but it’s been well established that voter turnout was not significantly larger in states with anti-SSM initiatives on the ballot than on those which did not have such an initiative on the ballot. Again, the data just doesn’t support your proposition.
You could very well be right, but I tend to go where the data leads me. It appear that you have started with your preferred conclusion and then built a case to support it.
Nope. No one is disputing that fact. This thread is about whether or not Bush has a mandate. On that particular subject, I have no opinion as I don’t give a shit one way or the other. The guy won and that’s all there is to it. If it makes anyone feel better to think he doesn’t have a mandate, then that’s great. But it won’t make one bit of difference in terms of what Bush actually does.
Well, gee, John, for a guy who doesn’t give a shit, you sure have a lot to say about it. Do you usually find apathy so inspiring?
In other words, you’ve run out of arguments and have now resorted to ad hominems. That’s cute.
You might have noticed that on rare occasions a thread will contain discussions on more than one subject at a time. I know it’s really rare, but it does happen. I did not and do not give a shit about the mandate issue. But that’s not what we were debating and you know that. Carry on with the ad hominems, though-- they just makes your argument look even weaker.
Well…actually I DON’T think that the gay marriage issue was that critical to Bush’s win, though I conceed it was a factor. At a guess the anti-SSM single issue people were (mostly) balanced out by other vertical single issue folks on the Dems side (no, I have no cite for this…its just my gut feeling). Folks who were against SSM but voted for Bush either voted completely in ignorance of Kerry’s stance on the issue or would have voted for Bush anyway IMO.
I certainly agree with you that most of the folks that voted against Bush did so mainly because of his policy decisions. Certainly I voted for Badnarik and NOT for Bush mainly because of his strange decision making methodology.
I also, obviously, agree about the increasing (and not apparent IMO) ‘ham-fisted, chuckle-witted and just plain stupid’ policies. However, I also understand that not everyone agrees with my assessment of Bush, his policies, nor how successful his administration has been/will be. In fact, I realize that MY opinions of Bush are in the minority in the country at this time.
Oh, I dont think it was a coincidence about the gay marriage propositions at all…I just don’t think it made as much of a difference as you seem to think it did. Perhaps you are right and I’m wrong about that…wouldn’t be the first time. But I remain unconvinced that it was the key factor in this election.
And no…I’m certainly not interested in purchasing any bridges (or anything else for that matter) from such a slick operator as yourself, 'luci. 
-XT
I assure you, John, that you see an insult where none was offered. You’ll just have to take my word for that. Or not.
Flattery will get you nowhere. Unless you lay it on really thick.
But I quibble. A small point, but that’s the trouble with quibbles. You accept that an anti-gay bias had some impact, but think it wasn’t crucial. Considering how close the election turned out to be, you’re getting to almost quantum levels. When its that close, anything measureable is critical. The utterly vile SwiftBoat campaign, for instance, probably didn’t change many minds. But it didn’t take but a few.
In no particular order, just ramblings after readign through the posts since I left work–
- I think Kerry was a weak candidate in the way he ran his campaign. He was always reactive, never on the offensive IMHO. Smart man, weak candidate, lousy campaign.
- cmkeller:
I think Dean was electable until the Dems turned on him like a dog snapping at its own tail.
I think Edwards had youth and passion, which ought to be valued and pursued by the Dems, but nope.
And what about Dennis–well…
-
Next, jgoodfri, the ‘articulate war hero’ baffled most people when he spoke. He was incapable of communicating in declarative sentences. This flaw is deadly in politics, isn’t it? It’s one reason why people like Bush.
-
Who do I expect the Dems to win with in the future? Damn if I don’t have an answer for that question, but I don’t see anyone else with one either.
-
Question: Does anyone REALLY think Hillary will be the choice in '08? Really? I must be way out on the fringes, but I think the hatred levels regarding Hillary are so high, even the Democratic party, plodding and predictable as it is, would be loathe to put their eggs in Hillary’s basket.
-
Who can beat Jeb Bush in '08? That is the question the Democratic Party, if there is such a unified, long-range planning organization, should be working on.
Oh, Hillary, schmillary! That’s just Pubbie fantasy. She’s got a lot of faults, but dumb ain’t on the list. She knows she isn’t electable for the forseeable future, and if she forces her way onto the ticket (God only knows how…), it will be a disaster. She knows that her only real hope is in the distant future, if she even wants it, and, frankly, I don’t really think she does. Some of the Tighty Righty contingent see an ambitious harridan from Hell, tramelling all in her path in her lust for power. Feh. Same people who look at an overprivileged frat boy and see a Leader of Men. They should take less drugs. Or more drugs. Or different ones. Something.
Heheh, the guy wasn’t even nominated, and that’s what you are hanging your hat on? I admit, on the face of it, the guy seems like a good Democrat (cheating on wife, mob ties, bald), but sadly, those qualities are found in both parties. Just more so with the Dems. Much more so.
Sour grapes, Elucidator. That’s what I detect here, sour grapes. Haven’t the Republicans been making gains in Congress since 1994? And you are waiting for some mystical ‘waking up’ to change that, rather than admitting that it is the Democratic party that needs to do the waking up?
Cite?
Oh, piffle, Brutus, I’ve lost before. When Nixon won the first time, I thought I would die, when he won the second time, I didn’t much care if I did or not. Slowly, but surely, the people started to catch on. And they will again.
From the left point of view, Kerry winning or losing was almost a moot point. There is a huge price coming due for all the dumb moves The Leader has made. If Kerry had won, he would only have been well positioned to be the scapegoat. He probably couldn’t have salvaged the situation, short of a miracle, and without the cooperation of the Right, he couldn’t have done it with a miracle. And there was no chance in Hell he was going to get that cooperation.
You can’t govern if half the country hates your guts. Period. Full stop. Bush’s approval ratings were once around…what, 85%? Remember? Now down to around 50 and heading south even as we speak. The sane Republicans are going to start to bail on him, probably over this batshit crazy Soc Sec crapola. And nothing short of the Second Coming will salvage the Iraq debacle. Which you and yours endorsed. Which we opposed. There is no joy in being right about something like that, save only the slender hope that maybe, just maybe, we’ve learned our lesson.
Its gonna be a real bad four years for me. Its gonna be worse for you.
Simple disagreements with policy wouldn’t account for the sheer hatred and vitriol found amongst many of Bush’s opposition, and amply demonstrated on this message board. You put the lie to this with a following statement:
Hatred is a purely emotional response, and often defies logic. Therefore I’m not surprised that you can’t keep your argument on this point cohesive.
He got it the old-fashioned way, Moto. He earned it.
This is an interesting statement historically speaking…from a Democrats perspective. Since Nixion we had Ford (who wasn’t elected of course), then we had a one term Carter who is pretty universally considered a pretty poor president. Reguardless, he only got the one shot at it as he couldn’t get himself re-elected. Then we had two terms of Reagan (which I’m sure thrilled you :)). Certainly we only had one term of Bush I, however the Dems big moment was Clinton (who did make two terms) since the Nixon presidency…and who pretty much broke with the main thrust of his party and co-opted the Republicans agenda (at least on the economics side). He was a CENTRIST president with a CENTRIST agenda who pretty much tossed out what liberal agenda he started with.
Now we are back to two terms of Bush II. Just when exactly did the people ‘catch on’ to the Dems big message since Nixion?? I mean from your perspective of course. It seems obvious to me that by and large the Republicans (or at least their agenda) have dominated at the national level since Tricky Dicks time…from the Dems perspective I don’t see how the people have ‘caught on’ at all. Perhaps you could explain better what you mean exactly by this catching on…or perhaps you mean that NEXT election they will catch on?
-XT