texx, I'll ignore your first paragraph's hyperbole, but you are right in the second... we have problems with the apathy of American voters, but a return to Jim Crow poll-taxes or the like is something we should certainly be glad to be rid of, and not think for a moment about returning to, regardless of a different intent. I understand Thadeus's concerns. After all, the Europeans, a frequent target for Bush supporters (excluding the Brits, who are still wrestling with whether they are Europeans or not!), consistantly far surpass us in voting turnout, and just their interest in politics in general. SJC made mention of this recently. There is much more political involvement in Europe, not only in discussions of local and national politics, but in the international arena as well. We would do well to foster that same level of interest in the United States. The answer, I think, is to hope for a significant swing towards moderation in our political parties. I know... my Democratic friends will say the extremism is just coming from the Republicans and their far-right supporters, but, while I largely agree, the 527's on "our" side have launched some ads that fit the same description I'm taking about. I think that the election of a Democrat like Kerry, assuming he's not instantly assaulted, once he takes office, by another "Whitewater/Ken Starr witchhunt," would be a good start. My real hope, which I posted in a thread some months ago, was that the Republicans would suffer a crushing defeat at the polls, not only in the Presidential race, but in the Senate and House of Representatives, that would move them to the center... much like Clinton moved to the center to capture his 2 terms. (and a lot of Democrats were not happy about that, although it was largely buried under the full-scale assault on Clinton, his wife, and every other damn thing your party could come up with... regardless of the fact that it was unproven and untrue. And I'm not talking about Clinton's problems related to keeping his zipper zipped up, and the resulting fallout) A move towards the conservative center by Republicans, along with a corresponding move towards the moderately liberal center-left by the Democrats (think JFK... the real JFK), would reduce the polarization of the electorate and the resulting apathy. Not to mention being damn good for the country. My opinion, of course.
Voters today have access to far more information than at any time in history. The underlying assumption behind the arguments in this thread put forth by the liberals is that voters are being duped or tricked into voting for Bush. How does one reconcile this theory when confronted with the unprecedented access to information? Liberals, please answer.
I didn't promote the theory and won't, but it is obvious that the propaganda machine has more extensive and subversive power at this time than ever in history. Visual culture is a huge industry as well.
Things Kerry has going for him: He finishes strong. He is more likeable than Gore. No Gore 2000 voters are voting for GWB. No Nader 2000 voters are voting for GWB. Some GWB 2000 voters are voting for Kerry. Kerry will get the same states Gore got plus Florida. The negative net job growth won't go away by November 2nd. Our away game in Iraq should be heating up another notch by November 2nd. (Ramadan!!! Bring it on.) The deficit is not getting any smaller. Kerry will wipe the floor with GWB in the debates. ACT will register 25 million likely Democratic voters in the battleground states. The polls do not consider these new voters "likely voters", so their impact is under the radar. The country has shown itself to be equally divided in the 2000 and the 2002 elections. 2004 will be no different. I give the slight edge to Kerry currently, since GWB's negatives (economy, Iraq, deficit) are so huge.
Something else is that polls present a too black and white image. I strongly suspect that 1/3 of the voters will vote for the Republican candidate no matter what, and 1/3 of the voters will vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. The remaining 1/3 lean both ways and to count their vote for either candidate does not tell the whole story. From this group, we get Reagan Democrats and Kerry Republicans. I will not be surprised to see this group flip flop back and forth between GWB and Kerry all the way to November 2nd.
He finishes strong? Then he better get his butt in gear and do the finish thing. I'm past being tired of waiting. He's more likeable than Gore? Maybe, but he looks like a tree. I'm not counting on Kerry getting all the states that Gore got. But I've been counting on him getting most of them, and some of the ones that Gore lost by a narrow margin. That scenario was playing out nicely, until August. Now, we'll have to see if Kerry can not only get back to where he was several weeks ago, but actually have a coherent message that swing voters in crucial states can grab hold of and use as a reason to vote against Bush, which, in my opinion, a clear majority in this country want to do, given a decent alternative. Kerry is a decent alternative, and a vast improvement over Bush, but if that message doesn't come across, and get these voters back in the game, the game may be over. I wish I could be happy about the negative job growth being a plus for Kerry, but I wish the economy was doing well. There are a whole host of reasons to vote this incompetent President out of office, without "hoping" for bad economic news. I think Iraq is going to hell in a hand-basket, but I'd rather see an improvement as soon as possible. Bush should be voted out of office for launching this invasion of a country that wasn't a clear and present danger to the United States. The situation there close to election day shouldn't matter a bit. And your comment on "Ramadan!!! Bring it on." is not helping. It makes Democrats (using your logic) look like they"re hoping for an even worse disaster in Iraq before the election, which couldn't be further from the truth. You're are absolutely right about the deficits. They are getting even bigger, as hard as that is to believe, but with the hysteria promoted by the Bush campaign, is anyone paying attention? I think Kerry will best Bush in the debates, but I also think Bush will have as few debates as he thinks he can get away with, with a format that allows as little give and take as possible. So we'll have to wait and see how that plays out. I sure as hell hope all those "hidden" voters come out and vote for Kerry. We're going to need every damn one of them. No Worries, I'm sorry for "busting your chops" like this, but I'm trying to be realistic here, and give my opinion. Kerry will be a far better President than Bush, but he better get his campaign in overdrive if he hopes to get the chance to prove it.
Bush said it best himself: "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." Kerry wins in November.
DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE Weld ahead in polls in Massachusetts.....Kerry wins... Dean, Gephardt ahead in polls in Iowa......Kerry wins... DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE DEBATE
But if No Worries thinks that a) Kerry will be much much much much more effective ("good things") in Iraq and b) short-term increase in "bad things" is one of the few items that will solidify a Kerry win, then to No Worries, it isn't pathetic. It's circular reasoning agreed, but if that is how one truly feels, then I don't see why its pathetic. Wouldn't you be for 100 American deaths in the next two months if it prevents multiple thousands in the next four years myself (and those are you're only two options)?
TJ, I'm giving you a code blue second degree warning at a level of 2.03. Don't make me take the warning up a notch.
There is a reason why the Founders put in an electoral college. Election by popular vote would lead to a pair of very nasty outcomes: A. The major urban areas would decide elections. There would be no need for the President to campaign or even care about the concerns of the rest of America, those red states your ilk sneer at as being full of unintelligent, bumbling idiots who support GWB. B. We'd never elect any Republicans. It would be an everlasting stream of quasi-marxists like Kerry, Gore and countless other lefties who'd bankrupt the nation stealing from the pocketbooks of the achievers and transferring their wealth to the non-achievers packed into those urban areas to buy their votes. Our nation would cease to exist. Voting is a priviledge and is not something that should be forced upon the population via law. I don't support motor voter, because you should care enough to be able to take time out of your busy day to register. Besides, most people lack the intelligence (a key factor we miss in our Republic is an informed populace) to vote. A great deal of our population only vote with their wallets. The quasi-Marxists like Kerry play on jealousies and offer the moon and stars to these folks paid for on the backs of those "evil rich" they hate so much. There should be a literacy test. There should be a basic citizenship test (what are the 3 branches of govt, etc.) to register to vote. And felons should never be allowed to vote under any circumstances.
You just can't help yourself, can you. Bama, you could actually have some good points somewhere in your posts, but you have to bury them in the incendiary hyperbole and Right of Rush slander you keep spewing out. Why do you do it? Are you really working up an act for a far-right radio talk show, as someone here suggested? If so, why don't you do it somewhere else? Some of us are trying to have discussions without the type of garbage you keep exhibiting. Do you have another place to post where you can write this stuff? If so, use it. We'd like to keep D&D around, if it's not too much trouble for you. Or, as an alternative, you could make your points the way I know you could easily do, but choose not to. Please consider it. Thank you.
I still don't understand this argument. One person, one vote. I don't understand the complaint that less attention would be paid to the non-urban dweller crowd. If urban dwellers make up 65% of the population, then of course as a group, they would have more sway - they should as they are the more popular group. I understand this line of reasoning even less, especially given Bush's apparent popularity today. His administration has shifted the debt burden of the U.S. away from the rich and towards the middle class yet he is still popular, correct?
I really would like to second Deckard's appeal for sanity bama....I've seen you make some fantastic posts when you aren't channeling Rush. believe it or not, I enjoy reading both sides opinions...but I get turned off real quick when the hyperbole and partisan rhetoric kicks in. I need facts to make an intelligent decision...and it gets tougher and tougher by the day to parce it out from the rhetoric.
Why is it that you consider "quasi-Marxist" to be such a taunt? While I've heard many here talk about how Democrats are not socialists, what are govt. healthcare, increased taxes and increased regulation, environmentally and otherwise? It is the antithesis of a free society. It is socialist. Now are the Democrats to the right of the European socialists? Maybe, but the leftward tilt of the Democrats in recent years is something you're going to have to admit, especially since it is to your side's detriment. Already your side supports a "cradle to grave" nanny state of the kind favored in Europe that is bankrupting those states. And you say you're not at least a bit socialist? I'm not trying to throw any bombs, but I'm asking for an admission on this. Well, at least you admit my point on the dangers of mob rule with the elimination of Electoral College. But would it not result in the constant election of Leftists since the urban areas are predominantly the havens of the Left?
Ramadan will be a very bad thing in Iraq. Count on it. I have a very REALISTIC opinion, where as the CiC is deluded or does not care or is waitng for his next instructions from God or ...
Again, even if the statement is true, what does this have to do with the effectiveness of the system?
It would cease to be a govt. "For the People, by the people and of the people." It would become a socialist den of tyranny. And the "system" as the Founders intended is not supposed to be efficient. Efficency in govt. is the greatest enemy to economic and personal liberty we could ever know.
I'm confused. Is you're argument: 1) Lack of the electoral college would mean constant election of Leftists since the urban areas are predominantly the havens of the Left? and 2) This would cause the govt. to cease to be "For the People, by the people and of the people." You see, it's part 2 that confuses me. If urban areas were predominantly leftist and thus elected leftist officials, wouldn't that be exactly "For the People, by the people and of the people"?? Are you contradicting yourself?
