That’s not quite it. The question would be, “If Dr Dean offered up a plan for mandatory homosexual marriages for Eagle Scouts, how likely would you be to support it?” See, your version states that Dean in fact has such a plan. The actual question needs to have deniability built in. “Hey, we never said he actually supported mandatory homosexual marriages for Eagle Scouts, we only asked if the voters would support it if he offered it.” The Rove, I mean devil, is in the details.
I thought post-war poll numbers didn’t mean anything.
You know what I sense among my (U.S.) friends when I talk to them about politics…? (the following is completely anecdotal, and I make no claim that this is somehow indicative of mainstream U.S. feeling).
A longing for someone who calls for a “send a man to the moon and bring him home safely”-type national effort toward reducing/eliminating our dependence on foreign oil, and one magical day when we can all watch (with tremendous satisfaction) as our more erstwhile Arab/Muslim autocrats go broke.
Someone who argues that our outlook on the world must change from the Cold War (as in, let’s just finally admit that many European nations are no longer our allies in any real sense).
In short, I sense America weary of the world and tired of all its bullshit. Tired of idiots burning American flags. Tired of U.N. charades. Tired of trying to convince the Palestinians and Israelis not to kill each other. Tired of defending South Korea from its nutcase neighbor while enduring young South Koreans spit on the GIs. Tired of giving foreign aid to shitty countries like Egypt.
I see my countrypeople turning inward, and much more risk-averse. I see us starting to heed the words of our founding fathers who warned us not to get involved with entangling alliances.
Will this translate to electing someone other than GWB? I don’t know, but whoever comes the closest to articulating the aforementioned will get mine. The world seems to want less of an American presence, and maybe it’s time we acquiesce to the world’s wishes. To hell with being the world’s policeman.
If I were to answer this question it would have to be a guess based on poles and world events. It would still be a guess and people could use the same statistics that I use to come up with a completely different answer. This being great debates I need facts to back up my answer. But 99% of politics is spin and hype and guess work and risk. So since I cannot answer this question with factual certainty I will not answer it.
1988 is what’s going to happen.
The Dems are going to make the same mistake of running a candidate who is wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to liberal for mainstream America, from a small New England state. However, anything could happen. November of 'ought four is a heck of a long way away. what I’m looking forward to is the big fight regarding the “assault weapons” ban renewal. Lot’s of folks on both sides of the issue are going to be allienated.
All of this, however, is simply a W.A.G. on my part.
Yeah…but I’ll still vote for him over a democrat. When I look back over the past three years, I see his presidency as a place marker- he’s not making things much worse or much better. But ineffective is favorable over potentially bad, the devil you know and all <shrugs>
I could sit here all day and bark about the things I hate about Bush. But he’s still getting my vote. Unfortunately, elections tend to come down to deciding between a kick in the head and a kick in the nuts.
George Bush is NOT the friend to gun owners people think he is. However, Howard Dean is NOT the anti-gun control candidate some think he is. If the Dems came up with a true pro-gun candidate they could take the White House by 70% or more. Until they do, Bush, with a Republican Congress, is better than any democrat.
I don’t consider myself a Bush supporter by any stretch but understand that polls are not reality. Both the Gallup and Zogby polls only poll people that are currently registered voters and vote “Always” or “Frequently.” Clearly, there will be people that are not currently registered to vote now but will be in time for the 2004 election. Also, there are people who vote less than “Frequently.” These people make up a large group and could have major influence at the polls. Even larger are the groups of people that choose not to vote. Bush’s giant War Chest could be used to mobilize a campaign to gain new voters or swing voters. My basic point is that elections are more complex than polls. This seems like an obvious point but it is important. Just because Bush’s poll rating is falling doesn’t mean he will lose or even is out of favor with the country. It is still key for those anti-Bushites to vote and encourage others to vote. Forcing others to take a kick in the head will help us avoid taking a kick in the nuts (or ovaries, something that is a bigger threat under the Bush administration).
I just don’t understand single issue voters. Especially when it is such a wishy washy issue as gun control. Not to disparage anyones view of the importance of guns or anything, I mean “wishy washy” as a description of the policy alternatives. It isn’t a question of “Guns or No Guns” after all. What is the worse likely outcome for the NRA from a president that is “soft” on guns? A new requirement that private individuals perform a background check before a sale at a gun show? I guess that would be inconvenient and all but to base your vote on it? I don’t get it.
You don’t get it? Neither do the Democrats. And they’re very stupid not to “get it”.
Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union Address (1995) admitted that the 1994 “assault weapons” ban was what helped give Republicans control of congress. If Democrats, and liberals in general, would back off on gun control, and even do a 180 on it, they could win so much on their other agendas. They keep “shooting themselves in the foot”, if you can pardon the pun.
Good lord… I shudder to think what you would consider making things worse!
Good lord… I shudder to think what you would consider making things worse!
I still don’t get it.
Some Democratic pols do take a pro-gun stand and some don’t. It seems to me that the determination is made based upon a political calculation. To move one way or the other would harm their careers. But the move is symbolic, there is no major policy difference. Politicians want to be reelected, that I understand. So they respond to the voter even if the voters preference is irrational. What I don’t get is why any reasonable voter would look at the issues and determine that gun control, where nothing much is going to change, is anything more than window dressing.
AWB 94 was a mjor change and to most politcally active gun owners, it was an ominous look at the future. Banning guns based on cosmetic items alone is a far cry from “where nothing much is going to change”.
I’m no Bush fan. I am a Republican however. As much as it would sicken me to do so, if a socially conservative Dem would come and say the following:
“If elected, I will not implement any new new gun control related legislation, other than to repeal some items on the books today. If anything new reaches my desk, it will die there.”
He will win. I will be a campaign manager.
I am a single issue voter, and I am not stupid. In fact I know that the executive branch has little impact on the economy so I really don’t care who is running the show. If a democrat I don’t like is in there ala 92-2000, it just makes it more fun to bitch and moan all of the time like the majority of this board are doing today.
The executive branch can, and has made major impacts on my one issue, gun control. In '86, '88/89 and '94, major pieces of legislation were passed severely curtailing my rights to own and purchase what I want. Some were signed by Republican Presidents, the other by a Democrat. So basically I get screwed regardless of what party is in the driver’s seat. Therefore my single issue voting status.
Well, after the war we’ll disregard those numbers.
I am a staunch independant that has issues with both of the ‘major’ parties. However, in this election, I am strongly considering registering as a republican for the sole purpose of voting against bush twice. I would of course be more likely to do the same thing for the opposite group should they bring a candidate I despise as much or more (like Hil).
Aww come on now, this isn’t entirely true. He is using his presidency and it’s ability to interrupt prime time Sunday night television to get his campaign messages out. Certainly that has to count for something?
GoHeels:
Interestingly enough, that was more or less GWB’s platform. (And I agree that there is a lot of that sentiment in the US). That’s why I was so astonished on 9/11/01 – “what the fuck do they expect to accomplish by directly attacking the US at its most isolationist moment?”
PKBites:
That strikes me as a bad read of recent history. Bush the Elder did not beat Dukakis as a consequence of Dukakis being too liberal for mainstream America. Bush the Elder beat Dukakis because compared to Dukakis, Al Gore is a highly charismatic personality, and Dubya is a riveting public speaker. He stood there like a poleaxed Don Martin cartoon drooling and gawking (“Dawk!”) while the Republican opposition hit him with broadside after broadside (some solid and fair hits, some below the belt or comprised of significant distortions of reality) to which he did not respond. Guy couldn’t create a sound bite to save his life.
It was as a campaigner that he flunked the course. It wasn’t his politics – he polled at his most popular in the couple weeks after the Democratic Convention and his acceptance speech and declaration of his positions, which went over well and had him out-polling Bush, who was VP and a known figure and veteran of the popular Reagan administration.
That’s not to say Dean has nothing to worry about – he’s going to have to be good to prevent the Republicans from painting him as a Ted Kennedy elitist northern liberal etc etc, assuming he’s the one who gets the Dem nod – but it was Dukakis the fossilized disconnected boring drone, not Dukakis the flaming liberal elitist yankee, who lost that 1988 election.
I’m not saying anyone is stupid for being a single issue voter on guns. I just don’t understand it, is all. Perhaps this thread isn’t the place for the discussion.
It is not just guns. It is any Right.
It is not a single issue, it is a reflection of what that candidate thinks about traditional American freedom and our Bill of Rights and our Constitution.
Many of us voters will never vote for any candidate who advocates eliminating any of the Bill of Rights.
If the presidential candidate is promising to take away our freedom, who cares what he thinks of other lesser issues like schools, education, pollution, or housing, or jobs, or trade, or drugs, or Iraq, or whatever…
If any presidential candidate advocated an end(or a huge restriction) to ANY!!! one of the Bill of Rights, eg. if the candidate advocated an end to ownership of guns, and end to freedom of religion, and end to requiring the police to need search warrents, and end to trial by jury, etc, then that candidate is automatically out of consideration, out of contention, regardless of anything else he says or wants to do.
In 2000 Gore was considered a continuation of clinton, who wanted huge restrictions on the second ammendment. Bush in 2000 seemed pro-second ammendment in comparison. Gore lost his home state of Tennesse because of his anti-gun anti-second ammendment stance. It is rare for a presidential candidate to lose his home state like Gore lost Tennesee in 2000.
However, bush recently said he favored gun control, he wanted to extend the assault weapons bill, and promised to sign the bill if it reached his desk, etc. Bush is not considered pro-gun anymore.
Therefore, if any democrat candidate keeps his mouth shut on ending the second ammendment, then bush will get no votes from gun owners this time - no backlash like Gore got.
On the other hand, any democrat candidate who is clearly pro-Bill of Rights, and who also wants to bring back our jobs and factories, is in like GOLD!!