Four More Years...

I'm touched that the son-of-a-bitch supports gay marriage, but what the hell is he thinking? Ralph Nader announced on Meet The Press just now that he's running for president again. Will this mean four more years of Bush? I think so.

quote:

---

Ralph Nader announced on Meet The Press just now that he's running for president again. Will this mean four more years of Bush? I think so.

---

I think this is a very weak assessment, both of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future.The reason Gore lost in 2000 had NOTHING to do with Nader.1) His choice of Lieberman alienated members of his own state (which he also did not campaign hard enough in) and so lost those votes, so if one is looking for lost votes in general Democrats should start there...2) The SC appointed Bush the presidency after those in charge of the election system in Florida (his brother and campaign manager), disenfranchised many voters. This does NOT include those who couldn't manage to punch a ballot correctly. If the court cases had been allowed to go forward at the time and the disenfranchised voters allowed to vote (again not talking about the chad problem) Gore would have been elected. Gore hung his campaign hope on the chad issue instead of the more important one (perhaps because it would be quicker and he figured he would win it).3) Nader picked up votes from people unhappy with both parties. More than likely if Nader had not run Nader votes would have gone to no one or to another third party (there was more that the Green Party you know). It is a vain concept that if not for Nader, those people would have voted for Gore. Gore was an ass, even if the lesser of two evils.The reason Nader will not affect the future vote...1) The clarity between parties is much stronger now and people will be less attracted to third parties in general. In fact, Howard Dean helped push the Democrats back in a direction where disillusioned Democrats who went to 3rd parties last time are more likely to return (not to mention Bush scaring others back).2) Even moderate conservative independents and Republicans are feeling hit by Bush. His fiscal irresponsibility and actual undercutting of our defensive standing in the world has cost him people that might have been attracted to his camp in 2000 because there was such a slim difference between the parties back then (and the US was doing well).3) Even if Nader got the same numbers as last time (and it is unlikely he will) that would still leave the democratic party victorious as they were in 2000. The question will be if there is more voter disenfranchisement this time around in states where it will matter, and how much each side increases the number of voters than they had last election (I'm assuming given the state of the world they won't lose voters).My guess is 2004 will still be close, but Democrats really have to stop blaming Nader for their past loss and using it to predict a future loss. That makes the Democratic party seem very weak, and that is not a good image to be projecting right now.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I don't think this statement applies very well to the Republicans I know, and it certainly doesn't apply to the Limbaugh republicans, which number in the millions.Are there really very many people worried about Bush having undercut our defensive standing in the world, assuming that's even true? I think the common voter tends to be either for or against the war in Iraq and for or against allowing the UN to intervene in our military choices. If they're for the war in Iraq, they aren't thinking anything negative about our defensive standing in the world.I don't know how much of policy difference there was between the parties in 2000, but there is a huge worldview difference. I don't know the right words to describe it with, but it appears to me that the majority of republicans have a problem with the "anything goes" attitude of the democratic party. I don't think it's a specific set of morals, but it certainly is an issue of morals don't matter at all versus morals do matter, and that issue stops most republicans from voting democrat, at least when it comes to congress and the president.I can't talk on a high political level. I'm too removed from it. However, most voters are pretty uneducated, and they're on no higher a political level than I am. From the Republican side, there is and was a huge difference between the parties. In general, Republicans see democrats and not caring at all about morality and as wanting to raise spending and raise taxes, while Republicans do care about morality and they want to cut spending so we can cut taxes.That may not even be an accurate view, but it is the average Republicans' view. Bush has certainly done his share (and more) of spending, but I don't think that's changed Republican views at all.Anyway, to sum up my rambling, my point is that Republicans do not and have not seen a small difference between the parties, but a large one. Maybe you're just talking about the small group of intermediate people that might sway the election one way or the other, but I think most people see a huge difference between the parties, even if just in their respective general philosophies.

Bush won't need Nader's help like he did in 2000. The Democrats seem bent on nominating a member of the only species Republicans have had no trouble beating, a Massachusetts liberal. Can you say Michael Dukakis?Southern NH has become dominated by Massachusetts transplants who bring their politics with them, providing politicians from their southern neighbor a natural advantage in the early primary race, and often prematurely blowing the other candidates out of the race. While the primary season's outcome is already a foregone conclusion, the general electotate will find Kerry as appealing as fingernails on a blackboard, which was the country's general reaction to Dukakis, too. The Democrats seem unable to heed the words of Santayana, or even of George Will, whose less memorably said over a dozen years ago, but with words as true as ever, that Democrats ignore even crowbars to the head.--Percy

quote:

---

Maybe you're just talking about the small group of intermediate people that might sway the election one way or the other, but I think most people see a huge difference between the parties, even if just in their respective general philosophies.

---

See, this is where the environment one is in has a large effect on what we think.I live in a pretty progressive university town. Before that, I lived in traditionally Democratic cities. I was raised in a blue-collar family in a town where half of my friends' parents worked at the local steel mill.I have never, ever understood the appeal of the Republican party among the working class.There used to be a larger difference between the two parties, but the country has slid so far to the Right that Nixon would have had to be a pretty liberal Democrat if he were to come up in politics today.A typical moderate Democrat today would probably have been considered a moderate Republican 30 years ago.Clinton supported NAFTA and welfare cuts, and he balanced the budget, for god's sake, yet the Republicans paint him as some left-wing hippie radical.I would have voted for Dean in a heartbeat, and I'm glad that he was in the race, because he gave the Democratic party the balls it was lacking for so many years. He forced all of the other candidates to actually come out and disagree with George W. Bush.Gore spent his campaign agreeing with the Republican position on almost everything.

quote:

---

I have never, ever understood the appeal of the Republican party among the working class.

---

Here's 300 dollars. Now ignore all the ways we screw you over.

---

"Perhaps you should take your furs and your literal interpretations to the other side of the river."
-Anya

Point understood, but Nixon was notorious for Watergate, for bombing Hanoi, and for just generally being a scary guy, but not for being a right winger. Domestically, and especially economically, he was from the liberal wing of the Republican party, wage/price controls and all that.--Percy

Hi Percy,I think you've presented a very cogent picture of the problem. However, you've also neglected one critical element. Read Truthlover's post for a typical example. When even someone as well-read and articulate as TL can't see it...In a nutshell, there is a deep, probably unbridgeable chasm within the Republican party that only two dem candidates in recent memory have even recognized, let alone attempted to exploit: that between the political (for lack of a better term) and social conservatives (aka carpet chewers). John McCain saw it, and ran a campaign designed to appeal to the "political" wing - which may in fact be a near-majority. The fact that he was an inept boob who managed to alienate everybody is what did him in. The other was Ross Perot, who nearly succeeded. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your political bent), Perot is probably clinically insane, and quit in a huff over some perceived slight magnified in his mind to astronomical proportions.The other issue is that Republicans, more so than Democrats, have traditionally "rallied 'round the flag" when it comes down to "us vs them" in a presidential final race. Even that is a near-run thing: witness the last election - "weak" Republicans deserting the party or simply staying away in droves is what caused the election to be so close in the first place. Kerry, if he has any chance, has to develop a platform that speaks to this disaffected, very large minority, of "political" conservatives. So far, his entire platform seems to be "I hate Bush. Vote for me." He's gonna have to do better than that, or this next election is likely to be nowhere near as close as the previous one.My two kopeks.

In the minds of conservatives it has slipped too far to the left: entitlement programs from Bush, the increasing immorality trends, neither party wanting to protect the southern border from the silent invasion (to get around the minimum wage laws), etc. ...dragged by the Republican Congress. At first, Clinton had grand liberal visions, but the Hillary health plan failure and the landslide loss of congressional seats at his 2-yr mark caused him to change tactics (to win a second term). He was able to slide many monetary problems (such as depleting military) to the following president. Obviously, he didn't beef-up the intelligence community after the first attack on the WTC. That may be because you grew up with traditional party thinking. Now, workers have it made in the USA, except they have a difficult time competing with other countries who offer very low wages. Even white-collar workers are losing work to overseas labor, such as India.To make matters worse, what business wants to hire union workers when illegal aliens are available and being used by the competition? And, both political parties want to give them amnesty. It won't be long before they get minimum wage (thus inviting more cheap labor across the border).So far, I think Truthlover understands the political divide quite well, even though he's tucked away in a commune.

I don't understand why you don't understand, but I'm not claiming to be politically savvy. Democrats tend to say we have to raise taxes, and Republicans tend to say we don't and that working class people need tax breaks. What am I missing?I would blame the Republican party for the increased distance between the CEO's pay and the worker's pay, but I've hung around mostly republicans most of my adult life (I was military in my early 20's), and I don't remember anyone ever thinking about things like that. Leaving Nixon out of it, because of what Percy said, why do you think the country has slid right at all? Have I completely missed what being right wing is? I don't see any indication that this country is moving right (and I don't know how it could if the environment in all high schools is like I saw in the high school I worked at in California--left wing to the point of blindness). I thought Clinton did a great job with the economy. At least, that's what it looked like to me. I certainly noticed him balancing the budget. I don't remember one balanced budget before him since I started paying attention to the news in the 70's, so I was impressed.Finally, I have to say this:To everyone, I only commented, because it seemed clear to me that to the majority of Republicans, for reasons I listed, there was no small difference between the two parties in 2000. I am totally unqualified to be talking on politics in general. My statements about Clinton here are chatty, only.

quote:

---

it certainly doesn't apply to the Limbaugh republicans, which number in the millions.

---

Maybe my statement, which you quoted was not clear enough. I was NOT talking about Limbaugh Republicans at all. I was talking about the people on the edges of the parties that can slip back and forth. Notice the phrase "cost him people that might have been attracted to his camp in 2000".There are republicans and conservatives that are upset with Bush for his fiscal irresponsibility. The Cato Institute recently ripped into him, as well as a number of conservative economic thinktanks. Some are even suggesting that his failures are going to have to be fixed by taxes (then we can all remember his daddy saying "read my lips"). Once you get the Cato institute grilling you for your policies, that means the thinking republicans are beginning to waver, and so might the more independent minded conservatives.

quote:

---

Are there really very many people worried about Bush having undercut our defensive standing in the world, assuming that's even true?

---

Yes there are. Many ex-intelligence officials, and they are almost excusively republican leaning, have blasted Bush for his mishandling of intelligence and national security. This will not play as heavy as the economic issues, but it is recognized as an issue and again may peel away voters.I agree that the large republican base will remain the same. But the last election was not lost by a vast majority. It was actually won by democrats by a vast majority. The only issue is demographics in narrow margin states, which swing electoral votes away from representing popular votes. Even there it is not going to take millions or even thousands of disaffected voters to change the balance.Bush has got to worry about getting everyone he had last time, plus an increase of the swing edges of the opposition party. At this point in time (though things may change) he is losing his swing edge.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I actually agree that the country has slid to the right. The sea-change event for me was when Clinton allowed welfare work requirements to change. The primary welfare perspective in the country seems to have evolved from overwhelming concern for the downtrodden to one of personal responsbility playing a far less subservient role.The Republican position on welfare is consistent with the economics of demand/supply. They believe that if you create demand for the class of poor, unwed, unemployable mothers in the form of welfare dollars, then this class will inevitably grow in size. This isn't to say that poor, unwed, unemployed mothers don't need help and support, because they do, and this isn't to say that the Republican position doesn't work against legitimate members of this class, because it does. It's in the interests of our country that we look out for this group, because the children of unwed mothers will someday join the ranks of society, and the Democratic position is important in this regard. But the Republican position acknowledges that the dollars attract hoards, from teenagers desperate to escape an untenable home life to welfare scammers intent on making a buck. 10 years ago the Republican position had little public support, and today it does, and that seems a big change.--Percy

What I love is that Americans are more concerned about somebody getting beer money from the guvment than about corporate accounting fraud, outrageous salaries for failure CEO's, and unprecidented Christmas present deregulation for the energy industry.It's like trying to nab the guy who keeps raiding your snack drawer at work, all the while ignoring the guy who's carrying off your plasma TV at home.Just my thoughts.

Perhaps Ralph Nader's participation can help raise awareness to the shortcomings of current policy.As such, I think his "candidacy" might be a good thing. I just hope that, a fair while before the elections, he says "Well, I've had my say. Now, the best thing I can recommend, is to vote Democrat".Moose

Right you are! The Enron's, WorldCom's and Martha Stewart's of this country can rest easy knowing that attention is focused elsewhere. --Percy