False dichotomy. Saying Americans are stupid doesn’t mean we are all stupid. (And really, ‘ignorant’ is a more accurate description; saying ‘stupid’ is just hyperbole.) So, yes, Gore won the popular vote, because there were enough non-ignorant people to vote for him. But Bush won the election because there were still enough ignorant ones for him to carry the electoral college.
As for Clinton, he won hands down because Dole was a weak candidate, and he won re-election because of the unprecedented economic growth and prosperity during his first term.
Agreed. But still, it’s an advantage. Imagine what the polls would be like if Bush hadn’t gotten us into the Iraq quagmire, and didn’t have former members of his staff criticizing his performance, and didn’t have his entire justification for Iraq fall apart like a house of cards? He’s certainly still down in the polls from earlier years, isn’t he? And in fact, according to GIGObuster, it sounds like they are actually even in the polls. Whether it’s enough for Kerry to beat him remains to be seen. I think his actions are hurting him, but maybe not enough for him to lose the election, although I really don’t think the constant trickle of American casualties in Iraq is going to help Bush. And again, it kind of depends how many ignorant voters there are who really don’t know the facts, and don’t care about the facts.
No, you misunderstood my comment. You seem to think that Kerry ought to despair because he doesn’t have any of the “advantages” that Gore had. I was just pointing out that he has some advantages that Gore didn’t have. I don’t think you can dismiss Kerry’s chances out of hand like that. Kerry’s merits are a wholly different issue - not what I was responding to at all.
Well then why did you say it?
Maybe. Or maybe the impeachment had lowered voters’ opinions of Clinton to the point that associating with him might have caused Gore to fare even worse. Winning the popular vote isn’t exactly a poor performance. To say he “would have won if…” is just Monday-morning quarterbacking.
I can’t speak for Shodan, but the above is one of the stupidest things I’ve read on this board. Of course these people think Kerry is better for the job, you moron. That’s what the poll was asking.
The poll numbers here differed by more than thirty percent from the poll numbers of the general population. This obviously indicates that the population of this board does not reflect the general population. It was 80% for Kerry, while the general population is roughly only 50% for Kerry. Therefore, the board leans toward the democrats. The deviation from the national numbers proves this.
And yes, genius, if Bush had won the SDMB poll by more than 30% over his national numbers it would mean that the board leans towards Republicans. But he didn’t, so it doesn’t. This isn’t even statistics 101. It’s about as complicated as that “one of these things is not like the other” segment on Sesame Street. I’m suprised the concept of deviation from the average is so hard for you.
Most sensible post in this thread and utterly ignored. Color me unsurprised.
The point of SDMB being a left-leaning board because of a large Kerry margin in an informal poll is a non-starter as well. I, for instance, could never be considered left-leaning. I have zero problems with the war in Iraq, nor with Bush’s foreign policy in general (except for protective tariffs, which were and are a stupid fucking idea, and run exactly counter to the Repubs’ free-trade capitalism ideals.)
However, I will not be giving GW Bush my vote. No way. Why? Domestic policy. His gay marriage silliness, Patriot Act, Patriot Act 2, TIPS, Total Information Awareness, and virtually anything that John Ashcroft has touched.
If Kerry can give me a viable Iraqi policy consisting of not backing down to the international pressure or the insurgency, and give me a better domestic policy consisting of not fucking around with some bullshit gay marriage amendment or faith-based initiatives, or gathering every piece of information I send online into a comprehensive NSA database, well, my vote is his.
It’s the same old story. There’s a choir in the church. They’re singing. They’re already IN the church, they’re putting in the practice, they’re wearing the robes, so the preacher turns his back to them and turns his attention to the people who are peering in the doorway or sitting in the backmost pews hesitantly, attracted by the music but not committed to come right up to the altar just yet, thanks.
Do you smile and ask them to join you, explain what denomination the church is, what they believe, tell them where to go for more info, and say they’re to come back if they like and would be more than welcome? Or do you yell that they’re all sinners and going to hell if they don’t come out right now and pledge their lives to the Lord lest he smite them down right there and now?
And in those polls, the hidden story is that Nader could hand Dubya the next election too. But otherwise way too close to call.
What I find fascinating is the idea that some seem to have that support of a President necessarily translates into a nationwide endorsement of everything that President’s party stands for (eg the common assertion on blogs these days that polls like the one in the OP show that “America is a nation of conservatives”).
Does this mean that when Clinton was enjoying massive popularity that the nation was liberal, and suddenly switched to conservative during the Bush administration? Does that mean that the nation approved of adultery and lying during that time? Does the poll numbers now mean that the nation wholeheartedly supports stuff like drilling in ANWR and a Constitutional amendment barring all and any marriage rights for homosexuals? If so, why haven’t these things gotten done - shouldn’t it be a cakewalk?
Dob, as some of the posters have said, there’s no need to panic just yet. The election is still more than six months away and Bush’s lead is within the margin of error.
I wish I could give you an answer on this but I’m afraid I’m just as puzzled as you. When he was president, I didn’t care for Ronald Reagan but I certainly could understand his appeal. Whatever you thought of his politics, he certainly looked presidential. His genial tone, amiable demeanor, and talent (fostered by his years as an actor) for turning a phrase did a lot for many Americans to gloss over some of the chicanery and nastiness in his administration. GWB, on the other hand, lacks Reagan’s polish and charisma. (This was certainly evident in the way W stumbles and bumbles around during press conferences.) I would think that his popularity may be because people feel sympathetic for him in the “he’s doing the best he can” sense but, judging from the near-absolute adulation his supporters express, this doesn’t seem to be so. And this isn’t something that’s arisen since September 11th, I noticed during the 2000 campaign that, in terms of passion, Bush’s supporters easily outstripped Gore’s supporters.
In any case, my only theory for why a substantial block of people are excessively devoted to Bush is that perhaps, when they squint their eyes just right, he looks like Reagan to them.
Personally, I don’t care what nationality or political party someone is part of; anyone who endorses George W. Bush at this point in time – especially given the fiascoes of the last four years – deserves to have the words “Not too bright” tattooed on their foreheads.
[wild optimism] And with this seemingly innocuous post, what later became known as the Liberal//Conservative peace talks began. Let the healing begin! [/wild optimism]
This is utter crap. Anyone who could say that has obviously not been paying attention.
There are as many worrying signs as there are positive, and perhaps more. There is still a huge net job loss over Bush’s administration. All too many of the “new jobs” being created are either people returning to work at far less pay, or taking temporary, part-time jobs. This so-called improving economy is built on a house of cards: it will not stand for long as it is (out of control deficit spending with reduced revenue and an enormous shift of tax burden to middle and lower class Americans). Mark my words. It won’t last for long.
I more or less agree with your first two points.
Repsonses to other posters:
Saying that liberals think Bush is “Hitler” is a pathetic straw man. Liberals think he is a disgrace, and so do a lot of people who aren’t liberal.
But based on most conservatives’ unabashed continuing support of Bush, I conclude that in general they are utterly lacking in ethical principles. I wouldn’t mind if people were honest: “it’s better for America if the president is a mangler of policy and has such a feeble grasp of issues that he cannot communicate coherently to the press,” but they are not. Black is white, up is down, right is wrong: deficits are ok, lying about the reasons for starting a war is acceptable, alienating the entire world is fine, cutting benefits for poor people while increasing them for rich people is a good idea, making sure only people above the median income can afford health care is lovely, letting industries set environmental standards is just dandy, helping to increase the record size gap in pay between people who own companies and people who work for them is right on, etc…except that people who support Bush deny those things are happening.
To those who say they are inspired by that cretin: I laugh in your face. You’re not fooling anyone.
Why not just admit you want the partym to which you owe allegiance to stay in power, at any cost?
You’re forgetting that many powerful people in hs party have a stated goal of achieving a permanent Republican majority. It doesn’t take much reading between the lines to decipher what that would mean.
You’re also forgetting that rhetoric coming out of many right-wing politicians and commentators has been along the lines of critics-of-president = traitors, liberals = traitors, etc. These people no longer have communists to rampage in paranoid fury over.
I share the sensation of being dumfounded that anyone could walk into a voting booth and pull the lever for Bush, much less half the country.
I also agree that John Kerry can lay out all the specific plans and visions for America he wants to, and the conservatives will still say, “But what does he plan to do? All he’s saying is ‘I’m Not Bush’!”.
But this is not my biggest problem with these numbers. It isn’t Bush’s total, or even Kerry’s. It’s Nader’s. 4%? He didn’t even get that last time. Nearly everyone I have spoken to who voted for Nader the last time (and that’s a fair number–I was one of them) believes that we have bigger fish to fry in this election, so we need to suck it up and support Kerry. I have a hard time believing that my sample is that skewed. So how can the polls be showing more support than last time?
A question–have studies been done comparing people who are willing to answer telephone polls to those who are not? Do they skew in any particular direction?
OK Knorf I’ll ignore the predictable political rhetoric in ypur posts but I can’t let you get away with the other stuff:
Ok then - why don’t you give an example of a detailed plan (any issue) which Kerry has laid out for his future administration.
The second half of this quote is your opinion so I’ll leave that there but why the fuck would net loss of jobs matter if more jobs are being gained right now. I suppose that someone who is remission from cancer is more sick at the present since they had cancer in the past. How has tax burden shifted to the middle-class? Give a cite that the new jobs that have been created lately are for less pay, temporary, or part-time?
All abunch of bullshit rhetoric that you have been fed with no proof to back up any of your claims. What astounding arrogance to spout off NPR talking points without even trying to investigate their validity and then turn around and accuse conservatives of not thinking about the issues.
And finally – thanks again for proving my main theme in this thread. You posted a response to the accusation that Kerry has no message of his own and that Democrats have to rely upon attacking Bush to score political points.
How did you respond?:
*By saying that Kerry does have a message, yet you offered no example of his message
*By attacking Bush’s economic policy
*By attacking the general state of the economy under Bush
*By calling Bush supporters dishonest cretins
*By calling Republicans power-hungry
*By calling Republicans paranoid
*By attacking a form of rhetoric you believe the Republicans to have engaged in
So. My point stands. Please Kerry supporters – without bashing Bush, without slamming Republicans, tell me - What is Kerry about other than opposition to Bush? So far no one has been able to do this, including Kerry himself.
The phrase throwing good money after bad doesn’t apply to just monetary issues. A lot of people have a lot of their self worth invested in Bush having done the right things. It’s only April, plenty of time for folks to decide to get rational, and cut their losses.
