The Bush Strategy: Ignorance & Disenfranchisement Rigging the 2004 Vote

[TwistofFat]

1)I am sure that Bush will be tougher on terror than Kerry - period. I did not vote for my candidate on that reason alone.

I submit that to be a member of an informed electorate you're not entitled to your opinion unless you meet the duty to defend it. Writing "period" as an emphasis displays a reluctance to defend your stance and is reflective of arthritic thinking. To say "Bush will be tougher on terror" lacks any weight unless you give us some reason for believing so.

2)To judge the motovation of those who voted for Bush from MATalk or any other chat room may not yield a complete picture of those of us who call ourselves conservatives. To judge intelligence from same said posts is also narrow at best.

Which is why I discounted doing so, Glenn. Read the post again.

3)Y es there are nutcases on every side of every issue (OBI's), but please do not judge me or the majority of American voters until you get to know each of us.

Why don't you all come over for coffee next week and we can get familiar? I've got a recipe for scones. Given that there are 59,268,796 of you folks and 55,738,671 of my friends, should I make a double batch? Is any one of you gluten intolerant?

4) Glenn, I'm not talking about nucases when I talk about Otherwise Bright Individuals. They are ignorant to an appalling degree and lack the ability to reason fully. They don't read the papers (note the plural form), watch the news channels (again the plural), or read books from either perspective (my goodness, that plural keeps popping up). They "don't have the time." They have "better things to do." Gotta catch "Survivor" on the TiVo, after all. Of course that romance novel is a real page turner.

Yet these people--both conservative and liberal--have solid opinions dripping with vitriol--even though those opinions are based on what they heard at the barbershop or coffee house. They pass on urban myth e-mails and take it as the truth.

Steve -

As always, good points. Without boring you:
1) I was simplifying a very complicated position, er - poorly. I have posted several times on my view of Misters Bush and Kerry position on the GWOT and just jumped to the end without the setup. I will be happy to expand on my simplified view when time permits.
2) I apologize - you were exactly right.
3)That was a joke...it would be one hell of bill.
4) Agree. It will always be that way. Politics ain't a pillow fight and many do not have the perspective and courage to fight as the 'loyal opposition'. The 115,006,000+ who did vote is in effect are 'the informed electorate'. Win, lose or draw it's a beautiful thing.

Thanks - Glenn.

 

[Ender]

I'm somewhat amused by all the excuses on why Kerry lost the Election. The electorate was ill informed, Bush ran a campaign of lies and fear, there was voter fraud, the incumbent has the advantage...on and on and on. Well it really comes down to 3 possibilities. The candidate (Kerry) was the wrong guy, The message wasn't put out strong enough, or the message was rejected. Judging by how the Republicans now have firm and solid control of the House, the Senate, the majority of Governors, and finally, the Presidency, you have to logically conclude the Democrats' agenda is being rejected over and over again. Look how soundly Daschle was defeated. He was one of the main faces of the Democratic party. No, the Democrats have to change their way of thinking if they want to get back in power.

 

[Tgace]

I'm somewhat amused by all the excuses on why Kerry lost the Election. The electorate was ill informed, Bush ran a campaign of lies and fear, there was voter fraud, the incumbent has the advantage...on and on and on. Well it really comes down to 3 possibilities. The candidate (Kerry) was the wrong guy, The message wasn't put out strong enough, or the message was rejected. Judging by how the Republicans now have firm and solid control of the House, the Senate, the majority of Governors, and finally, the Presidency, you have to logically conclude the Democrats' agenda is being rejected over and over again. Look how soundly Daschle was defeated. He was one of the main faces of the Democratic party. No, the Democrats have to change their way of thinking if they want to get back in power.

Its always easier to lay blame than to face it.

 

[michaeledward]

The divided electorate ... or not ...


http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html

 

[heretic888]

Perhaps if you asked them if the WMD may have been moved to Syria in the 20 months build-up they might say "maybe"? That would make them dumb and make you what? Better infomed? Only when the clouds of combat pass will we know for sure. There are shades of grey in the WMD question but that would take more time than I have.

There are no shades of grey. The only "weapons of mass destruction" that were ever documented in Iraq were a handful of SCUD missiles that were used against the Coalition forces very early on in the war. That hardly accounts for the "stockpiles" of biological and nuclear weapons that the administration was howling to the masses about.

No offense, but my opinion is that people that are still trying to go for the WMD argument are having a little trouble coming to grasps with reality. All of the inspectors and experts say there are no WMDs. The official report given to Congress on the matter says there are no WMDs. The evidence just isn't there.

"Maybe", "could be", and "what if" are not a sound basis for going to war.

If no WMD ever existed in Iraq (they are in Iran, Syria, Africa but not in Iraq), perhaps the real reason for the admin going to war was to establish a stronghold in the middle east where we could threaten AND strike others that we fear might attack us.

Even if that is true (and its baseless assumption --- another "could be" --- on your part, in any event), then most certainly was not the line that was being sold to the American people or to Congress. That makes the administration equally guilty of duplicity, and makes that 72% equally victims of misinformation and deceit.

False pretenses and lies? Good offense. I don't know why you voted for whomever you selected, but please don't assign motivation to those you do not know.

I don't assign "motivation", I assign statistical fact --- 72% of the Bush voters were going to the ballots on duplicitous presumptions. Terrorism was established as the second most important issue for voters this election, yet the knowledge they had of the Bush administration's dealing with terrorism was founded on lies.

The significant difference between the parties - when R's lost in 1976, 1992 and 1996 the thought was what did they do wrong and how do they correct it so it does not happen again. The center-right does not hate the left or think them fools - they simply do not agree. Look at the democrats for the way to improve your chances at victory, not how deep in the sand our heads remain...we like it down here.

Oh, don't get me wrong --- Democrat cowardice is as equally the culprit here as Republican duplicity. No one in the Democratic part did anything to oppose the administration's policies until the 'Deaniacs' came along. That was almost two years of passivity.

I can tell you right there that that was the primary reason the Democrats lost --- because, for the majority of Bush's term, they did nothing to question or debate his policies. It was pathetic.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'm somewhat amused by all the excuses on why Kerry lost the Election. The electorate was ill informed, Bush ran a campaign of lies and fear, there was voter fraud, the incumbent has the advantage...on and on and on. Well it really comes down to 3 possibilities. The candidate (Kerry) was the wrong guy, The message wasn't put out strong enough, or the message was rejected.

Why would your three reasons be any more valid than the others? Bush ran a campaign of lies and fear, the electorate is--arguably-- ill-informed, and history shows that an incumbent wartime president holds the advantage.


Judging by how the Republicans now have firm and solid control of the House, the Senate, the majority of Governors, and finally, the Presidency, you have to logically conclude the Democrats' agenda is being rejected over and over again. <snip> No, the Democrats have to change their way of thinking if they want to get back in power.

One does not have to conclude the Democratic agenda is being rejected. The issue of Gay rights was not a part of the party platform (check johnkerry.com)...but this was one of the major reasons voters picked Bush. It wasn't Kerry's agenda. 51% of voters thought it was, largely based on Republican carping about the issue.

As for thinking how to get back in power, this is certain. Charles Schumer of New York spent much of yesterday calling friends to plan future strategies. There is a great deal of reflection in the Democratic camp.

------------

TwistofFat, here is the source for the 75% figure you inquired about:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

The poll indicates that Bush's supporters tend to hold erroneous beliefs regarding the war in Iraq, Al Qaida, etc.


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

Why would your three reasons be any more valid than the others? Bush ran a campaign of lies and fear, the electorate is--arguably-- ill-informed, and history shows that an incumbent wartime president holds the advantage.

Personally, I think both sides of the fence are to blame here --- Democrat cowardice as much as Republican duplicity.

Its not necessarily that Democrats are "sending the wrong message" (although they may want to rethink some of their more extremist positions), but that the Democrats were utterly passive for most of the past four years. For at least the first half of this presidential term, the Democrats did nothing to question, debate, or challenge the president's agenda.

Only when the 'Deaniacs' came along (led by the friggin' governor of Vermont?!) did we see anything resembling Democrat dissidence. And, even then, it still took quite some time for the Democrats in Washington to hop aboard the Dean Bandwagon.

 

[Ender]

Why would your three reasons be any more valid than the others?

Because it always comes down to 3 reasons for failure.

In the Engineering/Scientific community it's:

1. Wrong problem
2. Wrong solution
3. Wrong causation of the problem

In the business world it's:

1. Wrong prduct
2. Wrong Marketing Campaign
3. Wrong timing

It's pretty simple really.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Because it always comes down to 3 reasons for failure.

In the Engineering/Scientific community it's:

1. Wrong problem
2. Wrong solution
3. Wrong causation of the problem

In the business world it's:

1. Wrong prduct
2. Wrong Marketing Campaign
3. Wrong timing

It's pretty simple really.

I'd say its not an issue of it being simple, so much as its simplistic as you present it. Your ignoring the complexity of the issues by stating it in this way.

Any one of those reasons you find amusing could be categorized in one of the three areas you've listed. You haven't suggested why they're amusing (and I take by that you mean silly/wrong), you merely break it down into three areas for classification. In doing so, you provide an automatic argument by exclusion in that you don't consider other options that detail specifically what contributed to this election outcome. Additionally, there is nothing special in the number "three," and to use that as an absolute is unreasonable.

TGace says its blame fixing...and I agree to a point. I don't agree that casting allegations of cheating are appropriate in this election as it didn't influence it. The Democrats lost and most admit that. It might help to look at those instances where cheating occured so as to circumvent it in the future, but I agree it does no good to let degrade to whining. Most Democrats I know are not doing this. Most Republicans I know are not gloating, for that matter. I appreciate this.

It is not blame fixing for Democrats to take a look in the mirror and figure out what they did wrong and what the Republicans did right (not matter how disgusting that "right" action might seem to them). If we acknowledge they did something right, is that fixing blame? Hardly. I suppose it is a matter of tone.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

If your goal as a politician is to serve the public, and 50%+ hold values different from your own, I would think you would want to alter your position to embrace the largest segment of the nation as possible....this is true as much for the Rep's as the Dem's. If you are loosing power I would think a re-evaluation would be in order.

 

[PeachMonkey]

An alternate plan is to work more effectively to counteract lies and spin and help convince people that the people in power don't actually work for their best interests.

 

[DoxN4cer]

My question is this: Did they win it, or did we lose it?

We (America) won.

 

[DoxN4cer]

It is no secret that this administration won the election through a campaign of fear, duplicity, and misinformation --- as well as bringing up a lot of relatively unimportant side issues that would attract "values voters" to the polls.

Do you have any supporting information to prove that or is that mere conjecture?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Do you have any supporting information to prove that or is that mere conjecture?

This from a site recommended by Vice President Cheney on national television.

http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article247.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article159.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article153.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article252.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article165.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article284.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article187.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article285.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html


While we're talking about the Vice President, what did you think of the whopper he told about John Edwards during the VP debate, DoxN4cer?


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I'll point out a little fear mongering, to answer your question further:

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States." --Vice President Dick Cheney


Regards,


Steve

 

[heretic888]

If your goal as a politician is to serve the public, and 50%+ hold values different from your own, I would think you would want to alter your position to embrace the largest segment of the nation as possible....this is true as much for the Rep's as the Dem's. If you are loosing power I would think a re-evaluation would be in order.

This, of course, is a conjecture based on a lot of assumptions. The first and foremost being that the electorate was actually well-informed on a variety of these issues.

The whole gay marriage thing, for example, was a big one for "values voters" --- but, you'll notice that the Democrat candidate never actually took a "pro-gay" position. At all. It was just assumed by a deceived electorate that he had.

Like I said, the real reason the Democrats lost was because: 1) they were cowards for the first half of this presidential term, and 2) the Republicans are really, really, really good at lying.

 

[heretic888]

Do you have any supporting information to prove that or is that mere conjecture?

To add to what Steve posted, the 72% statistic has already been presented on this thread by the IPOP. Just review the thread history.

 

[heretic888]

We (America) won.

I think not.

Since our policy decisions are being decided by dangerous organizations like the Americans for a New Century (whom both Cheney and Wolfowitz are members), I would say that America most assuredly lost.

 

[DoxN4cer]

This from a site recommended by Vice President Cheney on national television.

http://www.factcheck.org/article133.html...

...http://www.factcheck.org/article265.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article244.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html


While we're talking about the Vice President, what did you think of the whopper he told about John Edwards during the VP debate, DoxN4cer?


Regards,


Steve

Hi Steve,
Interesting site. One man's fact is another man's propoganda... especially during election campaigns. Spin, spin and more spin... from both sides.
All politicians tell "whoppers". It's what they do. They tell their side of the story. It's the old "tell 'em what you did right and leave the rest out" game.
Had there been another alternative from a candidate that stood a chance, I might have gone that way.
I think that to competition of President should have been a tag team match on WWE or maybe Celebrity Death Match. Bush and Cheney vs. Kerry and Edwards. No doubt that would have been more entertaining than the actual election. hehehe

r/
Tim

 

[heretic888]

*chuckle*

I would be extremely interested as to which "side" you think that factcheck.org is "spinning" for --- since both parties have cited different statistics on that site on numerous occassions..