I think the OP hit it on the head, although he doesn’t seem to realize it. The fact is that most conservatives are not too bright, as evidenced by the fact that they chose an absolute dolt like Bush as their leader. And if you ever listened to the drivel that is known as talk radio you will notice that their commentators are pretty dumb too. And did you ever see an intelligent conservative post to this board? Maybe, but they are very rare.
The problem is that people in general are not too bright, so they are sometimes taken in by simple-minded right wing slogans. They answer the phone and it’s a pollster calling to ask who they plan to vote for. Truth is that they have no idea and the only thing on their minds is to get back to the reality TV show before they miss some crucial detail. So they think of the first thing that pops into their minds “uh, who’s the president? Bush, yeah Bush, he’s our great leader” and next thing you know you get rediculous results like this poll.
The only hope is that people put some more thought into this come November. If people really thought it out, Kerry would probably get 99.9% of the vote, the only exceptions being corporate CEOs and people in mental institutions. But you never know.
Why do some people like George Bush? I don’t know about most of them, but here in my little slice of the world, I personally know about 6 GWB fans.
This is typical of every conversation I’ve had with all 6 of them:
Me: Whaaaa?! You are sitting here to my face telling me that you honestly actually truly LIKE him??!!
GBfan: Yes. Now close your mouth and put your eyes back in their sockets.
Me: Why in the name of all that is holy would you like this man?? Do you read about who he is as a person, his past, his politics, the huuuuge list of errors he has made in his term so far, how downright instrinsically to the bone jaw-droppingly STUPID he is???
GBfan: Well, I don’t really read the papers or watch the news.
Perhaps the Dems should realize that campaigning on not being Bush isn’t going to get Kerry didly squat. A dynamic…no, strike that, ANY kind of a leader at all would have already defined the issues and be leading G.W. by about 15 points. Wishy washy poll driven liberalism isn’t going to sell over 50% of the voters. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.
Well, that could be spun as “Look! Bush got OPEC to cooperate and stop hiking up their prices! Good for him! I hate getting gouged at the pump!”
I think hatred of OPEC is a pretty bipartisan thing. And while I happen to agree that the American motorist is coddled to a ridiculous degree, I don’t think anybody’s going to win by suggesting that it’s better gas prices be higher so a friendly government can’t make their views known on an election.
I didn’t, but it’s safe to guess that a lot of people did. Long story short, his verbal struggles simply don’t bother most average people. They like what they perceive as his firm moral conviction, his self-confidence and his forward-looking optimism. They do not like the media and the perception that they are hostile to Bush.
Whether or not those perceptions are accurate, the fact that so many liberals cannot see that these things are important to Middle America and that Bush projects them explains much.
Frex: Bush’s inability to, on the spot, come up with a list of his own errors and then present them in a politically artful way, is exactly the sort of things that makes educated liberals (read: Dopers) see him as a boob; it is also exactly the sort of thing that makes people think that they don’t know what they’d say either, and hence see W as a guy like them.
You mean America in general doesn’t agree with the political leanings of the SDMB – GASP. Get a life – get out and see that your personal political slant may actually be different than other people in America. If it comes a such a shock then perhaps you spend too much time here where only one brand of politics is deemed acceptable.
You know what? I am about fucking ready to give up. The dismissive lack of understanding and simple common courtesy as evidenced by both sides of the spectrum in this thread is nothing short of revolting. The fact that I am going to be forced to choose between Bush and Kerry for fuck sake is incomprehensible. I can see no good outcome.
But, again- you watched it. A majority of the populace didn’t, and grabbed their info from the papers. And the papers didn’t say, “Bush Rehashes Credo 15 Times, Bores Us To Tears”; they said, “Bush Says: ‘Stay The Course’”. And if those ‘tired lines’ resonate, then Bush gets their support.
Understood. Now, a question: would you rather vote for someone who swindled you, but actually has a plan for dealing with what you think is the greatest threat to the country; or for someone who promises they’d never lie to you, but doesn’t really have any good ideas about what they’d do?
Remember- Clinton beat Dole handily, and Nixon beat McGovern by one of the greatest landslides ever. The American people will happily embrace a scumball who will do what is important to them over a saint who has no plan- or worse, who seems to think that no plan is necessary.
A majority of Americans believe we are at war, and that the War on Terrorism must be fought and won. A majority of Democrats don’t think it’s that important. That’s not a hurdle to be jumped; that’s the Great Wall of China. Either Kerry needs to start convincing people that the War on Terrorism is pointless, or he needs to start declaring his plan to win it.
I think another terrorist attack on American soil dooms Bush. Not just because of the economy tanking afterwards- Bush put all of his prestige on the ‘fighting terror’ card, and if he seems to be losing, and if all his vaunted Homeland Security can’t stop another attack, then not only does he look incompetent, but 9/11 itself becomes easy to lay on his head. And then Kerry wins in a landslide.
Of course, I also think we’ll be re-electing Cheney in '04, so what do I know?
Hey, you are sadly mistaken if you take that as the “smug intellectual snobbery of the hard left”. Surprising too, in light of your registration date.
I’m just a guy who tells it like it is, about conservatives and everything else. Although, come to think of it, I’m not doing too well in Middle America. Hmm…
I hate to break this to you, furt, but you’ve been whoosed. IzzyR is as conservative as they come, and his post was beautifully and subtly sarcastic if you knew what he really felt. Sorry.
And it was summarily dismissed, with comments about how no one could come away from that press conference with these views. Hate to say I to… okay, for 80% or so of the American people this is just about as deep as they think on an issue. They may watch the press conference, or at least have it on the television, but the information just doesn’t get processed. Anything else and you’re seriously overestimating our electorate.
Both Bush and Kerry is running on “the other guy is bad platforms”. I think Kerry is actually doing it a less so, but that could just be budget issues. Kerry should define a plan and be generally dismissive of Bush if he wants to win. He needs to make enough people believe that he offers substantive, positive change from the current administration. Bush’s strategy has been and will continue to be to cast fear and doubt at changing horses in the middle of the stream. It doesn’t need to be brilliant, and it will get more vicious, but it only needs to be effective. So far it has, with just enough voters.
One small glimmer of hope for Kerry supporters (or more properly, Anti-Bushites): in the polls released today Nader drew more Bush supporters than Kerry supporters. Which means that the folks like Mehitabel’s family, who have the ability to swing the election, are analyzing their choices. These are people who could vote either way, and sadly it’s exactly the people that John Edwards was drawing. You can for the most part ignore campaigning to anyone who would post to this thread. Their die is cast, more or less. It’s those who haven’t decided that hold the key to this election. I say court 'em with hope and suger, not sour and fear.
Sure, but that’s why I get annoyed with these people. They get their news from tiny little sound bites and assorted snippets. If they were a little more informed, I bet it would make a huge difference.
[quote]
Understood. Now, a question: would you rather vote for someone who swindled you, but actually has a plan for dealing with what you think is the greatest threat to the country; or for someone who promises they’d never lie to you, but doesn’t really have any good ideas about what they’d do?
[quote]
I would go with the never liar.
Sure I’m with you, it’s almost impossible to elect someone decent, because they have to cater to the insane populace in order to have a chance to get elected.
I agree 100% We need more defined goals and we need to go after the people that actually attacked us. While starting on those things, we need to be a better citizen of the world, because that’s a big reason why a lot of people don’t like us.
We also need to get off this vague “war on terrorism” tip. It gives people false expectations, and makes our goals seem unrealistic. We’re never going to eliminate terrorism from the world, so why give people the impression?
All that needs to happen is a few thousand less people vote for Bush this time than last.
For that not to happen invites the world to think the people of the US don’t just condone but actively support the kinds of policies we see this self-serving, Isolationist, Capitalist empire practicing around and above the world.
We can all make mistakes once. Re-elect this scum and three/four years from now you’ll be way down that Imperial, militaristic, Kipling road . . . who’d have thought it possible given the protection people have from their politicians and media in the rest of the developed world . . . . who’d have thought, until now, it wouldn’t be Communism but US-style Capitalism that gave truth to George Orwell’s fears . . . who’d have thought so many people could be fooled into thinking relinquishing freedoms made them more free . . .
In the full context of democracy in the 21st century, that’s one scary country ya’ll have there.
God help you, and God save the rest of us from you.
And you know this based on…? It’s not like Kerry has come up with a roadmap to success. His lack of leadership at a time when we desperately need a voice of leadership, is very troubling. Hell, Jesse Jackson has shown more leadership than the democratic candidate for president. Once upon a time, I thought Carter was a better alternative than Ford based on the fact that Carter actually had a pulse. I was wrong.
All of you who think it couldn’t get any worse must not have been around in the 70s. Everyone hated us. We fought internally. Half the country loved the president and the other half despised him. We had to trade in our hogs for itty bitty cars because gas was rationed and through the roof. Inflation ran rampant. Employment was in double digits. If you think it can’t get worse than THIS, then you are dreadfully naive. And given the two stellar candidates we have to choose from in November, I’m not feeling all that optimistic.
That is the real problem though is not it? In order for Kerry to win he has to somehow garner more support from the nation than did Gore in 2000. Yet Kerry is far less inspiring than Gore, and Kerry doesn’t even have the Clinton Admin to lean on as did Gore.
So, Kerry will try to run on hatred for Bush, but hatred in the political realm only goes so far in the US. I think the incredulity in this thread stems from the fact that so many dopers who posted here really do hate Bush, and they can’t understand why other people don’t hate him as well.
In the end the candidate to win will be the one who has garnered the most love. Not the one pinned with the most hate. At election time more people will hate Bush than Kerry; but also more people will love Bush than Kerry.
Had the dems had enough sense to run Edwards it may have been a diffferent story; but Kerry is the Democrat’s Bob Dole: an honored politician, a war hero, a loyal servant of the American people, but a dud as a Presidential candidate; totally uninspiring, good at parroting a political ideal, but completely lacking of a vision of his own.
