No WMDs in Iraq

[opebo]

I voted 'won't matter', but the more I think about it, it could actually help.  The reason is this - the War is directly linked to the 'cultural divide'.  People in the Bush states feel that this sort of unfair claim by the left is anti-American and it will increase their alienation from the 'Gore States' and the left wing elites.  I think these sorts of attacks by the Dems are an excellent way to shore up the loyalty of the Republican base.  These are people who feel that for decades the US has been pushed around, has been weak, etc, and they see Bush as a righteous warrior.  For the Dems to attack this I think may increase their margins in the leftist states, but will not help them in places like Ohio, Missouri, Iowa - the all important swing states.  And if this is their line of attack they can forget about any chance in a Southern State.

No, the economy is really their main issue, I think.  And it will definitely be better every month towards November.

[opebo]

Why is the absence of WMDs in Iraq an "unfair" claim? And I think your obsession with this idea that all Bush has to do is turn out his base and he's got the election sewed up is a bit misguided. As much as you'd like to wish that it did, the GOP base does not constitute 48% of the population. It's more like 40%, and realistically as the incumbent Bush can probably count on 45% in a two-way race if he runs a decent campaign, but the lack of WMDs in Iraq definitely hurts Bush among swing voters. The only question is whether other issues can override it in importance to these voters. If the economy does improve as you say (I'm still very skeptical, but we'll see) then that would probably overshadow the war in Iraq as an issue.

Turning out the GOP base is definitely important to Bush, no question about that, but I think it's ridiculous to suggest that deceiving the American people about the existence of WMDs in Iraq helps Bush. And even some in the base must be upset about the lack of WMDs, I don't think that they all subscribe to the "end justifies the means" theory.

The point is that a majority of voters in the states Bush won in 2000 will view all your above claims about 'deception' and other unfair and unfounded allegations as just left wing anti-Americanism.  My point is just that this line of attack helps Bush - in the same way that the anti-war movement helped Nixon.

I think the 46-48% base is realiable.   I'm perfectly willing to give the Democrats a similar 'base' - I just think the genuine swing voters are fewer than you do.  Keep in mind that the GOP base is well located - we can win with 48% of the vote.  

Just curious, why are you skeptical of economic improvement?  I agree the number of jobs created could be high or low, but it seems to me rather fast GDP growth is extremely likely over the next year or three.

[opebo]

Sure, Bush could win with 48% since he's already done it once, but I don't see any way that you can win with 48% in a two-way race. Nader isn't running as a Green, and even if he runs as an independent, I highly doubt he gets more than 1% this time. If Kerry wins the popular vote 51-48, it would be very difficult for Bush to hang on to the electoral vote. Even more difficult at 52-48.

And it's not a left wing attack at all, I think that at least some people on the right are going to be pissed about the fact that there are no WMDs in Iraq. The bottom line is that Bush was very certain that there were, he didn't just say there probably are or there might be or that there were in the past, he said that there are WMDs there now. A lot of people put their faith in him and supported the war because they trusted Bush, and now they feel betrayed. Even if Bush didn't intentionally lie, the bottom line is that he was certain that he was right, and he definitely shouldn't have been certain. Since the GOP base seems to really like Bush's honesty, it becomes an issue. You can't just dismiss it as a left wing line of attack, there is evidence there for it.

And Bush made the WMDs the number one reason for going into Iraq. If he had just made the case along the lines of human rights violations, that would have been completely different, but the number one reason for going in there was that Iraq was supposedly a threat to our national security. Bush made the WMDs the issue, and it's too late to back away from them now. You can't have it both ways, you can't just use the WMDs for political advantage and now slough it off as an issue.

Bush could easily win again with 48% to Kerry at 52% in a two way race - all it would take would be a slightly better precent (about 100,000 votes - not unlikely) in Florida to make up for the absence of Nader.  Nader only mattered in New Hampshire and Florida, and because of population change, NH is now expendable.  Bush could get a slightly worse percent in the liberal Northeast and West Coast, more than making up for the gain in Florida - leading to the same 47.9% nationally, or even less.  And he would still win!  God I love the electoral college.

Regarding the 'reasons for going into Iraq' - most Americans from the states Bush needs to win know the reason was 9/11, not all this 'WMD' nonsense.   All that pointless WMD chatter Powell pushed Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld into was for U.N. consumption, and for the weak-kneed Democrats in the Senate, not for the true believers in the President's base.

[opebo]

Oh, ok, so the entire GOP base knew that Bush was lying all along, but since it was for a good cause, then that makes it ok. The end justifies the means. I see.

9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq? I don't even hear much of anybody try to make this claim anymore. There was clearly no direct connection between Saddam and 9/11, even Bush himself pretty much admitted that, and then claimed that the charges that he was trying to establish such a link were false. Not only has Bush denied a link, he says that he never said that there was a link in the first place even. Sounds like you guys need to get your story straight....the argument I hear coming from Bush now is that Saddam was bad and that we're better off without him. I agree, but personally I don't think that's enough to justify the expense and loss of lives.

Sure, Bush could win with 48%, it's theoretically possible to win the EC with only 10% of the popular vote even, but it is highly unlikely that all of the shift toward Kerry would occur only in the red states and not at all in the blue states. (Yes, I'm using different colors than the media uses, but those are the colors Dave uses, so on this website, we should use those )

If Kerry were to win by 4 points, he would probably win Florida, Missouri, and New Hampshire (he would win all of those if the shift towards kerry was uniform nationally), and would just barely lose Ohio and Nevada if he won by exactly 4 percent and the shift was exactly uniform everywhere (which of course it almost certainly won't be on either count, so both of those would be basically complete toss ups). It would be very very likely statsitically speaking that he would win at least a couple of those 5 at a minimum. The Bush states and Gore states aren't monolithic blocks that respond certain ways to certain arguments, all states include core GOP voters, core Dem voters, and swing voters, the only difference between the Bush states and Gore states is the relative size of the GOP base and of the Dem base in each state. There are still plenty of swing voters in every state who will be swayed by the WMD arguments even if the GOP base isn't.

First - Bush never lied.  It was just inaccurate intelligence.   Not actually that big a deal.  

Second - 9/11 was the reason for going into Iraq, just as it was the reason for Afghanistan, and will be for Iran.  It is the event that has changed the nature of our foreign policy.  It will also be responsible for getting back a real CIA that uses human intelligence, assasinates foreign leaders, and engineers coups where we need them.  In other words 9/11 brought us back to realisty - the world is rough and we have to fight.  WMD is a minor, minor detail - and emphasizing it makes Democrats look like the don't 'get' 9/11 or the need to protect America.

Third - One could easily see an increase in Republican voting in the Bush states with an increase in Democrat voting in the Gore states.  The whole point about polarization is that it increases strong differences.   The pro and anti-war sides throw into relief the very strong regional antipathies that exist in the US - the cultural divide.  The Bush state contain a lot of people who view the left wing coasts as actively anti-American.  Any attack of Bush by Kerry about this irrelevant WMD issue will increase this anger and resentment.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I did a little check, based on the assumption that small states are the way to go, since they are favoured by the EC. I came up with the following result:

The smallest percentage a candidate could win with is 22.8%: 1 vote more than 50% in all states except CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, OH, PA, MI, NJ, GA, NC and MA. I will post a map of it, if you want.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd love to see this!  I think it might illustrate that winning with 47-48% is not at all unthinkable in a highly regionally polarized country.

[opebo]

Cool map Gustaf!  Interesting how many of those little blue states are in fact Bush states anyway.  Victory with 48% sounds realistic to me.

[opebo]

Well, then why did Bush say he was certain there were WMDs and make it a major point in defense of the war, if it was all nonsense and a minor issue? Just use the 9/11 justification then. But Bush says there isn't a 9/11 link.

This is my point which you are failing to get, conservatives are going to be asking the same questions and be confused about it also. Your theory doesn't jibe with what Bush said.

Why did Bush put so much emphasis on WMD, and why did he say that Iraq didn't have a connection with 9/11?

Bush said he was certain there were WMDs. He shouldn't have been so certain about it. It was at the very minimum deceptive language on his part. He knew that it would sound lot better if he said there definitely are WMDs then if he had been more honest and said that he thought there were, or that there probably were, or that there had been in the past.

You're making the mistake of assuming the election is like a debate, where any minor detail of inconsistency is something to jump on for advantage.  Sometimes fussing over details while missing the over-arching point - 9/11 and The War On Terror - you actually lose support and alienate people.

[opebo]

But Bush is right, there wasn't a link between Saddam and Bin Laden. The only link that I can see is that they were both of the same race.

It's way too simplistic to assume that the entire Middle East is one big evil block of hatred against us. They oversimplify us and assume that we are all evil; let's not make the same mistake in reverse.

Whether you think it is simplistic or not, it is a commonly held view among American voters, and will help to get Bush re-elected.  Its also on balance more accurate to say 'the whole middle east is against us' than to say 'the middle east is our friend'.   The half of American on the Bush side of the cultural divide doesn't mind the lack of a 'direct connection' between 9/11 and Saddam - for us it is enough to know that he was our enemy, he rejoiced at our loss, and would have liked to see more of the same.