We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Going on the record

I am past due to put on the record my prediction about the outcome of the US Presidential election. I know, I know, I should have posted this before the polling started to come out showing that Kerry, rather than getting the traditional post-convention bounce in support, may have actually lost ground during his big showcase last week. Actually, though, my views on how this race will turn out have been pretty well set for the past month or two. Honest.

The following should be taken with the enormous, bone-snapping, soul-crushing caveat that it is subject to events such as a major terrorist attack, aliens (the extraterrestrial kind) landing on the White House lawn, or the like.

In spite of lunatic Democrat optimism and polling that has shown Kerry with a small but consistent lead for months now, I think George W. Bush will be reelected. He will carry a (very small) majority of the popular vote, will lose no more than one state that he won in 2000, and will pick up a handful of states that he lost in 2000.

The Dems and their allies in the press have thrown everything they have at W, beginning in the 2000 election, through the Florida recount, and right up to the present day. They have nothing new left to attack him with, I am quite confident. The persistently partisan and anti-Bush media has managed to inure the public to bad news from Iraq or elsewhere. The Bush campaign has not really activated yet, on the theory that nothing they do before Labor Day will really matter. In short, Bush has tested the bottom of his market for approval and votes, and it is somewhere in the mid to high 40 percent range.

By contrast, Kerry and Edwards are still pretty unknown to non-political-junkie Americans, and the Republican attack machine has (wisely, from a tactical point of view) held its fire on these two. They have enjoyed months of positive coverage and a showcase convention. However, their support even among Democrats is not particularly strong – Edwards never won a primary, and Kerry is notable for not exciting the Democratic base. The Democrats, in short, have tested the top of their market for votes, and it is somewhere in the high 40 percent range.

With the race statistically tied, Bush has nowhere to go but up, and Kerry has nowhere to go but down.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VK

43 comments to Going on the record

  • MusselsfromBrussels

    I think George W. Bush will be reelected

    I truly, sincerely hope that you are wrong, but fear you may be right. As far as the states go, Bush has an even bigger advantage now than he did in 2000.

    By contrast, Kerry and Edwards are still pretty unknown to non-political-junkie Americans, and the Republican attack machine has (wisely, from a tactical point of view) held its fire on these two. They have enjoyed months of positive coverage and a showcase convention. However, their support even among Democrats is not particularly strong – Edwards never won a primary, and Kerry is notable for not exciting the Democratic base

    I agree with most of what you say here, especially with the part about Kerry not being a particularly attractive candidate to Democrats. But what you don’t take into account in your analysis is Bush loathing. I cant remember a candidate who has stirred up such loathing amongst such a significant proportion of the electorate. I’m kinda young, but I’ve heard much older and wiser folks say the same thing. The only hope as I see it now is that this Bush loathing will somehow allow Kerry to carry the necessary number of states to win.
    Im no Democrat, and if anything, lean towards the GOP w regard to fiscal & economic matters. (though I lean more towards the Dems in terms of social policy…)Most independents and libertarian types that I know, and even some Republicans plan to vote Kerry. Like you said above, its not because we are particularly enthusiastic about him, but rather because we really, really want to see Bush gone come January.

  • Shawn

    “I think George W. Bush will be reelected”

    And thank God too.

    ” its not because we are particularly enthusiastic about him, but rather because we really, really want to see Bush gone come January.”

    And the reason you want to put a far left socialist, who will raise taxes on the middle class, small business and across the board, in power, and hand al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a massive publicity victory is……?

    And please, if your answer includes the word ‘libertarian” its automatically a wrong answer. No true libertarian who loves freedom would want either of those things.

  • David Gillies

    Bush-loathing is not shared by the class of voters that really matter – the uncommitted/swing voters. These people, by definition, are relatively politically neutral, and this gives the incumbent a big boost. Most Americans aren’t big on hate, they generally have a fairly warm personal opinion of Bush, and the antics of the moonbat Left work against Kerry. Lets’s not forget, in addition, that Bush has barely started campaigning yet. The GOP is saving its ammunition until after Labor Day, but when they let rip, it’s going to be, “Open fire! All weapons!”

    My opinion: the weird psephology of the States will give Bush a commanding win over Kerry. I can even foresee a crushing defeat. And that would give me enormous pleasure. The apoplexy of the moonbats would be glorious to behold. Anything that makes Michael Moore sad makes me happy. I’m by no means an unequivocal Bush fan – some of his domestic policies have been dreadful. I’m just afraid that if Kerry wins, we’ll end up with more dead Americans and fewer dead Islamists, and under Bush it’ll be the other way around.

  • Don Jeremias

    Remember a large segment of the population hated Clinton heading into the 96 election. It wasn’t nearly enough to defeat him, and neither is the crowd of Bush haters. The benefits of incumbancy are extremely large, and only a very charasmatic challenger can overcome them. Charasmatic is something that Kerry is not.

  • Shawn

    “The apoplexy of the moonbats would be glorious to behold. Anything that makes Michael Moore sad makes me happy. I’m by no means an unequivocal Bush fan – some of his domestic policies have been dreadful. I’m just afraid that if Kerry wins, we’ll end up with more dead Americans and fewer dead Islamists, and under Bush it’ll be the other way around.”

    Exactly.

  • R C Dean

    I cant remember a candidate who has stirred up such loathing amongst such a significant proportion of the electorate.

    I can. Bill Clinton. Of course, the segment of the electorate that loathed him was not the segment from which the mainstream media is drawn, so it wasn’t as visible. Still, everyone’s vote counts the same, whether they write NYT columns on the Upper East Side or hump a SAW through the desert.

  • Doesn’t seem to me like the betting people agree with you. At TradeSports, Bush is up slightly, but only 3% — for practical purposes, the people betting real cash are still undecided on the outcome.

    Generally, I’d say that it is way too soon to call — a coin flip has the same chance of being right as the best pundit.

  • jk

    Yes, Perry, it’s too close to call — if it weren’t, calling it wouldn’t be any fun.

    I like your arguments and your outcome, R.C., (and I surely enjoyed the press-bashing along the way). Incumbency is a great advantage.

    But I fear there’s still a chance that the GOP could blow it with a bad or ill-formed message. If they have a good convention, and a reasonable picture of a second Bush term, I think it will transpire just as you describe it.

    If they overplay the social conservatism, or try to run on past accomplishments (both possible), then it could flip. I hope it does not. Senator Kerry was a friend to liberty for four months in the Mekong Delta — but not since.

  • DSpears

    “I cant remember a candidate who has stirred up such loathing amongst such a significant proportion of the electorate.”

    Ronald Reagan. Don’t listen to anything that Democrat politicians said about him immediately after his funeral, they hated him, hated his guts. They accused him of being both a dunce and master conspirator. He was secretly trying to enact Nazism through low taxes and lax regulations. He was a dangerous cowboy who would get us all incinerated by starting World War III. He was a unilateralist who made our “allies” nervous.

    The hate him even more because they were wrong on every count.

    Sound familiar?

    And yes, in 1994 I couldn’t find a single sole who didn’t think Bill Clinton was a complete buffoon. “I don’t like the president or her husband” was a favorite.

    Then the Republicans trotted out an old war veteren with no new ideas whatsoever, only the title of “not the other guy”.

    Sound familiar?

    But I still think Bush is going to lose, maybe the best thing that ever happened to the Republican party, if at the expense of the safety of our nation and our sovereignty.

  • “I cant remember a candidate who has stirred up such loathing amongst such a significant proportion of the electorate. ”

    Nixon.

    I remember it well. There were whole cities filled with people who hated Nixon, whole regions where every right-thinking person loathed Nixon. Violent, angry hatred. Liberals hated Nixon with a frustrated, poisonous rage that such a person could be presidnet. It was fully as bad as what they now feel for Bush, including the same arrogant contempt they feel for him, and they had hated Nixon for far, far longer.

    The point made above that hatred for Clinton hurt the people who hated him is exactly right. It is always that way. Anger from the ideologically energized is counterproductive in a general election. Swing voters are classically McLuhanesque TV viewers to whom “cool” appeals work and “hot” arguments lead to a quick click on the TV remote. Kerry is acutely aware of this and trying to keep his troops energized, while not letting them say too many mean things about Bush — an impossible combination.

    I too predict a Bush win, though it is very close and I wouldn’t bet real money on it, for essentially the same reasons. Bush has endured a hurricane of attacks and bad news for months and months and held firm in the high forties — and everybody knows who he is and what he stands for. Kerry has failed to define himself, in an effort to be all things to all people, which means that Karl Rove will get to define him instead. Kerry loses ground every time the public gets a good look at him.

    (One guess I’ll make is that Bush is going to lay out very forcefully his proposals for a second term, and make the race about his future plans as well as his record, and not make it be solely a ratification of the status quo.)

    My prediction — again consistent with this post — Kerry has peaked. Final result: Bush wins by roughly 52/48 nationwide. Which will be enough.

  • Lynne

    I pray with all my heart and soul that Bush doesn’t get reelected. I don’t think that he will. If he does, I’m going to Canada or Mexico. No way will my children fight in Mr. Bush’s thought up imperial wars. The way the Bush administration dumps on your average American is terrible. Tax cuts for the upper class. Income inequality. Racking up deficits. Selling our country to the communist Chinese. Supporting outsourcing. Killing our young people in “shock and awe” wars like it is some kind of game. Uncontrolled immigration. Crony capitalism. The don’t seem to realize that Americans can only be pushed so far before we start bailing out of the country. I’m 44 and have never seen America in this much trouble.

    It is too bad, because he had the chance to be great and he blew it by seeking power and not the greater good of his people. He is a disgrace to the name George.

  • MusselsfromBrussels

    Shawn:

    And the reason you want to put a far left socialist, who will raise taxes on the middle class, small business and across the board, in power, and hand al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden a massive publicity victory is……?

    Kerry is a “far left socialist”???? Are you serious?? Do you know what a hard left socialist is?

    It wouldn’t surprise me if Kerry did raise taxes across the board. At some point taxes are going to have to go up to start paying off the massive deficits we have incurred. One of the worrisome aspects of a Bush win is further profilgate spending (kind of like what one would expect of a drunken old-school democrat….) coupled with further tax cuts. Who is going to pay for all of this?

    How would a Kerry victory hand Qaeda and OBL a massive PR victory? The way I see it, Bush has already given these guys a huge boost. I am very curious to hear your take on this…

    But to answer your question, the real reason I would rather see Kerry defeat Bush in 04 is that IMO Bush is a failure. As I’ve already said, I don’t hold Kerry in such high regard, but I’m pretty sure he would be an improvement as compared to Bush. I expect he would be much more fiscally responsible, more of a uniter than a divider, and most importantly of all, would inject some common sense into our foreign policy. Bush’s arrogant language (youre with us or against us…etc) and his (mis?)adventures in Iraq have alienated allies and taken the focus off fighting Qaeda & the so-called war on terrorism. His neglect of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and his lack of impartiality here have not only ignored one of the most dangerous conflicts in the region, if not the world, but have also further eroded our reputation as an honest broker. At the request of Israel, he has cut ties to Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian side, making any kind of meaningful progress here virtually impossible. These mistakes taken as a whole have hurt America’s reputation, and as a result have made things worse for Americans, both in terms of security and economic opportunity.

    And please, if your answer includes the word ‘libertarian” its automatically a wrong answer

    It is?? Why is that?

    I didn’t use the word libertarian, but I am still curious as to why you would say such a thing. Do you really think that Bush has been good for libertarians and those who care for libertarian issues? Is it his progressive stance on gay marriage, abortion & the patriot act, or something else that I missed somewhere along the line?

  • Sandy P

    Lynne:

    What was our WWII deficit?

    And selling out to the Chicoms?? That was Bubba and Loral.

    And you really need to start reading econopundit now. Seems “the rich” really didn’t get a tax cut. Breakeven was $1.5 mill.

    W’s thought-up imperial war?

    Oh, I get it, your post is satire. Ok.

  • Sandy P

    “Common sense in foreign policy.”

    Like appointing an Arafat-lover as pointman and selling the JOOOS down the river? He hasn’t neglected the Paleos, they declined to accept his suggestions and they are in the process of working it out themselves.

    Kerry wanting to supply Iran w/nuclear material?

    And if you’re going to quote the man, at least get it right.

    And as to our “allies” they’ve been alienating themselves for at least 20 years now, could have gotten that just from reading the business and international sections of American newspapers.

  • Julian Morrison

    My thouhts:

    First, you’re right, Kerry’s current support is 100% mobilized already. This is why he hasn’t received the traditional post-convention “bounce”. That’s comprised of partisan voters waking up that it’s political season – and this time around, they’re every one of them awake already.

    Second: Bush’s support is mobilized, too. In other words, the remaining “swing voters” are truely undecided. There are no more sleeping Bush supporters than there are sleeping Kerry supporters.

    Third: Kerry can’t win, not by his own actions. Everyone he can convince, is convinced. He’s not in a position of power to be seen implementing any of his rhetoric.

    Fourth: Bush can lose. the whole thing will turn on what he does between now and the elections. Either being caught napping or too much crying wolf could lose him the election. Any further scandal could lose him the election. Any major victory or coup could win the election. A terror attack could swing it either way depending how he handles it.

    Fifth: no prediction. Chance and deeds will decide this one. It’s not in the bag for either of them yet.

  • Tony

    Well, I for one hope George W. Bush is re-elected by the American people. Kerry offers to give nuclear material to the Iranians “to call their bluff”? – this is sane behaviour?

    As for Arafat, that slime has been breathing good air for about 30 years more than he should have.

    Yes, the Republicans haven’t really started campaigning yet, so what might they have up their sleeve? Well how about eliminating the IRS!. The mother of all tax cuts…

    Apparently it all starts to kick off on Labor Day, which is the first monday in September. Can’t wait…

  • Tony

    Well, I for one hope George W. Bush is re-elected by the American people. Kerry offers to give nuclear material to the Iranians “to call their bluff”? – this is sane behaviour?

    As for Arafat, that slime has been breathing good air for about 30 years more than he should have.

    Yes, the Republicans haven’t really started campaigning yet, so what might they have up their sleeve? Well how about eliminating the IRS!. The mother of all tax cuts…

    Apparently it all starts to kick off on Labor Day, which is the first monday in September. Can’t wait…

  • Julian Morrison

    Tony: depends on the nuclear material. Some kinds are pretty much harmless (except for making “dirty bombs” which are nothing but panic weapons anyway). Giving that away is actually a rather cunning way to call a bluff. If the Iranians truly want to build power plants, they’ll be happy to get free fuel. If they want to build nukes, it will become obvious when they refuse the offer.

  • Being what George Soros would call a “market fundamentalist”, I put my faith in the observable opinions of profit-seeking traders. For the presidential election, have a look at the Iowa Electronic Markets, where one can speculate on various political contests. It’ll be a close race, but the GOP has a higher probability of winning.

    IEM Presidential Election Market

  • Chris Josephson

    I think Bush will win also. I’m one of those not committed to any party, an Independent. I don’t hate or love any party/candidate. All depends on the issues at the time.

    I did not support Bush last time around. I will support him this year, however. There are a lot of issues I disagree with Bush on, but I think he’ll be better than Kerry at keeping the US safe.

    I don’t dislike Kerry. He’s been one of my state’s senators for about 20 years. Unfortunately, in that 20 year period he has managed to be invisible to me except when re-election time comes around. There are very few people that I know who could list Kerry’s core beliefs.

    For the times we find ourselves in I want someone who will lead, not someone who is invisible. I believe as Kerry campaigns and the US public gets to know more about him, they will not like what they see because there isn’t much TO see. The people who will vote for him will be people who dislike Bush enough to not care who they put in the white house.

  • DSpears

    “I pray with all my heart and soul that Bush doesn’t get reelected. I don’t think that he will. If he does, I’m going to Canada or Mexico.”

    To paraphrase the late, great Bon Scott “…all your friends are gonna be there too!…..”

    You’ll get to meet Barabara Streisand and Alec Baldwin! Not like they would actually hang out with a flyover like yourself.

    “Kerry is a “far left socialist”???? Are you serious?? Do you know what a hard left socialist is? ”

    Yes, I think he is. At very least he is communist sympathizer, if not a communist himself. Ask Danial Ortega.

    “One of the worrisome aspects of a Bush win is further profilgate spending”

    Have you seen all the spending proposals Kerry has made? He has vowed to raise taxes (though nearly not enough to pay for all this and that’s assuming static economic numbers) but with the congress in it’s current configuration, especially the house, that won’t happen. But as they’ve shown before they might go along with many or all of his spending proposals. Every new spending initiative Bush has proposed, Kerry’s criticism has been that he didn’t spend enough.

    “How would a Kerry victory hand Qaeda and OBL a massive PR victory? The way I see it, Bush has already given these guys a huge boost. I am very curious to hear your take on this…”

    The so-called peaceful foreign policy that Kerry wants to return to resulted in the 1993 WTC bombing, The USS Cole bombing, the Kohbar towers bombing, and 9/11. Osama Bin Laden declared war on America in 1993 and again in 1998. You seem to have your chronology reversed.

    “I expect he would be much more fiscally responsible,”

    Based on what?

    ” more of a uniter than a divider,”

    Based on what?

    ” and most importantly of all, would inject some common sense into our foreign policy.”

    Based on what?

    “His neglect of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and his lack of impartiality here have not only ignored one of the most dangerous conflicts in the region, if not the world, but have also further eroded our reputation as an honest broker.”

    You mean he has failed to solve a problem through outside interference that nobody anywhere has been able to solve in over 50 years. What an incompetent boob. Maybe, just maybe, this conflict isn’t ours to solve. There are enough outside interference already (Syria, Iran, Europe, Russia, etc.), which is the real obstacle to peace in the region.

    Our reputation as an honest broker? I don’t consider manipulating elections in Israel to be very honest (James Carville).

    ” At the request of Israel, he has cut ties to Arafat,”

    At the request of common sense you mean……No peace in that region will ever happen until Yasser Arafat is rotting in hole. I am paraphrasing Arafat of course.

    “These mistakes taken as a whole have hurt America’s reputation, and as a result have made things worse for Americans, both in terms of security and economic opportunity.”

    Funny, we’ve had no terrorist attacks on our soil in 3 years, our economy is booming while the one based in Brussels is stagnant (as it has been for 30 years), and I have no problem whatsoever with our reputation. I would rather be respected than liked.

    The brutal dictators and terrorists of the world have been sent a clear message: The UN, the French, and the Soviets can’t save you any longer. That’s good for the world, bad for France and the tyrrants, terrorists and cleptocrats that the UN has helped keep in business for all these years.

  • A_t

    I know i keep banging on about this with the same example, but…

    “The brutal dictators and terrorists of the world have been sent a clear message: The UN, the French, and the Soviets can’t save you any longer. That’s good for the world, bad for France and the tyrrants, terrorists and cleptocrats that the UN has helped keep in business for all these years.”

    So what clear message has the US been sending China then? Ignore any notions of democracy, freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom to worship. Continue the deliberate destruction of the history & culture of a country you invaded 55 years ago, & you will be rewarded with special trade contracts.

    Explain how this fits into the righteous model of foreign policy.

  • Julian Morrison

    There’s a summary to the two candidates that explains each of their appeal.

    Bush is a September 11th man.

    Kerry is a September 10th man.

  • I think it would be better for America and the world generally for Bush to win, because of Kerry’s mystery foreign policy.

    I’m not suggesting that a President Kerry would immediately cave-in to terror, and I expect that the situations he would inherit would greatly constrain his ability to make any radical changes to foreign policy in the short term. But Kerry could not continue the Bush strategy without facing all-out war with his own party, and he has failed to outline any clear alternative.

    So the real danger is of a period of drift, in which America concedes the initiative to its enemies. Of course his more conciliatory tone towards Old Europe and the UN would be reciprocated, not least because they would see a Kerry administration as being more congenial to their own interests, but it wouldn’t result in any concrete action. It would just cover inaction with a smokescreen of fine words.

    I’m reminded of an old joke in which the Soviet politburo is travelling across Russia when their train breaks down in remote countryside. Stalin has all the railway engineers shot, but the train doesn’t move. After a while Stalin dies and Khrushchev takes over. He rehabilitates the engineers, but this doesn’t help either. Finally, Brezhnev comes to power and says “Comrades, I know what to do. Pull down the blinds and we’ll pretend we’re moving!”

    That could be a Kerry administration: pull down the blinds and pretend that progress is being made in the War on Terror.

  • DSpears

    “So what clear message has the US been sending China then? Ignore any notions of democracy, freedom of information, freedom of speech, freedom to worship. Continue the deliberate destruction of the history & culture of a country you invaded 55 years ago, & you will be rewarded with special trade contracts.

    Explain how this fits into the righteous model of foreign policy.”

    The same reason we didn’t militarily conquer the Soviet Union at any time during the Cold War, even though it most certainly would have been the best thing for the world.

    China has nuclear weapons.

    The difference is that for now China is no longer an expansionist communist nation, actively spreading their disease over the planet. I’m not delusional enough to be happy that a billion + people still live under communism on this planet, but right now they don’t appear to be trying to expand their borders or subvert foreign governments (like the Soviets did). Unless you are suggesting a cold war style military stand-off, this is a red-herring.

    I’ll call your bluff: What do you think we should do about China?

  • Amelia

    Disclaimer: I voted for Bush last time and will vote for him again. I really cannot stand Kerry. I would rather go to the dentist then have dinner with him and his wife. I hate his left wing, big government policies. His speeches smack of megalomania. He would do it better simply because he KNOWs better (although he has been in the senate for several years and does not appear to me to have authored one piece of legislation or even sponsored anything significant- please correct me if I am wrong). The thought of such luminaries as Kennedy, Levin and Leaky Leahy being further elevated turns my stomach.

    However, I swear despite my disdain that I would not despair of his victory if I trusted him for one moment on security. I don’t. He voted every time he could to cut both the military and intelligence over a twenty year period. Yesterday in some speech he said that he will “Bring the Troops home.” I was home for lunch watching TV. I thought he planned to send more troops to Iraq and am now throughly confused. He has a “secret” plan? I am not buying the flag waving, saluting DNC convention, not when Michael Moore and Jimmy Carter are sitting side by side in the wings. I hope the electorate tells Kerry in Teresa’s catch phrase to “shove it.”

    As to who will win the election, I have no idea. My state will go for Bush. If Kerry does win, my one consolation is that he will be a weak president.

  • Tony

    Julian,
    Thanks for the comments – you’re right, that it depends what ‘nuclear’ material Iran is offered. Kerry could offer stuff that you’ll find in any hospital and get lots of panic from the so-called ‘dirty bombs’, but essentially it won’t mean too much. But what the Iranians are really after is enriched Uranium-235 aren’t they. In terms of whats needed – 3% enrichment is ok for power stations, but 90% is needed for weapons grade material.

    Once they have a functioning reactor, they can then use the neutrons from it to transmute Uranium 238 (much more abundant than U-235 – ie the fissionable stuff) and get good old Plutonium-239. So, the best thing to do is not give them anything that can start a reactor going.

    Amelia,
    Whilst I sympathise with your comments, America (and the World) does not need a weak president at this moment in time. This is not the time for another Jimmy Carter. If Kerry does get elected, the Islamists may feel emboldened enough to strike the US again. The response that the US would then have to make would be exceptional. We’re talking about “The Three Conjectures” exceptional.

  • Eric Sivula

    Tony, Steve den Beste(Link) has an article up about how the fuel rods for uranium powered nuclear facilities – 3 to 5% enrichment – come out of the reactor with plutonium in them. The neutrons that do not heat water or crack U-235 atoms become absorbed bv the U-238. Which becomes U-239, which decays into Neptunium 239, which decays into Plutonium 239. Which can be used in implosive style atomic weapons.

    Any nuclear reactors with Uranium fuel rods produce plutonium. Materials Test Reactors, aka ‘breeder reactors’, produce MORE plutonium by rearranging the fuel rods to maximize the absorbtion of neutrons by the U-238. Orisak was a MTR. The number of electrical lines coming out of the Iranian reactors could indicate if theirs are power plants or MTRs. Even the power plants would be dangerous, if we gave the Iranians fuel rods. If they have MTRs, Kerry would be guaranteeing the mullahs the Bomb.

    Kerry wants to give the Iranians fuel rods. “If” they don’t give them back, then that “prooves” they want nukes. They will also have them then.

  • M. Simon

    I predicted a Republican landslide on May 16 On a guest blog at Winds of Change.

    That was in 2003.

    I based it on fundamentals.

    Socialism is dead.

  • M. Simon

    Dspears,

    Kerry is the uniter.

    He is so bad he will unite people behind Bush.

  • M. Simon

    MusselsfromBrussels,

    Ya musta missed Clinton’s second campaign.

    Vicious.

  • M. Simon

    MusselsfromBrussels,

    You are correct. Kerry is not running as a socialist. It doesn’t mean he isn’t one.

    The Dems featured speaker Obama was/is a card carrying Socialist. Probably Kerry didn’t know. Ya right.

  • Sandy P

    The US will not be “united” until the 60s boomers are senile, dead or finally grow up and learn to take “no” for an answer and quit whining.

    And realize it’s not about them.

  • Shaun Bourke

    Bush in a landslide…. 45+ states….much of Dean’s support will go to Nader.

    We will know mid Sept if GB will be able to walk up to the podium with a broom.

    The House at least 15 more seats.

    The senate …hmmm…clean sweep.

    Enjoy !!

  • Johan

    Anything that makes Michael Moore sad makes me happy.
    – David Gillies

    I could not have said it any better. Actually, for me, anything that upsets anti-Bush, anti-American Europeans, which would be Bush reelected, makes me happy. I just want to see their faces the morning after the election. I’m going to buy some popcorn for that, I think.

  • Jacob

    “I’m not delusional enough to be happy that a billion + people still live under communism on this planet… ”

    Where are your nuances ?

    China is nominally a communist state, but it’s current version of totalitarianism is very different from the classical or historical version.
    While many limitations on personal freedom and political freedom still exist, they are far, far less than a couple of decades ago.
    So we can hope that progress will continue, and freedom will advance there.
    Can we do anything to hasten it ? Not much, beyond propaganda.
    How is that for a China policy ?

  • Shawn

    Mussels:

    “Kerry is a “far left socialist”???? Are you serious?? Do you know what a hard left socialist is?”

    Yes I do and yes he is.

    “It wouldn’t surprise me if Kerry did raise taxes across the board. At some point taxes are going to have to go up to start paying off the massive deficits we have incurred.”

    Wrong. There are other ways to solve the deficit without raising taxes.

    “One of the worrisome aspects of a Bush win is further profilgate spending ”

    Except Bush is not advocating any, but Kerry is. If you look at both campaign promises it is Kerry who will raise spending through the roof over the next four years not Bush.

    “How would a Kerry victory hand Qaeda and OBL a massive PR victory? The way I see it, Bush has already given these guys a huge boost. I am very curious to hear your take on this…”

    My take on what? You havent said anything, except “the way I see it”.

    The fact is that Bush has agressively taken the war to the terrorists where they live, and Kerry will not.

    “Bush’s arrogant language (youre with us or against us…etc) and his (mis?)adventures in Iraq have alienated allies and taken the focus off fighting Qaeda & the so-called war on terrorism.”

    Rubbish. What allies have been “alienated”? The French? France has never been a genuine ally. Germany? The country currently under a socialist government, whos leader campaigned at the last election on not kowtowing to a “Jewish lobby”? Any other “allies” we should be concerned about?

    The only allies whos opinion I care about are Britain and Israel, and last time I looked we had not alienated either of them.

    “youre with us or against us…etc”

    This isint arrogant, its a statement of basic morality. You are either for terrorism or against it, which is what Bush actually said if you look at that statement in context.

    “taken the focus off fighting Qaeda & the so-called war on terrorism.”

    The Pakiastan gov working with the CIA just nabbed a major al-Qaeda terrorist respoinsible for the African embassy bombings and all his computer records. Operations against al-Qaeda continue throughout the world. No focus has been lost.

    “His neglect of the Palestine-Israel conflict, and his lack of impartiality”

    You must be joking. How can you be “impartial” in a conflict between terrorists who use suicide bombing against civilians as a standard tactic and a democratic nation? There is such a thing as right and wrong. There could be no impartiality between Britain and Nazi Germany, there should be none with regards to the Israeli defense if its people and freedom.

    “At the request of Israel, he has cut ties to Arafat, the leader of the Palestinian side,”

    Good. Arafat is a terrorist. We should have no ties to such people.

    ” making any kind of meaningful progress here virtually impossible.”

    Rubbish. On the contrary, real progress, such as the Gaza pullout, is now happenning due to America’s and Israels refusal to backdown and kowtow to the terrorists.

    Clinton tried your approach. It failed. Learn from that and move on.

    “Do you really think that Bush has been good for libertarians”

    I think he has been good for America’s freedom and soveriegnty with regards to foriegn policy, that he has agressively defended our freedom against Islamist terrorism and its state supporters. In this, yes he has been good from my libertarian pov. you cannot have freedom at home unless your willing to defeat freedoms enemies abroad.

    On domestic and economic policy he has been much less so. But my point is that he will still be far better than Kerry. Any reasonable look at the two candidates policy proposals will show that Kerry will be far worse for freedom, both at home and abroad, than Bush.

    All you have done is trot out the standard and totally descredited left wing party line on Bush, including the morally sick idea that Israel and the Islamic terrorist it fights deserve moral equality and equal treatment.

    Do you have anything else worthy of response?

  • DSpears

    “Where are your nuances ?”

    Totalitarian rule has no nuance. It is pure force.

    “While many limitations on personal freedom and political freedom still exist, they are far, far less than a couple of decades ago.”

    If I’m beating you with a stick, would you like me to hit you far, far less, or would you like me to stop?

    Unfortunately, the only reasonable thing anybody can do is watch China with crossed fingers. But I still don’t trust communists even if they are trying to act like capitalists. The can reverse course at any time.

  • LoveSupreme

    The only interesting stat about the coming prsidential election will be how many wise Americans decline to make the farcical “choice” between millionaire warmongering statist Bonesmen.

    Half the electorate were practical libertarians last time. Let’s go for 60%!

  • I’m increasingly of the opinion that the Bush haters, most of them having shown themselves to be fairly well irrational, are only going to harm Kerry’s chances in the end.

  • flaime

    Goodness. I hope not. Kerry is not a good candidate, but he is by and far the lesser of two evils. No good candidate will run in an era where even their bedrooms are subjected to the scrutiny of the press.

  • flaime

    Goodness. I hope not. Kerry is not a good candidate, but he is by and far the lesser of two evils. No good candidate will run in an era where even their bedrooms are subjected to the scrutiny of the press.

    It does us no good to fight for freedom abroad when we are being forced into religious subjgation at home. There will be no freedoms left to fight for if the religious right continues to hold sway in American politics, and the first step to removing their hold is removing one of them from the White House.

  • David Beatty

    Flaime, I’m calling B.S. on you. While Bush has his faults, what proof do you have that The United States is being forced into religious subjugation?