"Bush will win"....Fap fap fap fap

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-04 07:49pm

Why Bush is going to win

Kerry's a captive of the overbearing, elitist wing of his party

In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."

I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November.

It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the Red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland.

This alone might be enough to put Bush over the top in a tight race. But despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves. Since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate.

John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.

These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans.

Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972.

Kerry now has 90 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, "four more years of hell."

The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.

Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub.

Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead.

Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too.

Calling a presidential race in August is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, well, even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while.

By far this is my favorite line: Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead.

You can just hear him furiously masturbating, lube flying in soft sucking sounds as he imagines the magical lead that Bush will attain through the power of incumbency. Whenever I read these it makes me ill. The Daily News disappointed me today with this moronic tripe. The NY Post is all but unreadable.

If Dalton is reading this you can back me up on the fact that during the DNC the tag line in the Post was "Democratic Love In" and they had a picture of Kerry and a picture of Edwards, Edwards' face looking away smiling and Kerry's face seemingly looming over him like Ace and Garry. UGH.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2004-08-04 08:30pm

One of the more artistic thread titles I've read this week, Stravo.

Who wrote that?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-04 08:32pm

Stravo, before you start foaming at the mouth, keep in mind that Kerry
got virtually NO convention bounce.....Bush's approval rating remains
constant in spite of virtually all the mud that the DNC is throwing at
him. Things are looking grim for the Kerry Campaign; Bush has literally
handed them A FUCKLOAD OF OPPORTUNITIES to beat him into the
ground politically, yet the DNC keeps tripping over it's shoelaces,
while bush just smirks into the distance.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-08-04 08:48pm

Frank Hipper wrote:One of the more artistic thread titles I've read this week, Stravo.

Who wrote that?

Thank you! The original title was going to be "Look! A Conservative furiously jacking! " But decided against it.

This is the link for the article: here

And Shep I'll try to bite my tongue about the irony of you cautioning me about foaming at the mouth. But all I have to say is that you have a war time president, incumbent, who can't get past 50% approval rating. Not a good start.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-08-04 08:50pm

The guy's probably right. At this point Bush has nowhere to go but up, while Kerry has nowhere to go but down.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-04 09:05pm

Stravo wrote:And Shep I'll try to bite my tongue about the irony of you cautioning me about foaming at the mouth.

Pardon me, but the impression I get from reading the posts here, is
that it's like reading FreeRepublic during the Clinton Years, except
in reverse. So you can pardon me for using the expression "foaming
at the mouth"

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 09:58pm

Despite the moronic conservative overhype, they do have a point. Kerry is virtually dead even with Bush after the convention when he should be doing his best. That's not a good sign for the Democrats at all and like it or not the incumbent advantage is real enough. And with Kerry basically simply sitting back and letting Bush call the shots this isn't good; if Bush catches a lucky break he's going to win.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 10:07pm

Kerry is an incredibly inept politician, which is the only reason Bush is still afloat. If he were replaced with someone who possessed half of Bill Clinton's skill and charisma, Bush would be preparing his concession speech already.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-04 10:27pm

Just because the conservative writing this is happy about it, that doesnt mean hes wrong. Hes actually very very right. Kerry's campaign has been dead ever since Iowa, and Bush is just starting to roll out the big guns. I am not a Bush fan, and will be voting Kerry come November. But I am still fairly certain that hes gonna get killed.

Remember Dean? That guy who had a steamroller campaign and actually said what he believed in? I wish I had him back.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-04 10:29pm

Bugsby wrote:Just because the conservative writing this is happy about it, that doesnt mean hes wrong. Hes actually very very right. Kerry's campaign has been dead ever since Iowa, and Bush is just starting to roll out the big guns. I am not a Bush fan, and will be voting Kerry come November. But I am still fairly certain that hes gonna get killed.

Remember Dean? That guy who had a steamroller campaign and actually said what he believed in? I wish I had him back.

Dean would be opening up a full broadside on Bush by this point.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-08-04 10:29pm

I firmly believe that Bush will have as little convention bounce as Kerry did because this race is so incredibly polarized. People's minds are made up, and lovely flowerly speeches aren't going to change that. Barring some huge domestic or foreign change, the vote could take place now and there'd be no difference.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 10:31pm

How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-04 10:34pm

Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

Me. I switched from Democrat to Republican when I was 14-15 or so

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-08-04 10:36pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.
Me. I switched from Democrat to Republican when I was 14-15 or so

That doesn't count. You had no real prior allegiance because at 14-15, you couldn't possibly have ever voted until that point.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-04 10:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

Not many. The states have been carved up into 3 categories every election year: guaranteed Democrat, guaranteed Republican and swing states, where it could go either way. Campaigns have to energize their base supporters to make sure they get to the polls (because they're going to vote on the party line no matter what), and then they have to appeal to the moderates and get enough of their votes to push them over the top.

And I agree with Howedar. I don't think Bush will get a bounce from the convention, because frankly I don't think there's anything he could say that he hasn't said already. All he's been doing thus far is slinging mud and running on fear. He simply can't run on his record, and his total fuck-up in Iraq has shown the moderates that he doesn't have any concept of foresight, so why should they put any credit in any proposals he makes? Bush will energize his base, but that's really about it. Kerry has a golden opportunity here, and he's letting it languish. He should fire his campaign manager.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-08-04 10:38pm

Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

Its been observed that if the Democratic Canadit this year had been Adolf Hilter he would still get thirty percent of the vote simply because he was a Democrat

That being said I'll have to dig up that old study back in the day they did of exactly how many American's vote strait ticket(All one party, lets you check off one little block instead of ten to fourty)

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 10:40pm

Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

It depends on how you define switching you're alligience. It's rare that a dyed in the wool party voter will switch. But it's not that uncommon for those loosely affiliated to switch parties a number of times.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 10:42pm

Bugsby wrote:Remember Dean? That guy who had a steamroller campaign and actually said what he believed in? I wish I had him back.

I don't. He had all Kerry's dumb ideas and then some. And was just idealist enough to try and carry them through.

Durandal wrote:Dean would be opening up a full broadside on Bush by this point.

And given his political ineptitude Bush would probably just ignore him and go back to his 70% of the votes.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-04 10:46pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Bugsby wrote:Remember Dean? That guy who had a steamroller campaign and actually said what he believed in? I wish I had him back.
I don't. He had all Kerry's dumb ideas and then some. And was just idealist enough to try and carry them through.

Durandal wrote:Dean would be opening up a full broadside on Bush by this point.
And given his political ineptitude Bush would probably just ignore him and go back to his 70% of the votes.

Please. Give the guy some credit. The problem with Kerry is that he has no platform. Hes taking no firm, impasssioned stand on any of the issues. Dean had passion about what he wanted. Remember, he was the only one of the famous 9 to stand up against the war. Everyone else waffled then went with the crowd. Sure, to stuck up politicos it might look bad. But if Dean's campaign were still going on right now, it would be impossible for Bush to ignore it. Then he would have to debate the issues and defend his policies instead of just flag-waving and raising the terror alert to get support in the polls. And that is what can take down Bush.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 10:57pm

Please. Give the guy some credit. The problem with Kerry is that he has no platform. Hes taking no firm, impasssioned stand on any of the issues. Dean had passion about what he wanted.

Passion is all well and good, I admit I admire him for that much. But the problem is that even more the Kerry, Dean wanted to start a lot of social welfare programs and pay for it largely by repealing a couple of "republican tax cuts" and hope. To me that's a dumb idea, passion or not.

Remember, he was the only one of the famous 9 to stand up against the war. Everyone else waffled then went with the crowd. Sure, to stuck up politicos it might look bad.

I give him credit for that. But we're in the war and he simply was hoping that our so-called allies (you know the one's doing a remarkable impression of rats on a sinking ship?) and the UN taking over a lot of the burden. Unfortunately that's not very realistic.

But if Dean's campaign were still going on right now, it would be impossible for Bush to ignore it.

Ignore? Not entirely, but he's not as much of a threat. Dean really sucked as a Presidential candidate, even more than Kerry. And frankly the more liberal than thou line would have killed even Kerry's small hope of picking up a good chunk of conservative leaning swing votes.

Then he would have to debate the issues and defend his policies instead of just flag-waving and raising the terror alert to get support in the polls. And that is what can take down Bush.

The issues might have been a bit more prominent. But then again all the reasons Dean didn't get elected would have worked against him, and then some in the Presidential election. The issues aren't necessarily Dean's friend.

Bugsby · Post by **Bugsby** » 2004-08-04 11:08pm

Passion is all well and good, I admit I admire him for that much. But the problem is that even more the Kerry, Dean wanted to start a lot of social welfare programs and pay for it largely by repealing a couple of "republican tax cuts" and hope. To me that's a dumb idea, passion or not.

To me, its not a dumb idea. I see that as instituting a program, and paying for it. Bush gave up a lot of money with these tax-cuts. He went from a nice surplus with Clinton to a large defecit in 3 years. Repealing those tax cuts would get all tha money back.

I give him credit for that. But we're in the war and he simply was hoping that our so-called allies (you know the one's doing a remarkable impression of rats on a sinking ship?) and the UN taking over a lot of the burden. Unfortunately that's not very realistic.

Lack of UN involvement was as much a result of Bush' handling the situation as anything else. Still, he opposed the war when no one else would.

Ignore? Not entirely, but he's not as much of a threat. Dean really sucked as a Presidential candidate, even more than Kerry. And frankly the more liberal than thou line would have killed even Kerry's small hope of picking up a good chunk of conservative leaning swing votes.

You need to be liberal in primaries. Thats how it has always worked. Go extreme early to mobilize the base, then moderate later to get swing votes. And hey.... Bush's more-conservative-than-thou thing works well enough for him.

The issues might have been a bit more prominent. But then again all the reasons Dean didn't get elected would have worked against him, and then some in the Presidential election. The issues aren't necessarily Dean's friend.

That would remain to be seen.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-08-04 11:16pm

God, I'm so tired of people acting like Bush's tax cut's made out deficit. You have to remember several key facts:

1.) Clinton's surplus was on borrowed time and money. It wasn't a permanent increase in government revenue, it was internet boom and money borrowed from other programs.
2.) 9/11 crashed America's economy. No matter what President you have, the economy was going to fall. Hard. The fact that we didn't have Great Depression Round 2 is a miracle.
3.) You have to cut taxes in order to promote business. It's sort of analogous to the human bosy and dieting: if a person decides to starve himself, then his body is going to keep all of it's fat. If the government tries to take all of (or just more) the money from businesses, they're going to cut back where ever they can, with layoffs and quality cuts to bump up the bottom line.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 11:24pm

To me, its not a dumb idea. I see that as instituting a program, and paying for it. Bush gave up a lot of money with these tax-cuts. He went from a nice surplus with Clinton to a large defecit in 3 years. Repealing those tax cuts would get all tha money back.

No, it won't since we had a surplus only thanks to some accounting tricks. What we had for a surplus was as much a surplus as a mortage.

We won't recoup the money because the surplus was based on their being economic growth on a par with that of the internet bubble. The surplus was gone as soon as the internet bubble burst and the stock market went south.

Lack of UN involvement was as much a result of Bush' handling the situation as anything else. Still, he opposed the war when no one else would.

Bush did alienate people, I won't disagree with that. But Dean (and now Kerry) had no plan to fix that and simply opposing the war isn't going to cut it. Most countries were and are willing to do jack shit.

You need to be liberal in primaries. Thats how it has always worked. Go extreme early to mobilize the base, then moderate later to get swing votes.

True, but there's primary liberal and idealogue liberal. Dean was the latter unless you're saying he was BSing.

And hey.... Bush's more-conservative-than-thou thing works well enough for him.

Yeah, considering he's got just the party faithful. As does Kerry.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2004-08-04 11:26pm

2.) 9/11 crashed America's economy. No matter what President you have, the economy was going to fall. Hard. The fact that we didn't have Great Depression Round 2 is a miracle.

The economy was crashing thanks to gas prices and the inevitable fall out of the Bull Shit Economy of the Clinton years falling apart. September 11th only hit an already flagging economy.

Phil Skayhan · Post by **Phil Skayhan** » 2004-08-04 11:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:How many people actually switch party allegiances in the US? And I'm not talking about voting differently than your parents; I'm talking about voting for one party several times and then switching because of your convictions.

Here's my Presidential voting record: Dukakis, Clinton, Dole, Bush, Kerry.

Maybe I just don't like incumbants.