Why? Here are John Kerry’s own words, from his appearance on Meet the Press in 1971:
Here’s the THING: For the past year or so every unfortunate incident, down to a screw-up by some army private, has been been shouted out as a “Failure of the Bush Administration”. “Bush does yadda-yadda.”
Now it’s going to be Kerry’s turn to writhe under the white lights and microscope. There’s going to be over six months of this. If he can’t do better than he did yesterday he won’t get elected.
So…for those of us why find hyperdimensional mathematics easier to understand than economics…can you explain to us why?
-Joe, 1+1 = 2, except in economics, where it can equal pretty much any number you want, with enough effort…
Pantom, could you explain a bit more? I thought this recession was one of the shortest on record and the stock market went up 50% last year. What investments did you make that made so much money?
More important, what are you investing in right now?
Wall Street runs with the figures the government supplies. But what if the figures are wrong? I’ve seen some articles recently on this possibility. One was in Businessweek a few weeks back. Now here’s something similar from The Economist. It’s just one thing after another as Bush tries to furiously paddle up-river…
Maybe. But job creation numbers do not account for small-business hiring, so the two may sorta balance out. Somewhat.
For Bushies, Good tidings!
Especially after a couple of weeks of 9/11 hearings, which Democrats and liberals have been trying desperately to spin against Bush. And
Let me see if I get this straight -
Asking a candidate for President about war atrocities that he has admitted to is a “stupid fucking question”.
Although I grant you Kerry interviews would be more interesting than they are now if he did respond that way. But he is too empty a suit for that.
Regards,
Shodan
The things that will decide this election have yet to be played out.
-
Will the theoretical return to Iraqi sovereignty occur on June 30? Or will anarchy still prevail?
-
How many casualties will the US suffer in Iraq over the next several months?
-
Will there be another major terrorist attack in the US? The timing of such an attack could either help or hurt Bush.
-
Will the economy be looking up in October? The Saudis appear primed to lower oil prices to make it seem so.
Kerry was tremendous in January and February, dismal in March and April. He needs to articulate his message better, particularly regarding terror and the war in Iraq. He also needs to counter the Bush attack ads regarding taxes. And he needs to avoid disasters like the Russert interview.
Bush’s handlers have been pretty good at the timing of the attack ads to counter Kerry’s momentum following the contested primaries. But the end result in November will be a referendum on the Bush record, and major chapters of this record have yet to be written.
I agree with most of BobLibDem above, but I wonder about this part -
My take is that no matter when it happens, another terrorist attack (which God forbid) will only help Bush.
I can imagine Kerry going negative in the aftermath of another attack. Hundreds dead, more wounded, and Kerry saying, “Vote for me! I would never had let this happen!”
And then losing all fifty states.
What timing do you think would help Bush? Another incident like in Spain would be perceived as terrorists trying to influence the elections, and I cannot imagine that helping Kerry. Even if they don’t give a damn about Kerry, it is going to be perceived that they are on Kerry’s side, and that would be disastrous even if the Republicans never said word one about it.
I am interested in your understanding of the situation.
Regards,
Shodan
Being a pessimist, I’m usually right. Its probably going to be very, very close but GeeDubya has a good chance of actually being elected, rather than installed.
We already know there is a portion of the elctorate that will vote for GeeDubya no matter what. What we don’t know is what portion of the electorate this comprises, as in how many. No matter how dismal the revelations of incompetence and stupidity, this is the bedrock. It looks like that bedrock is, roughly, in the mid to high 40 percent of likely voters polled.
There is something of a wild card here: polls of “likely voters” must, by necessity, overlook persons who typically have not voted. Those previously disaffected who are energized by outrage might tip the scales, but there is simply no way to measure who they might be, and what they might do.
There is, as well, an opposite bedrock, such persons as myself who are already decided, to the extent of preferring to nail thier respective peckers to a tree rather than vote for GeeDubya.
This would explain something otherwise perplexing: the Bushiviks have already spent a big wad of money, with marginal effectiveness. They have managed to create an entirely bogus impression of Kerry’s “indecisiveness” and “waffling”, but not to have boosted GeeDubya’s positive numbers very much. That is, they’ve made the Other Guy look bad without making themselves look very good. That ain’t much bang for the buck.
On the other hand, they don’t need much “bang for buck” because they’ve got such a humongous pile of bucks. Its Kerry who needs effective impact for his money, he doesn’t have even half as much money. In America, money talks. It also votes.
So, to sum up: I don’t think further evidence of how disastrous a decision the Iraq war was/is is going to change anything: we already know. As certain of our more adamant posters can attest, there are minds that will not be changed by mere facts, you can’t argue a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into in the first place.
Over all, I agree with the what you are saying as far as it will probably come down to the wire and could go either way. However, I’m not sure how large this ‘energized’ group of normally non voting types is really going to be, or if it will counter act the appathy of other voters who are looking at both candidates with a measure of distaste. Sort of a ‘none of the above’ type scenerio, or as in my case a careful study of what the third parties have to offer. Personally I think your ‘bedrock’ goes both ways, with say 40% locked into being hard core 'Crats or 'Pubs. And I think that the 20% of unaligned voters are in the apathy boat atm…
Of all the reasons you listed, I think this one is the only meaningful one. What will the economy be PERCEIVED as this summer and come election time. If its perceived by the American people to be recovering, doing well, what have you, Bush will be re-elected. If its not…then he won’t be. Iraq, 9/11, terrorism, etc, will weigh in the decision process…but not enough to tip the scales. Look at Bush’s daddy.
I’m assuming you meant ‘What timing do you think would HURT Bush?’. I think the only way Bush could be hurt by another terrorist incident close to the election is if its something that really could have been anticipated and prevented and if it happens directly through the Administration screwing the pooch. Other than that, I’d say that a terrorist attack (or even an attempt) close to the election will have the exact opposite effect that it had in Spain.
-XT (Sr)
Yes, and the only semi-viable third-party candidate is going to siphon off votes from Kerry, not Bush. Nader is the candidate of the extreme Left, but there is no corresponding extreme Right candidate to draw votes from Bush. Yes, yes, I know all the less moderate Dopers are going to scream that Bush is an extreme Right candidate, but they are hardly in a position to judge. Anyone to the right of Dean is considered extreme Right by the more fervent posters hereabouts.
Yes, I did. Sorry for the misstatement.
The incident would have to be long enough before the election that the shock, and “rally round the leader” effect, can die away, and long enough before that the Democrats can convene hearings and subpoena people to pin the blame on Bush. And I think that period is past. If an attack happened tomorrow, seven months is not going to be long enough for that. It took years (and a government official with book sales on his mind) to get it to happen for 9/11.
Unless it is a genuine, real scandal, and not something perceived as an election-year ploy by the Dems. But it is usually the cover-up, not the crime, that gets you, and Bush isn’t going to cover anything up.
It just occurred to me - there haven’t been any scandals labelled “Whatever-gate” since Clinton left office. Which means that even the Dems haven’t gotten any traction with accusations of cover-up.
Go figure.
Regards,
Shodan
Or being a stand-up, nonpartisan guy, while others blame Bush, and winning.
Could go either way.
I have to wonder what kind of a person would vote to re-elect a President who gets a series of PDBs documenting suspected terrorist attacks inside the United States with hijacked airplanes and opts to do nothing.
He didn’t do NOTHING.
He went on vacation.
Maybe Bernie Ebbers can use that excuse?
-Joe
He was probabaly thinking the same thing when he refused to act upon the WMD threat information from Iraq. Oh, wait a minute, he did act on that.
Damned if you do…
-LC
Sure- it depends on the variables:
Who Does It- If Saudis, it hurts Bush big time. If Iraqis, it helps Bush.
Method Used- If something the public perceives as preventable, then it hurts Bush. If the perception is that there was no way to see it coming, then it helps Bush.
Timing- If over say two months prior to election day AND it is perceived as preventable, then it hurts Bush. Right before election day, it helps Bush. ON election day- a wild card.
Casualties- a magnifier of the previous effects.
My bad for Bush scenario: Saudis hijack passenger planes and bring down the Sears Tower in July.
My good for Bush scenario: Iraqis release nerve gas in domed football stadium in October and kill 50,000.
To me what will sway it would be if the average guy says “Son of a gun, they should have been able to stop this one,” then Bush would be in trouble.
Thanks for your response.
I don’t think the timing matters as much as the perception that it was preventable, as I think we agree.
I actually don’t think the nationality of the terrorists will matter very much. In fact, any effort by al-Queda or related groups that is perceived as being in reaction to the Iraqi invasion (and it will be, almost no matter what) will tend to strengthen the association between Iraq and terrorism in general. In a sense, the Democrats have put themselves into a corner by concentrating so much on the Iraq invasion. Now pretty much any reaction by international terrorists will be associated in the popular mind with 9/11 and will redound to Bush’s advantage.
Sort of like what happened in Spain. It was perceived, rightly or wrongly, that the terrorists were acting against Spain for her cooperation in the Iraq invasion. But it was not (AFAIK) Iraqis who committed the atrocity - it was al-Queda, or international terrorists in general. This tends to reinforce the association of Iraq with terror.
Anyway, as I said before, I pray this is all academic, and that there are no more terrorist attacks.
Regards,
Shodan
Amen to that. I think the timing does matter somewhat. There’s a “rally round the flag” syndrome that would help an incumbent president greatly should the attack occur very near the election. The earlier the attack, the less likely to help Bush as we’d have some time to get over the shock and assess whether the attack was preventable.
The nationality may not be a big issue, but Bush has been so tightly tied to the Saudis that another attack led by Saudi nationals could be troublesome for Bush.
Sure, there’s no harm in prayer, but that’s hardly sufficient. The Lord helps those who help themselves.
Experience says it can happen anyway and that pretty damn serious precautions should be taken. I’d feel a lot better personally if the same people who screwed the job up so totally before weren’t the same people we’re depending on now, wouldn’t you?