Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I am rather amused that you dismiss “recent historical trends” and then harken back to 1864, to a war fought in totally different context. We may as well be talking about Athens and Sparta.

I heartily agree that it is silly to try to convince each other that one candidate is winning. We’ll know soon enough.

Also agree with Rasmussen about something — there is no reason to believe that the election will be especially close. As they put it, one side or the other will have a “modestly comfortable victory.” A lot of pundits seem to feel that it is somehow safe to say that the election will be very close, but that is actually a pretty bold statement! Undecided voters usually swing one way or the other.

I am rather amused that you dismiss “recent historical trends” and then harken back to 1864, to a war fought in totally different context. We may as well be talking about Athens and Sparta.

I heartily agree that it is silly to try to convince each other that one candidate is winning. We’ll know in about five months.

Also agree with Rasmussen about something — there is no reason to believe that the election will be especially close. As they put it, one side or the other will have a “modestly comfortable victory.” A lot of pundits seem to feel that it is somehow safe to say that the election will be very close, but that is actually a pretty bold statement! Undecided voters usually swing one way or the other.

Woody:

Recent trends did not have a war in the middle of them.

CH

I agree with those who think the election will be a “landslide” one way or the other (which because of the electoral college could mean only a few percentage points in the popular vote).

Everything probably hinges on what happens after the Iraqi handover in June. If it looks like we’re seeing real progress on that front, then it’s hard to believe that the current trends in the economy will do anything but carry Bush over the top in dramatic fashion. The Democrats will have real trouble talking down the economy in the face of terrific projected numbers—including job growth. But if Iraq is a mess, the patience of the electorate five months from now will likely be gone and the economy won’t be getting much play in the headlines—real trouble for Bush.

I’m guessing that we’ll know—almost for sure—by early August, and that the picture won’t be the least bit subtle.

Ah, yeah. The pivotal 1864 election! What a barn-burner!

Too bad Al Gore didn’t learn the lesson of how arrogance and patronizing comes across on TV, like Lincoln. Or, how Nixon should’ve known the benefits of makeup, unlike Andrew Johnson.

To be convincing, the Rasmussen argument should have more than 2 assertions: the impact of the ‘Investor Class’ and a mis-representation of the Zogby data.

The report insists the Investor Class is bigger, but fails to identity who these members are, how they qualify for membership and how their addition makes the group more impactful.

I cannot speak to those average Americans who rushed into the market during the ‘go-go’ days of the 90s’ boom, or how many may have returned, post-bust.

However, I’d question if those counted as new to group are actually employees (including me) who still own company stock thru 401Ks’ and/or IRAs’.

My group has not benefitted from the recovering economy and ‘surging’ market, in contrast to those in the upper tier of the Investor Class. Time/Warner stock closed at $16.51 yesterday, no where near the previous high of $60, once the value of my stock options and half of my 401K.

The Rasmussen Report also fails to cite a principle part of Zogby’s argument. According to Zogby, the relatively small variance in both candidate’s numbers are due to the unwavering entrenchment of support for each candidate. The extent of the division in this country, leaves an unprecedented small percentage of Undecided voters, left.

Zogby points out that historically at this juncture in a Presidential race, the Undecided percentage is closer to 20%. However, the trend so far in this race, the percentage varies from a low of 6% to no higher than 11%.

Therefore, with these parameters, Kerry surging to a 10%+ lead, is possible, but only given to extreme events.

Finally, any percentage of Undecided voters have clearly opted against supporting the incumbent, while waiting for a reason to support the challenger. On the eve of the election, the percentage of Undecided always go to the challenger.

Good point about the Investor Class, Bert. Less than 50% of American families own stock, and the majority of those own it through 401k’s and IRAs. That’s where Bush’s dividends tax cut rhetoric was exposed as BS, and why he didn’t get the full tax cut he wanted there.

Rasmussen Reports do not see the election as close with the election going either way depending on events. From what I have read, Rasmussen seems to make the most sense so far.

That’s interesting Craig, but when a person changes position depending on events, it’s called “flip-flopping”. I would think that conservatives would be more comfortable with a bold prediction, right or wrong. :)

Craig,

Bush’s daddy had a war…

The Bush family curse (losing an election despite winning a war) has really left many Dems from hoping this will be a family trend. But if this truly a family trend, doesn’t that mean, no matter what, that we will have to endure 4 more years of A Bush in office? If Bush Jr Loses, I could see the well-organized Repubs try to prop up the more intelligent and articulate younger brother Jeb. Scary part is that he is a radical conservative masquerading as a moderate repub. His interference in the Schiavo case is perfect example of how Fundamentalists have selective reliogiosity. Jeb would say, “It is necessary for nature to take its course through a pregnacy (anti-abortion), but we should intervene in God’s natural processes for the death penalty and when there is a Right-to-life case”. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Woody:

Bush the first had a war in his rear view mirror. There are some parallel’s to 1864.

1. A “religious” president.
2. A President who was criticized for his intellect.
3. A War effort that what roundly criticized for mismanagement.
4. A strong antiwar effort from the opposition party. (In 1864 the Democrats had an antiwar plank in their platform).
5. Strong opposition from Europe.
6. A Democratic candidate with a war record.

The point is that Lincoln won by turing around the war effort between August and November.

My point is simply, as Iraq and the economy goes, so goes the election. That was the same in 1864 as it is today. Rasmussen has the same conclusion, but not because of 1864.

Craig

Craig

The point is that Lincoln won by turing around the war effort between August and November.

Dude, if Bush can pull Jeffersonian democracy out of a hat in Iraq and make my 401k worth what I put into it (plus the earnings I lost because of 2 trillion dollars of poorly targeted tax cuts) by November, I’ll vote for him.

Do I think this country is better off now than it was four years ago? Hell, I don’t even think it’s better off now than it was last month.

Craig,

Re “rear view mirror”: So dad’s mistake was being too competent a commander in chief, eh? The sad thing is, you may be right.

Re your points:

1. Lincoln was known as a religious skeptic. By his own words, he was “not a member of any Christian Church”.

2. Lincoln had a year of formal schooling. Boy George has a Harvard MBA. It’s enough to make you swear off education.

3. George should follow Abe’s example and actually fire someone.

The larger message here is that you can twist the facts to make anyone look like anyone else. It is a wasted effort.

Craig, I think the subtexts of Bush’s actions, and those of his subordinates will play a big part in whether he gets defeated on election day.

One of the marked things of this past year and most of the Bush administration has been this smug sort of partisan rhetoric which has taken all the tripe out of talk radio and blasted those who oppose Bush.

I mean, have you heard of what Dennis Hastert said about John McCain, simply because McCain wasn’t on board with more tax cuts? Good Lord, when your party starts denying McCain exists, or is a Republican, even in jest, it’s time to consider just how lacking in moderation your party has become. Pride goeth before a fall, you know, and it seems like the Republicans are getting too smug about being in power that they feel they can arrange themselves in a circular firing squad like this.

Woody:

I agree that Lincoln was not a member of a “Christian” church, that is why I used the word “religious” to describe him. He was a man who read his Bible and believed in the Bible. He also saw the civil war in religious terms.

Also, that election was one of the ugliest to date. The political cartoons were horrible.

My point is not to say Bush is Lincoln, only that 1864 is a simular situation.

What Bush needs to do to win is to “take Atlanta.” He needs to hunt down OBL. He needs to give clear convincing proof that the foundation for democracy has been laid in Iraq and he needs to get the troops started homeward bound. All the words in the world are not what the voters want to see. It is time for Bush to put up or shut up in Iraq. If he doesn’t, the voters will put someone in who they think will.

So I disagree with Zogby (the race is Kerry’s to loose), and I agree with Rasmussen, (that the race will be one or lost over Iraq and the economy).

Craig

PS. I agree that he may need to fire some people.

Stephen:

The “your party” thing reminds me of something Jesus once said. “he who is without sin,,,,”

It would hard to make the case that Ted Kennedy hasn’t been “aiding” the enemy with his rhetoric lately. All for the cause of the Democratic party. I see very little outrage from “your” party on that.

I think the “you people” comments are not the best way to make an arguement this year. There is plenty of blame on both sides!!

Craig

It would hard to make the case that Ted Kennedy hasn’t been “aiding” the enemy with his rhetoric lately.

If you could be more specific Craig, it would make it easier for me to rebut that argument. Democrats are generally complaining that the administration is not doing enough to fight terrorism.

In general, though, I don’t believe that voicing legitimate dissent can be considered “aiding” the enemy. Unless you’re trying to argue that Republican’s complaints about Clinton’s strikes on Iraq and his curbing of slaughter in Kosovo were also the treasonous activity of which you’re accusing Kennedy.

Lee:

If you scroll up to Stephen’s comments about “your party” that will provide context. My only point is that Stephen’s comments are a bit of “the pot calling the kettle black”. If you want me to back up that both parties are involved in partison rhetoric I will be happy to. It seems like an obvious point. (This year more than most!!)

Craig

Craig, I’m talking about you accusing Kennedy of treason. Aiding the enemy is a serious charge. If you’re going to say something like that, you need to back it up with facts.

It now sounds like you’re backing off that charge. Thank you.

I agree that both parties are throwing around the rhetoric. This election is one of the most important elections this country has seen since Lincoln was voted into office.