Perhaps by YOUR obviously biased partisan presumption.
To vote for Bush you need do no such thing. You only need to think that the war in Iraq was necessary to US aims. You don’t need to think ‘everything is going fine over there’…only that Bush has a better plan than Kerry does for success. Since to me both of them have layed out similare ‘plans’ (such as they are), this doesn’t constitute ‘ignorance’…except to the blindingly partisan.
Not at all. Again, you are building strawmen…or perhaps snowmen. To vote for Bush one only needs to feel that Bush is the lesser of two (w)evils…i.e. Bush might be bad for the economy, Kerry will be worse. Not saying that I subscribe to this, but its not ignorance to feel this way…its merely a difference in political philosophy.
Some folks prioritize the environment differently. This isn’t ignorance, its a difference in priorities. Why are YOUR priorities correct and others are ignorance??
What happened to your point 4 btw? Ignorance?
Again, someone voting for Bush only has to think he’d be a better president. They don’t have to think any of those other things. And thinking he’d be a better president is subjective…its not ignorance.
Obviously and copiously not so by any reasonable left wing biased partisans standards…correct. Looked at objectively though similar strawman arguements could be concocted by a right wing biased partisan against Kerry to ‘prove’ ignorance of anyone who votes for him.
As I see it, the problem is that’s pretty much what Kerry has tried to do this election, though with limited success. In terms of the views of the Democratic electorate he’s taken very moderate positions on most contentious issues. If he loses, the leftist types in the party will claim that running to the center doesn’t work and Democratic candidates should run to the left and focus on motivating people to vote who feel excluded by the current system. IMHO that’s a sure way to lose, but there’s been a significant contingent arguing for it since 2000. A Kerry loss, especially a big one, would make that strategy look much more credible.
Well, I agree and disagree with you. I agree Kerry has TRIED to run to the center…no doubt at all. In fact, the entire DNC was there to sing about how ALL of the Dem’s were really the centrist party.
The problem is…Kerry hasn’t pulled it off IMO. His voting record is kind of against him there. He ISN’T a centrist…he’s a liberal, with a liberals record. Why do you suppose he isn’t touting that he is a liberal? I’m sure HE is proud of his liberal leanings after all…they are what he believes in. Yet he is trying to portray himself as a centrist. Again, ask yourself why. No, if Kerry fails its because he hasn’t been successful at tricking people into believing he’s really a centrist (like Clinton was…and later on it wasn’t even a trick…Clinton WAS a centrist). And I HOPE the Democrats understand that and next time run an ACTUAL centrist instead of a liberal in centrist clothing.
Obviously it’s impossible to state as a fact what a Kerry administration will do. But it is possible to look at the record of the Bush administration. More Americans have been killed by terrorists during the Bush administration than during all previous administrations combined. The federal budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit larger than the combined total of the deficits of every previous administration. More jobs have been lost during the Bush administration than during any previous administration.
As I said above, it’s impossible to guess what a Kerry administration might bring. Maybe he’ll be elected and all of these problems will increase and we’ll look back on the Bush administration as being only the second worst one in American history. But what are the odds?
To answer the OT, the thing to do will be to steal a page from the Republican playbook and start developing left-wing oriented media. Fox news, right wing hate radio and all those right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation didn’t happen by accident. They were the product of money, planning and hard work by the Pubbies. Especially money. The Pubbies have gotten away with as much as they’ve gotten away with because they’ve managed to tilt the media in their direction to a huge extent. Why do you think the Republican-dominated FCC pushed through further loosening of the rules on media consolidation despite almost unanimous public disapproval? Because it’s a key part of the Republican game plan, well worth any short-term losses. We have to level that playing field if we are to have a chance of getting our ideas across.
Hello, Mr. Pot, nice to meet you, said Mr. Kettle. Did anyone tell you you were … black?
And to think Bush is the lesser of two evils, you need to ignore all kinds of stuff.
Hey, some of us understand that the environment is where we live. Letting corporations poop on us so their shareholder payout goes up by 2 cents is … dumb.
Karl Rove must have put a virus in the Straight Dope’s counting software! :eek:
Nah, Bush has been President for four years, if you don’t understand that you’re being governed by a weird cabal of neocons leading a wet, angry chimpanzee by the nose, you’re … not very bright.
lol…sure I am. But we weren’t speaking of my supposed bias here…YOU were the one making the assertions.
And to think…the same goes for those voting for Kerry. Especially those who are voting for him solely because he’s ‘not Bush’.
Well, I agree. However, I also understand that there can be a difference of opinion that doesn’t constitute the person differing from me being ‘ignorant’.
Ya, you are winning a lot of people over with your objectivity and calm language. Way to go!
Undecided voters historically have broken 2-1 in favor of the challenger in close elections. Since Kerry already holds a slight lead, I fail to share your pessimism.
I think you’ve got the tail wagging the dog. The modern conservative movement is the creation not the creator. As events as recent as the 1964 election or the 1976 nomination battle showed, the conservative wing of the Republican party used to be the minority faction. But big corporations were looking for a favorable political climate. They pushed “pro-business” policies to the top of the conservative agenda and then used their control of the media to advance conservative politicians.
I’m voting for BUsh, despite my disagreement with some key issues. Bush supports the death penalty; I do not. The failures of intelligence on WMDs in Iraq is a big negative for this administration.
But I like Bush’s stand on abortion. I like Bush’s tax cuts. I do not believe that the caribou will be harmed by drilling in the ANWR. I support tort reform. I believe unions have wielded their power excessively and to the detriment of the economy, the corporations they interact with, and even their own members. I support civil unions for same-sex partners, and civil marriage for same-sex partners, but as a matter of state policy, not federal mandate, and certainly not judicial mandate.
Reasonable people may reach different conclusions on these points.
But according to people like Evil Captor, there is no reasonable person who could reach my conclusions. I’m simply foolish.
BobLibDem: over two years ago, I predicted that Mr. Bush would win re-election. I also offered a wager for those that disagreed. To my chagrin, not ONE of the rabid, idiotic, partisan blowhards that spent their days writing anti-Bush screeds would take me up on it. The only two people to accept my wager were relatively reasoned, calm folks that liked a good wager and (presumably) disliked Bush, but not to a fanatical degree. On November 3rd, my joy in crowing about how right I was will be severely tempered by the fact that none of the true Rabid Believers loses a dime (or a dram).
In any event, your prediction is simply wrong. Bush will win. I said it then, and I backed it up, and I say it now.
That’d require being naive enough to ignore Karl Rove and his Bag Of Dirty Election Tricks™. Might as well ask us to be on a game of Three-Card Monte while you’re at it.
As the OP shows, back on 11 October 2004, I predicted that Bush will win over 50% of the votes because he is perceived as “the man of faith”. The following Dopers disagreed and Avenger even wagered a million dollar bet. Well, it is collection time.
I’m also interested to hear the reflections of the following Dopers to the OP, now that we have the post mortem of election results.
Patty O’Furniture BobLibDem SentientMeat Xtisme Avenger (owes me a million dollars) Frostillicies
Now, who wants to bet that Karl Rove has already groomed John Ashcroft as a candidate for the Supreme Court Judge as vacancies become available during the next 4 years.
CNN says Ashcroft is thinking of resigning as AG for “health reasons.” If (big if) that is true, Bush wouldn’t want him on the SC, he’d want someone healthier who would last longer.
Well, I won several bets on Bush. I made one that he would win 53% of the vote, and another that he would win at least 51%. As of today, it’s 52-47-1.
So, with that record, I’ll be willing to bet $100 that John Ashcroft will NOT be put up for nomination to the Supreme Court.
If anyone from Bush’s “inner circle” is nominated, it will be Alberto Gonzales. Who, by the way, is no means a hard-line conservative. In fact, conservatives are worried that Bush will pick him.
I don’t see where I have anything to reflect upon. I thought it was ridiculous to use the word “obviously” then and I still do. There was nothing obvious about it. At the end it came down to a few thousand votes in one state.
Bush was constantly polling at below 50% (very often below 48%) during an unpopular war with record job loss on his watch. He did poorly in at least two out of three debates. Record numbers of new voter registrations made the headlines almost daily. Considering this, you tell me what conclusion sounds most likely after the word “obviously”.
Anybody who bet on Bush to win most have done so on blind faith. The same blind faith that creates “Ayatollah land” as you put it.
Or maybe we weren’t spending all of our time in the liberal echo chamber patting each other on the back and telling ourselves how clever we were and how many changes there would be come the revolution.
If you bothered to look at the other side of the issue, you’d have noticed that Bush’s numbers were trending upward consistently, and that John Kerry’s negatives were higher than Bush’s. And of course, you might have noticed that Bush was consistently leading in the polls, and that the futures markets on the presidential election had Bush with a significant lead since the Republican convention.
Nor was I alone. Did you bother to examine the trending of bets? Tradesports was offering less than even money on Bush. What conclusions can you draw from that?
I think you misread Avenger. I think he was commenting on the possibility that 50% of the total electorate would vote for President Bush. That is to say, not 50% of the people who turned out, but (say) 83.333…% of a 60% voter turnout. His million bucks were quite safe.
I promised myself one opportunity to crow about the election but that I’d be as little a dick about it as possible. I’m choosing this as the opportunity. I bet $100 MM and my career on President Bush’s re-election (or more specifically that the economy and world events would be sufficiently favorable as to indicate a Bush re-election). So, uh, hah! Now I just need the markets to realize what a super-genius I am and the wager will work out.
I agree Kerry has TRIED to run to the center…no doubt at all. In fact, the entire DNC was there to sing about how ALL of the Dem’s were really the centrist party.