Talk Elections

With all the descriptions of geopolitical identity, the comparisons of Carter in 1980 to Bush in 2004, and constant reminders of polarization by the journalistic class, one might reach the conclusion that we're in for one of the most negative presidential campaigns ever.  In the Democrat Party primary debates a greater amount of time was devoted to descriptions of the legislative agenda of the Bush administration than on candidates' descriptions of their values.  Even on this enlightened forum we relish in the bloodsport of rhetorical attack.  Will the nastiness of the 2004 general election campaign exceed that of the 2000 campaign?

Oh, it's going to be ugly man.  Hard core democrats despise the Bush administration.   And Bush's right wing base despise liberals, especially the northeast variety.

In my adult life, I have not seen the country as divided as we are now.

We really do live in 2 Americas, red and blue.  20 years ago Republican friends of mine and Democrat friends of mine could agree on several issues.  Today, we can't agree on anything.

I predict the popular vote will again be close to 50-50, and no one will win the EV count with more than 290.

HoopsCubs,

You're right, it's much worse than before. 20 years ago I could find common ground with my friends who were Democrats, but not anymore. The strange thing about that...my views have not changed ONE BIT in those 20 years.

I hope Bush goes as negative as possible, if it will win him another term.

I really hope that Bush goes negative too... it will lose him the election faster than he misplaced that cumbersome budget surplus... Bush's big advantage is he is generally viewed as a nice and decent guy he goes very negative he loses that... so please go negative... go really negative...  

opebo, I have to agree with Ben here. It's interesting that you're both from Missouri - your state must be about as polarized as any.

In any case, the precious 2-6% of true swing voters want to see the identity and policies of the candidates clarified. Bush doesn't have much work to do there - he's a known quantity, and one that I believe the voters would prefer (in terms of policy) to Kerry.

But he can be perceived by these voters as crass, and caring more about corporations than "regular people". Any nastiness coming out of his campaign will reinforce that perception and turn off the true swing voter (the remaining white male Reagan Democrats who could still vote for a Democrat).

I think the Republicans get this - hence the nice call from Bush to Kerry yesterday, and the call for a "spirited" (on the issues) campaign.

Let the country see the Democrats' anger and the Republicans' patriotism and steadiness.

It's gonna be worse...and the poll is unanimous so far... :(

I rode my bicycle in today as it is a beautiful warm winter day in the East Bay area.  I'm a contrarian, I suppose, because I agree with this completely.  And, yes, it seems to be the nastiest campaign season ever.  I keep trying to facilitate at every party or lunch gathering, but there's less and less common ground.  I'm not even sure some of these people really believe what they're saying, they just repeat the words because Kerry (or Bush) said it so it must be right.

I think there is a hell of a lot of common ground between most members of each party... the two reasons is the growing strength of radicals on both the left and the right in defining their party's programs... and added to this the rise in adversarial politics... mostly because its good TV... shame really...  

Swing voters are not 'Reagan Democrats' or any other kind of Democrat.  The parties are pretty much even nowadays.  Swing voters do not identify with either.

A lot of swing voters could be accuratly described as "Wallace Democrats"

Maybe Cheney can handle the negative stuff.

This will be a campaign of the mighty mudslinging.

Bush can only win on creating fear about Kerry.

And creating fear about terrorism helps him also.  Without the presence of fear, Bush has relatively nothing to run on.

Yes! Its like the book 1984, he succeeds by creating a prolonged problem.

Thanks to all who voted.  Clearly, this wasn't a randomly selected sample, but the results are telling.  

We have 18 votes Yes (100%) and zero votes otherwise.  This is reassuring, and gives me optimism.

First, if anyone had selected no, I'd assume dishonesty, so it says that no matter how much we may disagree, except for the usual smartass remarks, we're all being honest in this forum.  Dave Liep has done an excellent job here, as evidenced by the quality of the users.

Obviously, the third choice is pretty much a tacit admission one thinks negatively.  I whine and moan quite a bit about negativity, stereotyping, and general lack of effort to compromise (appreciate the hypocrisy), but the fact that everyone chose the more serious 'yes' option is at least an admission of negativity rather than an attack.

Good news indeed.  Yes, it'll be a much nastier campaign than last time, or so that's what everyone believes, but not as nasty as it might be.  Read some accounts of the 1876 election, or take a look at C-SPAN programming of those nasty House of Commons debates.  Maybe Bush and Kerry, both respectable statesmen, will come out of this alive.

Kerry survived Vietnam, he should be able to make this. ;) And Bush...well, I won't say why I think he'll survive this, since I don't want risk accusation of being negative... ;)

"Anyone who runs is a viet cong.
 Anyone who stands still is a well-trained viet cong."
                   --From Full Metal Jacket

Bush survived vietnam too.  The smart way.

...by exposing Kerry's voting record.  A record that is certainly something to be fearful about.

Yeah, but I meant psychological survival, and I don't see his psyche getting tested by joining the National Guard instead of fighting in Vietnam.

"How can you have a peace sign on your jacket and born to kill on your helmet?

- I think I was trying to say something about the dualism of man, sir. You know, that Jungian thing."

Also from Full Metal Jacket.

Gustaf,

Some people need to kick cats to prove that they are a man, others need to kill gooks.  I see nothing noble and honorable about that.  I am the odd republican that would be much less likely to vote for someone who volunteers for an unpopular imperial war of choice and then, 30 years later, has his henchmen go after the guy who made the smart choice to avoid that nastiness.  I see from your sig file that you supported Iraq.  I did not.  That is not my brand of conservatism.  Nevertheless, anybody that says Bush is wrong for wanting to live is ed in the head.  The same survival instinct that made him join the Guard maybe is what is causing the doctrine of Pre-emption.  I'll have to think about that.   But, I'll not brainwash myself into thinking that Kerry is somehow nobler because he knows how to kill, up close and personal.

You should check out "Reflections of Evil" by Damon Packard.  It's a very low budget irreverent film about consumerism in the USA.  Lots of ripped-off footage.  He was sued by Spielberg, Lucas, FOX news, and many many others.   Violent language, mind you.  Very violent.

I didn't support the Vietnam War. I do find it hypocritical and distasteful to without hestitation send other people to die while never being prepared to do so himself. I of course wouldn't vote for someone just b/c he fought in a war, that would be ridiculous.

what smart way? c'mon, if he was a dem you would go haed on him for this one

fair enough dunn.

anyone watching deborah norville just now?  There talking about the new Bush commercials.  "Exploitation of tragedy."  Man, it's gonna get nasty.  

What, did Michael Jackson just endorse John Kerry?!

Saying that its "Exploitation of a tragedy" isn't that nasty.  In one sense it is the truth.  3000 families lost a family member that day and to be so insensitive to that to politicize it is exploitation.  He can run around and talk about his response to the tragedy. But talking himself up simply because he was president during the tragedy is insensitive and exploitive. Bush is going to run around and talk about 9/11 for the next eight months. Bush should respect the victim's families enough to not show pictures of the site of those September '01 days.

I visited the rubble in mid '02. It was largely cleaned up by then, but not quite. It was a terrible thing to look at, to think about 3000 losing their lives.  To actually have lost a family member and be incessantily reminded for years on end about the event, would be infinitely more terrible.  They deserve some closure, but Bushy is going to run around trumpeting from on high how God meant him to be president during that terrible time. He'll bring dozens of hard-core republicans related to victims and have them stand around while he talks about his 'leadership during troubled times'

The nasty thing is exploiting the families of the tragedy. But maybe that is what you meant Angus.

The firefighters and veterans groups will be influential in Kerry's support. I think Bush will get rebuted so often on using 9/11, he will lose all credibility on the issue among independents.

In all seriousness, Kghadial, if you've read my posts, you know how offensive I find such exploitation.  You make an excellent point.  

Rightwingnut, in another post, suggests that if George would just come on out, admit possible intelligence failures (I can see the jokes coming, enough already), then he'd look magnanimous and have a much easier reelection bid.  

I'll say again, I didn't vote for him last time, but I was genuinely impressed with the president during those days following the attacks, and maybe I'm looking for a reason to vote for him.  He and I have many many disagreements, but I think he has shown himself to be an honorable CEO.  Normally, when you pay big money for eggheads to tell you what to do, you follow their advice, but I think if bush would just go with his intuition, he'd be okay.  

Zachman, you make an good point as well.  But, if I had to guess, I'd guess that more veterans still will vote for Bush than Kerry, based on available statistics.

But still, he will have old wounded men next to him, and president Bush will be bickering over his defense record. It will give him immunity from a whole range of attacks.

If you are referring to Kerry's "defense record" it is not a little thing.  I wish it were.  It would be easier to swallow the senator from Massachusetts if it was just a minor thing.  Unfortunately, it's something that is extremely important in selecting a President of the United States.

Exactly.  As someone who voted to reelect Kerry to the US senate in 1996 I can honestly say that this is true.  It's a totally different ballgame here.  Kerry will have his seat as long as he wants it, I suspect.  But, take a good look at the Constitution of the United States of America.  You'll note the job descriptions in Articles I and II are quite different.

Sorry angus if you thought i was assailing you with my post. I have read your posts, you are quite fair on the grand majority if not all issues.

I just felt like i needed to say something about what I feel, and what most should feel about exploiting the victims families.

I'll admit I haven't seen those ads , I'm not from a battleground state. Frankly I'm glad I won't have to see Bush crow about what a badass commander and chief he is.

Perhaps not wanting to be from a battleground state is why I'm against Evan Bayh for VP ... ;)

There's no doubt that whichever side thinks it can exploit this situation, or anything else, will do it.  I think that's what the buzz in the media is about.  That's the flavor of the moment.  King George I never quite got it.  Or anything else.  His son has learned a thing or two.  For example, Bush the Elder blew off California in 1992, and lost many congressional seats in the process.  Bush the Younger campaigned here in 2000 and the republicans held their ground, and have gained since.  Campaigns aside though, there's something surreal about either one of them exploiting uniforms.  Something 1938 Germany about it all, know what I mean?  But we're the most populist nation in the world, and that's why it is this way.  It is why Elian Gonzales had to go back to cuba, it is the reason we are one of only a handfull of OECD countries that still practice capital punishment, and it is the reason Gray Davis was recalled.  This is neither bad nor good.  This is just the way it is.  

Indiana is Bush Country.

Yeah, there is a need for Bush Country in this Country of ours I'll have to admit. If I hadn't been born in Bush country i'd be some crazy ass liberal.  I'm still a crazy-ass liberal but i'm able to hide it when necessary. I wish there was less Bush Country I will admit. Good to have a diversity of opinions though, that's why i'm going to move to a swing state some day; want to be courted by candidates; hopefully one of the Bush Clan ain't going to run in one of those times that i live in a swing state;
I like the majority of Republicans but King George the Second has that smirk, I want to whack it right off, the list of republicans that I want to smack is very short but Bombs away Bush rubs me the wrong way.

Indiana doesn't make much sense as Bush country, this is the north and all.  I mean even Kentucky voted for Clinton.
I want to run out into the street and say "Indiana what the  is wrong with you, you've been voting Republican all the live long day, what in hell has it done for you? sure the republican party picked your bumbling son to be the VP, but you aren't proud of Dan 'potatoe' Quayle, are you?" fortunately being born in Bush country I am not enough of a freaky liberal to run around espousing my liberal views, where i live when not at College is about 15 minutes away from Northern Indiana's center of the Klan; i'm pretty sure they still enjoy hanging uppity liberal colored folk :(  but maybe that's just me being partisan against the Klan ...

If you could bitchslap the president would that make the world a better place?

No of course not

But, Its just a statement of fact : I would not mind to smack that smirk of the King George's face, even if only a second.

You know i think when Tony Blair was running to keep his party in charge of parliament some conservative advertisements said "burst his bubble" well if I was running against Bombs away Bush I my slogan would be "smack off his smirk".

Hell maybe it'll knock some sense into him about the deficit.

Don't you want to bitch-slap anyone in politics?

At one time or another, all of them pretty much.  Bush is a realist.  You and I are idealists.  Idealism can be dangerous.  For example, the Nazi were extremely idealistic, as were the Bolsheviks.  But idealism built great national institutions as well.  I think I'm moving into greater nationalism, but less intrusive government.  Capitalism, when combined with liberal democracy is the way that works best for us (though I have philosophical objections to its forced exportations).  Of course, now we're at war.  After the attacks, the President called on Americans to serve where they could, go on about their commerce and their lives, and made clear that those responsible would be found.  I was impressed with the early successes in the Afghan campaign to basically clean up the mess the US had contributed to over the years.  

The Iraq situation is divisive, no doubt confounded by that country's considerable natural resources, but motivation to stand with my president remains.  You can call it a quest for empire, pushing paranoia; the general complaint here seems to be the exploitation of the attacks.  (And the obligatory personal attacks on George Bush)  But that abdicates the quest for true understanding for the immense role the US plays among the economies of the world.  I really don't think you're choosing between republic and empire, I think you're choosing what kind of empire you want to be.  ("American Empire"  Andrew Bacevich, Harvard University Press, 2002).

"Pollution doesn't harm the environment.  It's impurities in the water and air that harms the environment."
     --Vice President Danforth Quayle

What fun would politics be if it wasn't for personal attack? Some souls out there, including you to a large degree, don't do that sort of thing. The beauty of politics is that it gives you figures to make fun of, and slander. However, that's fine for those of us who are largely powerless with the exception of our wallet or our vote. Though the arguement can be made that with the massive amount that is going to be spent in this campaign the money you or I would give to our respective parties would be meaningless. Also our votes are relatively meaningless unless Karl Rove can work his scary magic to make Cali a swing state or If Evan Bayh can work is Conservative Indiana mojo to make Indiana a swinger state.  

I dispute that Bush is much of a realist, he is more of an idealist than you or I.  Argument 1 for this is the fact that he said we need to give tax cuts to the American people because we had such a surplus. Then after the surplus was gone, and we were in a recession, and we were at war and were likely to end up in others down the road he stubornly stayed with his original tax cut. His tax cut was ideal to get rid of a surplus that congressmen were dieing to get their hands on,  however it can be argued that it was not the sort of tax cut for economic stimulus. It was top heavy, people at the top save when the economy is bad, people in the middle and bottom spend when the economy is bad. I could go on how bush isn't much of a realist but you could go to www.slate.msn.com (perhaps that is the address) and read a little about what i'm talking about.  Before someone says that slate isn't a valid source, they have a distinct anti-Kerry bent.

Yes we are an empire now, i think it must be admitted.  We will have tens if not hundreds of thousands of troups in Europe&Africa&Asia for perhaps the rest of our lifetimes. It is going to be a long fight to make Iraq and Afghanistan and countries of that ilk into relatively secular, and moderate democracies.  Probably we'll enter a new country one every "presidentiad" to take Whitman's word.

However, my vote for Kerry is to make sure that WE as a nation stay a secular and moderate democracy.  If Bush gets 66 senators and 300 congressman and 35 governors and 7 supreme court justices all on his side we will be in for some big changes.  Do I think this a likelyhood? No . Do i fear it? Yes.  We can't hope to remake the Mideast if we cannot stay on the path that they we want to set for them.

Perhaps my only foreign policy beef with the president foreign policy campaign is that he didn't wait till his second term to finish what his father started. If he had perhaps he would have more than one secular democracy on his side. This is going to be a long conflict, and we are going to need Britain, and India, and Russia, and Japan, and France, and Italy, and Germany, and Turkey, and every non-corrupted secular democracy the world over. We must remember that this battle is going to be a long and painful one. This is a slippery path we follow, if we take it step by step arm in arm with our allies we can navigate it with few bumps and bruises. However, if he run all alone on it we might fall and crack open our skull.

Okay that last metaphor fell apart, and i repeated myself,  no more posting tonight ;)

Haha, intelligence failures, that...what?, OK then, I'll be quiet... :(

Here's a nice explanation by Richard Wolffe.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4497111/

Jmfcst, you will definitely like the picture.