If Only Both Could Be Right

"Pessimistic Kerry Supporters Predict Bush Will Be the Victor"

--headline in today's Washington Times, page A1

"Undecided Voters Worry Bush Camp: Analysts Say Last-Minute Choice Doesn't Usually Favor Incumbent"

--headline in today's Washington Times, page A7

Comments

[Mr. Nice Guy]

People:

Stop wasting time reading blog posts. I just heard that Canada HAS THE VACCINE!! Get there NOW BEFORE THEY RUN OUT!!

[Joe L.]

An editorial policy of a "Plague on both your houses" makes for funny postings, but is essentially sterile and pointless...

Why not postings on the successes Badnairk is having as compared to other 3rd party candidates or how well he is doing as compared to other Libertarian Presidential candidates? Oh yeah, that's right he's going to lose to the Nader, mayhap get beat by the Green or CPUSA candidate, and he isn't doing any better than the LP has traditionally done in the last 10-15 years...

So in short this board can only toss snark and mud at the two candidates that can possibly win the election. Nhilism isn't ultimately constructive.

[Jesse Walker]

Joe: If two teams you hate are playing each other in the Super Bowl, do you feel the need to cheer for one of them anyway, just to be "constructive"?

[gaius marius]

lol...

anyway, i was looking over the undecided-voter stuff last week -- it does seem that the consistently accurate metric for determining the race is the incumbent percentage in the polls. bush has pretty consistently polled about 47-48% in the HTH w/kerry. if that stays where it is, he'll take 48% of the vote -- and lose to kerry's 50% (with all others taking 2%).

that seems especially likely if you consider bush's job approval number -- 44%. in the 70 years of polling data, apparently the incumbent has never won when his job approval number averaged under 50% during the election year.

admittedly, however, the data sample is too small to make rock-solid predictions. and we may yet be due for an october surprise that would swing the incumbent number over the 50% he needs.

[Skeptikos]

Doesn't comparing the US Presidential Elections to the superbowl tend to support Joe L's accusation of Libertarian Nihilism? Unless Janet is involved, the superbowl rarely impacts my life in any identifiable manner.

[bill brennan]

Or as Paul Simon said"laugh about it,shout about it when you have to choose,every way you look at it you lose"

[Joe L.]

How about a BCS bowl analogy instead? It's one thing to question whether LSU was the "National Champion" and you can make a case for another team being as good if not better. It's ANOTHER thing to simply tear down LSU and the team it played against.
I believe USC was felt it was "Robbed". Fans can discuss the relative merits of USC v. LSU, but simply to say "LSU SUCKS" is not really much beyond childish..
So to with much of the focus of this board, which is Kerry/Bush SUCK! The statement may or may not be true, but it really doesn't advance the cause of your ideology, save in a negative way, the diminuation of the political system. It does NOT tell me why Badnarik is so great or whosoever you like.

[J]

For those of you who listen to NPR (and can stomach it right now with the pledge drive going on), the first hour of Talk of the Nation (http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/) today is about the media and the election. Don't know who the guests are though....
---------
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Factcheck.org or Jay Leno? The New York Times or Wonkette? There are a lot of ways to cover a campaign -- and just as many ways to get election news. We discuss the changing role of the media in a very political year.

[Dr Cheney]

On the plus side, the people killed by the Bush flu won't be sucking up any more government resources.

[memphisto]

The ?Bush flu? line was funny. What's also funny is the talk the flu vaccine shortage (something the Prez really has nothing to do with) may cause a voter backlash that could cost him the election. Especially when you consider all the stuff he has actually screwed up so terribly in the last 3.5 years.

[rst]

Doesn't comparing the US Presidential Elections to the superbowl tend to support Joe L's accusation of Libertarian Nihilism?

It's mathematics. None but one of the two parties in power will win a presidential election; those two machines have a monopoly on the advertising, media coverage, public funds, debates, and donations. I'll wager Badnarik could win a state's popular vote and its electorate would still pick Kerry or Bush else risk heads exploding from "Choice Anxiety".

The candidates are close enough together that any strong third party showing, if noticed at all, wouldn't send a clear message to either party - Badnarik, Nader, et al aren't going to be drawing votes from one particular candidates, because both are traitors to some of the core values their parties' adherents espouse. Nobody is going to get the message this time.

By voting you are giving tacet approval of this system. Don't bother.

[thoreau]

rst-

I'll agree that Badnarik and Nader are somewhat more complicated than simply being further to the right or left than Bush or Kerry. Many of the differences between Badnarik and Bush are indeed more fundamental than just a matter of degree, and some of the differences between Nader and Kerry are more than just a matter of degree.

But I think it's pretty clear that Nader's draw will be predominantly from Kerry, with the possible exception of some fiscally liberal/socially conservative voters who might otherwise back Bush. Likewise, although there are Badnarik voters who think Kerry is the lesser evil (e.g. me) my understanding has always been that LP candidates tend to draw more votes from Republicans than Democrats.

[rst]

Huh, that was less artfully phrased than it might have been.

Gimme a break man, I'm an engineer, not a writer.

represents the nhilism I may have mentioned.

Well, in case it's relevant, IANAL, and IANAl. 🙂
I think l/Libertarians have some kind of inherent faith in the Constitution.

Votes are how power is apportioned in the US.

Power is already apportioned in the U.S. Votes determine which totem will hold it for the term in question. I have no affiliation with any party, therefore I have no totem, and no faith in the apportioning of said power.

[rst]

thoreau - I agree with your assessment qualitatively, but not quantitatively (if that makes any sense). *We* will certainly see Nader:Kerry::Badnarik:Bush, but I don't think that's going to ripple up the power structure to the D & R party bosses and the finite pool of upcoming candidates. I think in this era traditional conservatism and liberalism in the parties have given way to the "neo-" forms of both, i.e., the seemingly "innocuous" and/or "benevolent" fiscally conservative liberal and socially liberal conservative. I think they consciously have abandoned property and civil rights, etc., and have done so out of an intense fear of a catastrophic loss of power. September 11 scared them more than it scared us. I think that fear drove them to blindly sign the Patriot Act, and it will continue to drive them further from the halcyon days when our voices as a growing minority might have been heard (such as was the case with Clinton vs. Perot). They want us to fear their demons by proxy. They need two dominant parties to do that, because if we fear, we can be polarized, and thus controlled completely.

So in a way, Joe with a capital J, yes, I think rebellion or civil war would be the only way to break the stranglehold these two parties currently hold on every aspect of our social, political, and economic lives. A pipe dream perhaps, but the system is the problem...you cannot beat the system with the system, it is designed to prevent you from beating it.