I’m 42, but perhaps you were fooled my my youthful complexion.
Get real, Dogface. Yes, things can change drastically over a few generations, but they don’t change that much in 4 years.
I stand by my analysis, amateurish though it may be. I don’t see the Democrats making a decent showing in more than a few states that went for Bush in 2000, nor is the President likely to be competitive in more than a few states that went for Gore last time (especially since the Greens figure to be insignificant this time). Potential swing states have rarely been in such short supply, or so important.
Safest bet: both Bush and his opponent (whoever that turns out to be) will be spending a LOT of time in Florida!
Finally, John Mace thinks I’m selling the Republicans short in places like California, while rjung insists I’m underestimating the Democrats’ chances in the South.
I say they’re both looking at the next election with rose-colored glasses. Gray Davis is in deep trouble, but I still think California will still go for almost any of the Democrats over Bush in the general election.
And rjung can kid himself all he wants about the Democrats’ chances in Bush strongholds, but apart from Florida (which the Dems obviously think they won in 2000 anyway!), I don’t see any states Bush carried last time out that the Democrats stand a chance of winning.
But humor me, rjung, apart from Florida, just which state do you foresee switching over to the Dems in the 2004 Presidential election?
P.S. I want state names only. Spare us your patented rants about Bush suspending the elections.
Well, quite the smoking gun you have there, eh? Perhaps it’s better not to spout off with incomplete versions of the truth. You’ll note that despite rjung’s misleading link, they also fired Alan Keyes. Indeed this was for the same reason they fired Donahue: low ratings. Neither could compete with the other prime-time news analysis shows, so they were taken off the air.
And a note on that page that rjung linked to: Chris Matthews is actually a liberal. He tends to be fair in his treatment of guests on his show (indeed, I like Hardball, because he calls everybody on their bullshit rather than use his arguments to make a partisan political point), but remember that he was a speechwriter for Carter and a top aide to Tip O’Neill. I believe he has said openly in other places he is a liberal.
Just wanted to point out that I was only referring to the map in my earlier post. I make no claims to anything else on that page. IMO, it’s too early to make a guess on what states will fall in which columns in the 2004 Presidential Election.
I’m not sure why this should be viewed as a problem. The two main parties are largely indistinguishable because the goverment has more-or-less taken a form that satisfies most Americans, right to the point where half don’t even bother voting. Congratulations, you’ve found the right balance.
Really? I’d have to take issue with that logic. Most of the Americans I’ve spoken to who’ve given up on voting have done so because they no longer consider their country a genuine democracy and figure whoever they vote for will simply kowtow to the corporations and the religious right.
As much as I admire Marse Tom, it is worth remembering the GeeDubya ran as a centrist, hence the oft repeated drivel about being a “uniter, not a divider”. He stopped by Bob Jones U. just long enough to assure the rabid right that his heart belongs to Daddy.
More than anything else, he reminds me of the Firesign Theatre:
“Georgie Tirebiter! Not a divider, hes a uniter!”
“He’s not insane!”
Lord Moloch has made his selection, and stuffed the pockets of his Favorite Son with shekels galore. Our only hope lies with the people, that we are not as stupid as President Rove takes us to be. I pray that it is so, even as I very much doubt it.
They no longer consider the US a democracy? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. There are plenty of 3rd party candidates to vote for if you’re disillusioned with the Dems/Pubs. Sounds more like a juvenile cop-out to me. You don’t get exactly what you want so you take your marbles and go home.
Why this constant insistance that Bush is popular only becase the media have brainwashed the electorate? Are you so insular in your thinking that you truely believe only “stupid” people can disagree with you (and actually favor Bush’s agenda over that of the Dems)?
Of course not! I personally know and cheerfully debate with such persons as might be identified as honest conservatives, persons who recognize the need for social change and justice but only seek prudence and caution in implementing. They vote for Bush like I voted for Dukakis, it was the best I could do, so I did.
Is the electorate brainwashed by the media? I won’t hazard an opinion, but I find such poll results as the pervasive opinion that Saddam bin Laden was directly connected to 9/11 worrisome indeed. May I trust that you find such ignorance troubling as well?
Exactly. They’re not outraged enough to actually do anything about it, and their inaction isn’t due to fear or oppression, but simple indifference. So long as the corporations keep the stores open and the religious right (or the extreme left, for that matter) doesn’t get too annoying, everything is okey-dokey.
Incidentally, as has been pointed out numerous times on this board, the Americans never had “a genuine democracy”. They had a republic from the beginning.
But your post that I originally responded to seems to cotradict what you are saying here. Originally, you stated that Bush and his political machine (aka, Rove) are simply counting on people’s stupidity to get re-elected and that the media have made it almost a certainty.
Yes, I do find this kind of ignorance discouraging. I won’t dispute that some people form their opinions based on what they read in the paper or, more likely, see on TV without any critical analysis. But do I think this is a group upon which election outcomes are determined? No. There are plenty of folks like this on both sides of the political spectrum and I expect their effect to more or less cancel out.
From your lips to the ears of Allah, Big John. Would that it were so.
But it is a matter of record that GeeDubya asserts positive statements that are, at best, open to question, as witness his proclamations regarding the Trailers of Doom. Given the controversy and the difference of opinion amongst experts, surely you will admit that the question is, at best, open.
Why is it, then, that we have GeeDubya, our Fearless Misleader, proclaiming without so much as a hint of doubt, that these were posolutely and absitively proof positive of biological skullduggery. He had to know that wasn’t so!
How then is it that he can simply ignore it? Is that what accounts for his avoiding open press conferences like Dracula avoids sunshine? And more to the point, how can he expect to get away with it? Because he pretty much has, hasn’t he? Hear any howls from the press, demanding explanations?
And where are the aforementioned honorable conservatives, men like John McCain? At one time, he seemed to hold his party to a standard of honesty I thought commendable. His silence is inexplicable, unless my assessment of his character his flawed.
You can choose to vote for third-party candidates if you wish, and if any such in your area managed to overcome the unjust institutional obstacles to third-party ballot access; but, except in very extraordinary circumstances, you cannot hope to elect any third-party candidates.
If we want to keep America from becoming (or remaining) a one-party state, there are indeed some things we can do about it, but they all involve working to change the structure of the electoral system to produce, not a two-party America, but a **multi-**party America! An America where the full range of political views among the people is fairly reflected by their elected leaders!
Well, polls clearly show the public, as a whole, is not all that concned about the WMD evidence. Do you think this is because the media have convinced them it’s not important? I don’t think so. Perhaps it’s a senes of optimism that Americans generally have-- focussing on the fact that a horible dictator has been removed from the scene. I’d still say that’s more than a bit naive, as we have no idea what type of gov’t Iraq will end up with, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were true.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Hamish *
**Really? I’d have to take issue with that logic. Most of the Americans I’ve spoken to who’ve given up on voting have done so because they no longer consider their country a genuine democracy and figure whoever they vote for will simply kowtow to the corporations and the religious right. **
I disagree-most people dont vote because of a much simpler, but profound reason–because they are totally unconcerned about politics. And the reason they are so totally unconcerned is that , without even thinking about it–they know that they live in the most stable society on earth, where they can live their private lives based on their own efforts. Everyone knows that whether they find a good job or are unemployed is basically a question of how hard they are willing to work, to move to a new city if necessary, etc. (Compare to the French and Germans, for example, who demand 6 weeks vacation time and guaranteed pensions at age 55,and expect their government to provide it.)
Americans know that no matter who sits in the White House or Congress, society will remain the same, and there will be no effect whatsoever on their personal lives. It’s all based on a wonderfully strong sense of stability, and a solid confidence in American social structure.
Being able to be bored with politics is a privilege!!! It means everything is okay, and you can live your life freely. Even if we end up with a “one-party” system, because both parties are the same, --this ain’t gonna turn into Mexico, like the OP fears. No American will ever worry that he has to pay a bribe to local officials to get his car registered, or that the army will attempt a coup.
Very good points. I wouldn’t be quite so absoulte in statements as you have been nor quite so glowingly optimistic about how permanent “paradise” is going to be, but I think you essentially hit the nail on the head. Sure there are lots of whiners who don’t vote because they don’t get their way, but I think those folks are a small minority. For most people, the gov’t is a secondary or terciary concern. This is not necessariliy a bad thing, but I can’t fully believe that an apathetic electorate has no negative consequences on society. In the end though, it doesn’t bother me one hoot. Just makes my vote count a bit more.
Brian: Why do you think gov’t needs to be a primary concern for all citizens? The fact that our gov’t by and large stays out of our lives, let’s us concentrate on those things that should be primary: family, community, personal goals and achievments. Pls note that I didn’t say it was of zero concern. Just that it was further donw on the list.
Chap, do you really mean it when you say
"Everyone knows that whether they find a good job or are unemployed is basically a question of how hard they are willing to work, to move to a new city if necessary, etc. "
???
Everyone knows that?
Could you explain that to the hundreds and thousands of unemployed people that are mopping floors and flipping burgers with their college diploma or Master’s degree hanging on the wall of their 4 people-sharing-a-one-bedroom-apartment?
Just a couple of guys in one city. How many more are there? The guy with the electrical engineering degree that bags groceries at the local market? All the unemployed computer people? How about the PhD in chemical engineering that’s working as a pool boy in Houston’s exclusive River Oaks area (and being stiffed on his pay because some of his clients aren’t paying their bills on time even though they’ve just bought 2 new Jags and a Hummer)?
“Everybody’s” a LOT of people. I don’t think the hive mind is as big as you think.