Help beat Bush

[CtrlAltDelete]

At least you have seen to one thing and it's got nothing to do with the fact you're an American.

See now, even though that remark was snide you're doing exactly what I've hoped for - hating me because I'm an ass and not because I'm an American. Spaseeba.

[CtrlAltDelete]

Oh get off your hot dog stand (soapbox)

Hmm, I'm not quite sure what you mean. I was asked to present data and that's exactly what I did. Forgive me, should I have instead bowed down to the supremacy of his numerical statistics?

Oh, wait, this is like a 'Stand by your Man' type deal, right? Noble of you, but I think he's doing just fine on his own.

[RicheyJames]

@RJ...

Alright, now that you've had more than one person present you with the research you should have done yourself before your diatribe, would you like to add anything to your argument?

ummm... nope. and for a couple of reasons. first off, you seem to think you're imparting information that i was previously ignorant of just because i asked you to provide sources. i don't actually disagree with the general thrust of your argument but i do dispute claims such as

nearly 3 million votes ... were screwed via the electronic voting system in Florida

and i've still seen nothing to back up that figure. i also think it's only polite to indicate the source of your information, particularly when those you "oppose" have already done so.

but the real reason why i have nothing to add is that you have singularly failed to address my argument. look at what i've written again.

what annoys me is the line that has been trotted out time and time again over the last four years "we didn't want bush to be president". well it seems that over 50 million of your fellow citizens did. and, judging by the latest polls a hell of a lot of them still do. this disproportionate focus on florida fails to address the fact that a huge number of americans wanted this president in 2000 and still want him in 2004. and the second part of my argument is that huge numbers of americans who were perfectly eligible to do so chose not to vote in 2000 including, i suspect, a significant number of those who are most vociferous in their condemnation of the current administration.

just a couple more points. i'm well aware of what an ex-felon is and the iniquities of electoral law in several us states which strip them of their voting rights. my remark that half those who didn't vote were probably behind bars was what we in the uk call a joke. albeit one with a grain of truth. and, finally, please desist in your presumption that because i'm not american i know nothing of american politics. it's tiresome, condescending and wrong.

[andymackem]

As I think I've said before, given the reported low turn-out in the US election in 2000, to argue Bush stole it is wrong.

More accurately, perhaps, he found it on the sidewalk, picked it up and took it home instead of acting like a responsible citizen and handing it in to his nearest police station.

That was the view I took after reading Michael Moore on the topic. I confess I've not added much more research than that, but your sources aren't telling me much that I didn't know or anticipate.

On a related note: what is it about Michael Moore that makes you want to disagree with him even when you think he's right? Very strange.

[CtrlAltDelete]

@RJ...

Alright, now that you've had more than one person present you with the research you should have done yourself before your diatribe, would you like to add anything to your argument?

ummm... nope. and for a couple of reasons. first off, you seem to think you're imparting information that i was previously ignorant of just because i asked you to provide sources.

I never said you were ignorant of the information. I said you failed to present the entire equation, basing your argument solely on a fraction of the information at hand. You quoted blind statistics. I question why, if you were not ignorant of the information, you chose not to present the full story. Let's get something straight. I never discredited your entire argument, and in fact I agree with you on some points. But your case was incomplete and only took into consideration a small portion of the whole.

i don't actually disagree with the general thrust of your argument but i do dispute claims such as

nearly 3 million votes ... were screwed via the electronic voting system in Florida

and i've still seen nothing to back up that figure. i also think it's only polite to indicate the source of your information, particularly when those you "oppose" have already done so.

And I have stated my sources, which are credible and numerous. I'm not basing my position on personal opinion, I'm basing it on an agreement of political analysts the world over.

but the real reason why i have nothing to add is that you have singularly failed to address my argument. look at what i've written again.

I disagree. Or maybe I'm daft. But I do believe I've addressed all of your points in succession. If I'm not mistaken, your argument is that the 2000 vote was more or less fair because Bush only won by a minute margin. But, like I've said, your reasoning failed to take into account the roughly 10 million (conservative estimate) people known to vote democrat that were unjustly blocked from voting. You also left out the part about ballots disappearing, and the electronic voting system that Jeb Bush set up to trick people into marking the ballot for Bush (if you're not familiar with this I'll be more than happy to explain it). Taking that into consideration, how can you appropriately call that election win fair?

what annoys me is the line that has been trotted out time and time again over the last four years "we didn't want bush to be president". well it seems that over 50 million of your fellow citizens did. and, judging by the latest polls a hell of a lot of them still do. this disproportionate focus on florida fails to address the fact that a huge number of americans wanted this president in 2000 and still want him in 2004. and the second part of my argument is that huge numbers of americans who were perfectly eligible to do so chose not to vote in 2000 including, i suspect, a significant number of those who are most vociferous in their condemnation of the current administration.

I don't dispute the fact that many people chose not to vote and now sit on their hands and complain. I don't think that is right and won't defend those people. However, as my sources have stated, your original number of roughly 80 million was way off, not taking many factors into account.

As far as the issue of current polls, after the debate Wednesday the polls show Kerry with an estimated 45% of the vote, and Bush with 46% (with Nader making up 2%, and the rest undecided).

Whether it has any relevance to this discussion or not, studies show that people are reluctant to switch leadership during a war, which could account for Bushs whopping 1% lead. If those studies are correct, I believe it speaks volumes of how badly people want Bush gone, the race being somewhat neck and neck.

and, finally, please desist in your presumption that because i'm not american i know nothing of american politics. it's tiresome, condescending and wrong.

Again, I never said any such thing and am wondering where you got that from. Please, I would like to know. All I said was that your information is incomplete. Which it is. Also interesting is how people will call you arrogant and self-important if you assume they are familiar with American politics, but call you condescending if you think they might not know. Can't really win either way.

[CorpPunk]

I honestly don't think it's wrong to argue that Bush stole the election because of voter apathy. Yes, it's unfortunate that so many people in democracies take their ability to vote for granted, or think their votes won't count, or don't vote for whatever reason. However, "more" really wasn't the issue in the 2000 election. The entire election coming down to Florida's outcome didn't have to do with voter turnout--it had to do with the (antiquated) electoral college system. If proportions had remained the same, the Florida problem probably would have happened anyway.

When people say that Bush stole the election, they're generally referring to the widespread corruption and disenfranchisement that happened in the state that Bush's brother just happens to run (see links in above post). They're talking about the outdated electoral college system allowing a president that didn't win the popular vote to be elected (and yes, this has happened before, but never in such an infamous way).

This whole thread seems to be a case of moaning about the symptoms but ignoring the disease. Why are we concentrating on voter apathy, saying it's "wrong" to complain that Bush stole the election when millions of people who do get off their lazy asses and vote are being disenfranchised (again, see above links)? Think about it: the fact that people think Bush stole the election is bringing election corruption into the spotlight, and reforms are being called for--how is that wrong? Just because not all eligible voters voted? That's their choice. Now let's concentrate on those who stood up to be counted and were ignored, or forced to sit down.

And Richey, although I consider your claim that those shouting loudest about the current administration irrelevant because it's an unfounded assumption, I also don't think that's a bad thing. Again, have a look at the above links: new voter registration is at record highs. Don't you think that some of those people who didn't vote in the last election--and are now complaining about the outcome--are trying to make sure it doesn't happen again?

And yes, a lot of Americans did and do support Bush for reasons their own. But "a lot" does not equal "majority" of the popular or electoral vote. That said, he'll probably get elected this time. And then I'll be posting here from Canada, in between shooting wild bears and skinning them with my teeth. Oh, and protesting for election reform.

[CtrlAltDelete]

Why are we concentrating on voter apathy, saying it's "wrong" to complain that Bush stole the election when millions of people who do get off their lazy asses and vote are being disenfranchised (again, see above links)? Think about it: the fact that people think Bush stole the election is bringing election corruption into the spotlight, and reforms are being called for--how is that wrong? Just because not all eligible voters voted? That's their choice. Now let's concentrate on those who stood up to be counted and were ignored, or forced to sit down.

This was the point I was trying to make (but you've said it better). I wasn't claiming the election was unfair because of the near tie of tallied votes. I was pointing out that the election was unfair because Gore would have won by a large margin if the election hadn't been corrupted by blocking those who were entitled to vote.

That said, he'll probably get elected this time..

Unfortunately, you're right. As I've said before, he's already cheating the upcoming elections (Jeb Bush overturned the ruling to keep Nader off the Florida ballots, which will take votes from Kerry).

[andymackem]

But isn't one of the reasons that Bush will probably win again related to the Republican success in the mid-term Congressional elections? I may have the precise poll details wrong, but I seem to recall a comprehensive Republican success in about 2002.

Surely a nation outraged that it has a mandate-less president, and a nation where voter registration has been rising in response to the perceived injustices of 2000, wouldn't be endorsing the party which had "stolen" the 2000 vote?

It may be I'm misunderstanding the nature of US party politics and assuming people will follow the British model of supporting parties more than individual candidates (in which case I'm happy to be corrected), but it seems inconceivable to me that large numbers of people would express their outrage at Bush's 2000 victory and then promptly vote to hand the Senate to his party.

Arguably, then, Bush's administration has greater effective legitimacy than the Democrat and liberal protesters would claim.

It may also explain why Bush can lead his nation into a costly war on increasingly flimsy grounds, at a time when I gather the US economy is under-performing and still maintain a (slender) lead in the polls. This seems astonishing in a country where the president is believed to have no mandate to govern.

Sadly, from the outside, it does sound like the complaints about the 2000 election are built more on the "we wuz robbed" mentality of party supporters disappointed that their guy lost. If Gore's camp had been able to manage the loopholes of the election rules more effectively, would any subsequent Republican complaints have been regarded as anything more than the disgruntled mutterings of the rump right-wing? Politics or popularity contest.

[CtrlAltDelete]

But isn't one of the reasons that Bush will probably win again related to the Republican success in the mid-term Congressional elections? I may have the precise poll details wrong, but I seem to recall a comprehensive Republican success in about 2002.

Surely a nation outraged that it has a mandate-less president, and a nation where voter registration has been rising in response to the perceived injustices of 2000, wouldn't be endorsing the party which had "stolen" the 2000 vote?

It may be I'm misunderstanding the nature of US party politics and assuming people will follow the British model of supporting parties more than individual candidates (in which case I'm happy to be corrected), but it seems inconceivable to me that large numbers of people would express their outrage at Bush's 2000 victory and then promptly vote to hand the Senate to his party.

Arguably, then, Bush's administration has greater effective legitimacy than the Democrat and liberal protesters would claim.

It may also explain why Bush can lead his nation into a costly war on increasingly flimsy grounds, at a time when I gather the US economy is under-performing and still maintain a (slender) lead in the polls. This seems astonishing in a country where the president is believed to have no mandate to govern.

Sadly, from the outside, it does sound like the complaints about the 2000 election are built more on the "we wuz robbed" mentality of party supporters disappointed that their guy lost. If Gore's camp had been able to manage the loopholes of the election rules more effectively, would any subsequent Republican complaints have been regarded as anything more than the disgruntled mutterings of the rump right-wing? Politics or popularity contest.

When I make reference to Bush cheating the upcoming elections, I'm referring to Jeb Bush overturning the ruling to keep Nader off the ballots in Florida (keeping Nader on the ballots takes votes from Kerry). The matter is expected to go before the supreme court, but it's unlikely this will happen before the election, unfortunately.

And, surprisingly, a recent study shows roughly 60% of republicans are unhappy with Bushs actions. So it doesn't appear to be a problem of overwhelming republican support.

The real problem is that Florida is a key (swing) state. The Florida vote is crucial to the election. So by Jeb Bush overturning this ruling (somewhat illegaly) it comes down yet again to being a matter of cheating the election.

Add that to the blocking of voters known to vote democrat and Jeb Bushs faulty electronic voting system, and it's once again a problem of corruption.

Supporting a presidential candidate is vastly more useful than supporting your party through senatorial representation. Senators are notorious for breaking from their party during presedential elections. So the most effective way to get the representation of your preferred candidate is to bypass the middleman (the senators).

Sadly, from the outside, it does sound like the complaints about the 2000 election are built more on the "we wuz robbed" mentality of party supporters disappointed that their guy lost.

This just isn't the case. Outcry from republicans about the 2000 debacle prove this. Many expressed that they would have preferred Bush to get presidency in a more respectable manner. A good portion of those republicans also said they probably wouldn't vote for him again. In fact, there was a committee appointed to investigate the 2000 election. Those sort of things aren't done to investigate "we wuz robbed" situations, only when corruption is suspected.

[markfiend]

The original post suggesting writing to Americans in swing states; the Guardian campaign seems to be backfiring in many cases. Clicky.

[CtrlAltDelete]

Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it.
Texas, USA

I can't tell you how shocked I was to learn that this letter came from a Texan.

[Francis]

Real Americans aren't interested in your pansy-ass, tea-sipping opinions. If you want to save the world, begin with your own worthless corner of it.
Texas, USA

I can't tell you how shocked I was to learn that this letter came from a Texan.

I bet his roots are in Yorkshire though.

[CorpPunk]

It may be I'm misunderstanding the nature of US party politics and assuming people will follow the British model of supporting parties more than individual candidates (in which case I'm happy to be corrected), but it seems inconceivable to me that large numbers of people would express their outrage at Bush's 2000 victory and then promptly vote to hand the Senate to his party.

I think you are misunderstanding in this respect--we don't vote for parties, we vote for individual candidates. In fact, conceivably we could have 100 Republicans in the Senate, and a Democratic president. So in our view as voters, generally, a vote cast for a Republican congressman isn't a vote cast for Bush. It's a vote cast for that particular congressman and, ideally, his views on the issues. I'm sure there are people who adore Bush and only vote Republican to support him, but it's not really the way the American political model works. And remember, democracies are, for the most part, inherently conservative (even Britain!), so it's not surprising that in a voting-for-candidates as opposed to a voting-for-government model, people would vote mostly conservative while supporting an overall change of leadership. Cos people may be conservative, but they like to have jobs too.