June 08, 2004

October Surprise! Where you can predict what will happen before the November 2004 election. [Via Boing Boing.]
posted by homunculus 19 years ago
  • They're all so hard to choose from.
  • I know what will happen before the November election: Halloween. Nothing more, nothing less. But if something DOES happen that is unusual (Osama, WMD, etc) it won't be any conspiracy or "dirty tricks" nonsense. Actually, I would expect a dirty trick from the Kerry camp (or supporterss) rather than the President's team.
  • How can you be so certain? Is your faith in the President blind enough that you would put it past him? I don't expect an October surprise. But I also don't think I'd be terribly...surprised.
  • Help oppose the Bush campaign and help support this site! Use this handy button to make a donation in any amount:
  • davidmsc: oh really? headline from may 31 washpost: From Bush, Unprecedented Negativity Scholars Say Campaign Is Making History With Often-Misleading Attacks
  • Being excessively negative and misleading (lying) is a little different from these options, though: - WMD's found in Iraq! - Osama bin Laden captured! - Spectacular terrorist attack on US soil! - Vote is threatened by terrorist attacks, vote suspended due to red alert. - US pulls out of Iraq in October, leaving the UN in charge. - Diebold Election Systems fixes the vote in battleground states. - Escalation in Israel, Iran, or North Korea. US opens a new war front.
  • - Diebold Election Systems fixes the vote in battleground states. I think this one is basically a foregone conclusion.
  • Actually, I would expect a dirty trick from the Kerry camp (or supporterss) rather than the President's team. Not starting a pissing match here, but I'm honestly curious why. Nearly every Bush ad I've seen has been negative and misleading, while nearly every Kerry ad I've seen has been positive. Bush used push polling about the "illegitimate black child" thing to destroy McCain in the last election primaries. I may be uninformed, but as far as I know, Kerry's never done anything like that. Again, I'm not picking a fight, but I honestly wonder why you think Kerry would use dirty tricks, when he's run a pretty clean campaign (i.e., far from perfect, but not dirty).
  • davidmsc: can you explain why you expect dirty tricks from the Democrats? Why would the Democrats need to stoop to dirty tricks? As SideDish noted above, Bush has run a very negative campaign, and he's spent a lot of money on those negative ads, and yet he polls neck-and-neck with Kerry. (Actually, slightly behind, but I'm trying to be generous.) I'm just askin'.
  • Democrats kill Reagan two months earlier than Republicans wanted! [BS News] In the latest breaking news, confidential unnamed lower level staff sources reveal that Reagan's death happened two months earlier than the Republicans had planned. The Democrats, in not allowing the galvanization of his death to affect November's national elections, pre-empted the assassination of Reagan. Confidentially, aides to the custodian in the Kerry campaign say John F'n Kerry repeatedly threw his medals(ribbons) at Ronald until he succumbed to death by asphyxiation. "Jesus! It's not the same guy again is it?" is the only comment comming from the White House at this time. Stay Tuned For More Dastardly Dirty Democrat Trickery!
  • Why is Kerry only polling neck and neck when Bush has had a solid two weeks of bad news? Heck, at the time Abu Ghraib surfaced and was making Rumsfeld & Co look like a worked over punching bag, Kerry was slightly behind Bush. There's gotta be something wrong with a guy who can't take advantage of Bush's shortcomings. I swear, if McCain or even Dean were there instead of Kerry, Bush'd be 'bushed'. As it is, he is only, as ambrosia put it, neck and neck. Pretty shameful for a man running against a monkey... This election isn't going to be about voting for the right guy. It'll be about not voting for the wrong guy. It's an election so negative in scope, from both sides, that it's doubtful we'll see much positive the closer we get to November. middleclasstool, how have the ads been misleading? Negative, yeah, I agree with, but I've yet to see one that wasn't spot on in terms of fact. And are you implying that Kerry hasn't run a negative campaign?
  • LOOK! A SHINY OBJECT! *distract distract*
  • Kerry voted for a postive campaign before he voted against it. OOH! Pretty rock!
  • MM: How can you be so certain? Is your faith in the President blind enough that you would put it past him? Flip the question: how can the "other" side be so certain? Is their faith in an October Suprise (OS) so certain that they will interpret anything that is beneficial to Bush as a "dirty trick?" For example -- if our forces are able to capture Osama on, say, October 30th, there is NO WAY that the Dems/Left Wing will believe that it is anything other than an OS, timed specifically to help Bush. Or if a huge cache of WMDs are located in some warehouse in a remote region of Iraq on November 1st, is there any chance at all that Bush-haters will think that it's a GOOD thing, or will they automatically accuse the Bush team of timing the discovery and/or announcement? In other words -- predictions of an October Surprise are quite likely to be self-fulfilling by the Democrats. No matter what Bush does, or what happens, they will smear him and accuse the campaign of trickery.
  • And as far as believing the Democrats (and their supporters) of "dirty tricks," you need look no further than MoveOn.org nonsense, such as the "Bush=Hitler" hyperbole, and the "Bush Lied!" cries, and the Michael Moore-influenced wing of the electorate who believe that Bush "knew" about 9/11, or somehow was involved in some fashion. Those people & organizations may not be officially part of the Kerry campaign, but make no mistake: he's loving it.
  • But Bush *did* lie. [ runs and hides ] Actually I need someone to hold me, I found something I agree with f8xmulder (mwaaah!) entirely about: This election isn't going to be about voting for the right guy. It'll be about not voting for the wrong guy. It's an election so negative in scope, from both sides, that it's doubtful we'll see much positive the closer we get to November. I'm not voting for Kerry, I'm voting against Bush. I wish that weren't true, but it is. Actually all this talk of ads makes me supremely, supremely glad I have a TiVo. I live in California, so I don't think there have been many ads anyway, but I just hit the button and hear the lovely little 'bli-blip!' and I miss the whole thing. Ahhh. Dear, sweet TiVo. I love thee.
  • I agree with F8x on that point too. Spot on in terms of fact, though? I disagree. There have been a number of news reports that have analyzed the truth of campaign ads on both sides. Examples: One of Bush's ads claims that the recession started when he took office in January 2001, implying he completely inherited it. Not true. Recession was not declared until March of that year. Yeah, I know, it's only two months, but there was clear intent behind that. Also the "Kerry voted for higher taxes 300 times" (or whatever it was) -- several news sources researched this one and found some funny math there. I'd go get links, but I'm lazy. But I'm not trying to single out Bush here. Kerry's been caught doing his own truth-bending. (However, his campaign ads have IMHO been quite a bit more positive than Bush's -- focusing more on his own history of study and service, etc., rather than pointing fingers at the other guy. Just my perception.) My point wasn't to argue Kerry good / Bush bad, but rather to question why someone would think Kerry *more* likely to use dirty campaigning than Bush, when he is, at worst, no worse.
  • davidmsc: hyperbole is not the same thing as dirty tricks. When I see the words "dirty tricks" I think of something along the lines of, oh, breaking in to Democratic Party National Headquarters, for example. Crying "Bush Lied!" isn't quite the same thing.
  • Ambrosia: Youre right. There is a difference. I conflated the two terms into one big pile of yuck. And as far as "negativity" -- relax, people, each election somehow claims to be dirtier and nastier than earlier elections, when the truth is that they aren't. They could be MUCH worse. Our elections in modern-day America are actually very civil.
  • Oh, and f8x, speaking as a liberal, I must sadly agree with your assessment of Kerry's performance. It's pretty damn sorry when you can't perform better than that, given the firestorm Bush has been trying to navigate through lately. I wish to God that McCain would run with Kerry. Hell, if McCain ran instead of Bush, I'd probably vote for him.
  • Kerry is annoyingly cautious and it's for this very reason that I am truly frightened by what I believe will be the outcome. Kerry was almost the last person I wanted to get the nomination. And I agree, it says a lot about Kerry that he has not taken advantage of, frankly, many perfect opportunities. As far as a "clean" campaign, when pigs fly. Not in our lifetime. Those days are long over. Gee, I really wish Edwards had gotten the nomination. If for no other reason than he would have made the perfect frontman or better with a good running mate.
  • Kerry seems to be taking the "don't scare anybody, nobody at all, not even your opponent" tack - and heck, it might well work. His camp seem to believe that Bush is self-destructing, and will continue to do so, and that the less attention Kerry draws to himself the better. And there's a good deal of support for that theory - Zogby was saying the other day that it's effectively Kerry's to lose from this point. And I think that's what he's doing, trying not to lose... I just wish he'd maybe, you know, try to win. (It's a bit like the European and Local elections we've got over here in a few days - the Labour party seem to have adopted the "if you keep very quiet and don't tell anybody there's an election, perhaps people will forget to protest-vote against you" tactic.) On the issue of October surprises, I'm a little puzzled as to why expecting one to happen is seen as "conspiracy theorising"... to me, it doesn't even seem particularly cynical. Isn't just what you'd expect of anybody whose major advantage when it comes to controling news agendas is that they, well, control the country? I'm not talking about full-on apocalyptic events here, but some kind of big news story that gets the media talking about what they want them to be talking about. Not planned, organised, and carried out by the administration - merely manipulated in the ways that being a government allows you to do. While this link is just a harmless bit of fun, shouldn't the small section of the media that is (in some way) liberal be trying to predict the real October surprise? Yes, maybe Osama will get captured, maybe there'll be an attack... but there sure as hell will be plenty of other "surprise"-type events that are both more plausible and at least moderately predictable. Shouldn't those who want to see the back of Bush be preparing for that, getting the retaliations in first, rather than hoping to strike it lucky in a huge game of geopolitical "I told you so"?
  • Or if a huge cache of WMDs are located in some warehouse in a remote region of Iraq on November 1st, is there any chance at all that Bush-haters will think that it's a GOOD thing, or will they automatically accuse the Bush team of timing the discovery and/or announcement? I like to think that a little cynicism toward the leaders of your country (or mine) is a good thing. I would probably think the latter but I think I would react the same way regardless of who was in power. To be honest, though, I have my doubts that any other leader would have gotten the US into this position, but that's mostly besides the point. And argh! What am I doing in a politics thread? *runs*
  • Hey flashboy, your comments reminded me of an article in this week's Economist (I'd link to it, but it's premium content online) about the selection of the Libertarian Party's candidate for President, who, when asked whether he thought al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, replied, "I know I don't necessarily believe everything the federal government tells me."
  • Flip the question: how can the "other" side be so certain? Is their faith in an October Suprise (OS) so certain that they will interpret anything that is beneficial to Bush as a "dirty trick?" Actually, for me, it's not so much that my faith in an October surprise is so certain. Rather, I have so little faith in the current administration that I would put absolutely nothing past them. It's a shame. I don't like feeling this way. But I've been lied to one too many times.
  • Dirty trick by Bush1 2 3 4 5 Dirty Tricks by the democrats: 1 2 3 4 In about the same amount of time from factcheck.org
  • I have bookmarked factcheck.org. Wow, what a great website. Thanks Uncle for that info. It seems both candidates have not played nicely with each other's words...
  • ....it's gonna be a looooooong summer.....
  • Or if a huge cache of WMDs are located in some warehouse in a remote region of Iraq on November 1st, is there any chance at all that Bush-haters will think that it's a GOOD thing, or will they automatically accuse the Bush team of timing the discovery and/or announcement? Why would the existence of WMDs be a good thing? Surely the best thing for humanity would be for them not to exist in the first place.
  • What frightens me baout the missing weapons is that if they did actually exist, someone else probably has them now.
  • Blaise -- their "existence" is not necessarily a good thing -- but the fact, we KNOW that they exist, and as dng pointed out, we don't know where they are. Finding them and securing them -- preventing them from being used by enemies & terrorists - would be a good thing. A VERY good thing.
  • Thanks for that site, Uncle. Good, good stuff there.
  • we KNOW that they exist We still have the receipts!
  • Why is Kerry only polling neck and neck when Bush has had a solid two weeks of bad news? My $0.02: Bush: "Boooooo!" Kerry: "Who?"
  • but the fact, we KNOW that they exist, and as dng pointed out, we don't know where they are. We did find some: in Texas. I'm actually inclined to agree with davidmsc that nothing is going to happen before the election. But if something did, I think it'd come from some group like this, unaffiliated with anyone and acting on there own. "I'm not afraid of al Qaeda, I'm afraid of al Cracker!" - Chris Rock
  • Cheney resigns for "health" reasons. Giuliani is his replacement.
  • And as far as believing the Democrats (and their supporters) of "dirty tricks," you need look no further than MoveOn.org nonsense, such as the "Bush=Hitler" hyperbole, I know you're smarter than that. I know that you know that moveon.org simply put up all of their entries. I know that you know that, of the thousands of entries, only two compared bush to hitler. I know you know you are lying.
  • I know that you know that moveon.org simply put up all of their entries. Is that their spin now? I know you know you are lying. Poo Flinging time from the MeFi regulars. WOOOOHOOOOO!
  • Its known as arguing, blogRot, and it is allowed. Or are the Metafilter members on different rules over here to everyone else?
  • we have rules here?
  • I'M A LIAR. NO! I'M A LIAR. HELL NO BITCH, I'M THE LIAR! BUT I KNOW YOU KNOW THAT I AM THE LIAR! how is calling out someone to be a liar "arguing" in a non-poo flinging, civilized monkey manner?
  • I would think that, logically, if you can prove that someone deliberately made a statement they knew to be false, then calling them a liar would simply be a statement of fact. The trick is in proving that they knew the statement was false.
  • Is "poo flinging" the new "troll"?
  • can I point out that davidmsc already acknowledged a conflation of terms way before Space Coyote called him on it? I'd rather watch Wolof and goetter in the battle of akimbo smock dismounts. Way more interesting.
  • Well, I'm just jealous of those two, ambrosia, nipping in before I had time to answer. I'm going to sulk and pout all night, now.
  • Well, not to say anyone's lying, but to actually think that MoveOn did that Hitler ad on their own and as an attempt at a dirty trick at this late stage; one is either being disingenuous or truly, truly naive. I'd be willing to give blog a little more credit for being clued in and say he was throwing up a strawman, but that's just me...
  • This would be much better than that stupid July surprise. Disappointing, that was.