September 23, 2004

Put Away Your Hankies. "If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!"

"Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have."

  • Don't listen to him, he's Judean People's Front.
  • Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.
  • Judean People's Front? We're the People's Front of Judea! Judean People's Front. Hrmph.
  • One of the many good things about Kerry's victory (anyone see today?) will be the instant irrelevance of this big fat jackass.
  • I don't know about you, but in my world is predicting a Bush landslide.
  • I suppose I agree with Mr. Moore. I think the problem lies with the electorate, not the candidate, i.e. if George W. Bush is re-elected in November I will blame the American people, and specifically (from my partisan POV) the potential Kerry voters who decide to stay at home on November 2nd rather than put themselves out to head to the polls. I'll blame them if it is close or not; if there are recounts and scandals or if Bush wins by 10 points. It shouldn't be close. AT ALL. Either way, if you get 50% of the vote of 50% of the country you have a mandate based on 1/4 of the adult population. No majority, that. In the last Canadian federal election the turnout was the lowest in our history as a nation (mind you, it was still 10 points higher than the US turnout in 2000). This in an election that partisans on both sides contested hotly and to the last minute and which the media portrayed as a true liberal-conservative battle (the truth of that spin is debatable to say the least). I thought "For sure people are going to get out and vote, everybody I know is worried and is going to vote" but no: fully 40% of Canadians sat on their asses and, to my mind, gave away any right they might have to complain about or laud the results. Lazy-ass bastards. Voting is not just a right - it is a duty! I know this is old hat, but it's true! I don't know the details of the Australian electoral system but I understand that down under there is a law that states that citizens must vote. A good idea, I think, even if there is a "neither" option on every ballot. I think all these polls of "likely voters" are fine and dandy (and often skewed seven ways to Sunday), but WTF is up with "unlikely voters"? Get off you asses! As a dual Canadian-American citizen I had to jump through all kinds of hoops to cast my ballot in the upcoming election - it took me hours over days to deal with the registration requirements and I did so happily - so if you are American and resident and ambulatory, then vote. If 75% of Americans elect George Bush then at least we will know what we are dealing with. And whether or not the election turns on one vote in Arizona, I know I did my duty as an American.
  • You're right Jerry- Voting is compulsory here in Australia for State and Federal elections. Those that do not vote are often fined unless some form of illness/misadventure can be shown. The pro's and con's of this system are often debated. Although there is no "neither" option on the ballot there is nothing to stop you from leaving the form blank or writing down "Steve Irwin" etc.
  • Steve Irwin for President! Did you see that filibuster?! Croikie!
  • It's always a good thread when Python is quoted.....
  • I think the problem lies with the electorate, not the candidate Heh. Heh heh heh... HA HA HA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Heh heh heh! Whewwww! Good one!
  • The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. I don't know about you guys, but after one too many espressos, nothing says absorbent like Rand McNally.
  • Fail to see the joke, f8x.
  • this big fat jackass I have often wondered why Moore-haters always fixate on his fatness, rather than his ideas, as if fat people don't have the right to speak out. Is it somehow easier to dismiss ideas if they come from the minds of fat people? The outward appearance of a public figure just doesn't seem that relevant to me. Bush, for example, is a moronic despot -- and the happy fact that he looks like a chimp doesn't change my opinion about his inner qualities.
  • Why do you hate chimps?
  • is a neat site, but you have to take what is up there with a grain of salt. First of all, if you have tracked these things at all, you know how volatile they are. Things can go from a Bush landslide to a Kerry landslide from day to day. Today it says Bush is ahead by a nose. Yesterday it was Kerry. The day before, it was Bush. The thing of it is, almost all of the swing states are within the margin of error anyway. So who knows? And as for the "projected winner" thing fuyugare pointed to, I would ignore that entirely. It looks like what they are doing is taking all of the data points for a state and doing linear regression to try to predict what the final result will be. The idea that you can predict voter trends by doing this seems pretty ridiculous to me.
  • Dammit! Even Moore is falling for the Republican's b.s. about Kerry being a crappy candidate. It is simply not true. That is the problem with the 'Anybody But Bush' mentality - your choice is made, so you don't bother really thinking about it. And it's so much safer to play a disaffected, cornered liberal than to be enthusiastic in your support and risk having to debate someone. I am so dissapointed in Moore, and most of the lefties I know. I honestly thought that the Dems provided a wealth of good candidates to choose from, and I'm very happy with Kerry as the top choice. Kerry was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but still pushed to make a difference instead of just having everything handed to him. He volunteered for Vietnam, spoke out against the war there when he figured out what was up, ran for senate without taking money from PACs, and fought to bring the Iran-Contras scandal to light, among other things. For each of these actions, there was an easier way - a shortcut or a way to avoid sticking his neck out - that he was probably advised to take, but didn't. That indicates courage and conviction to me. More importantly, it indicates that Kerry believes he can change things, and a change from the staus quo is exactly what I am looking for in the next four years. I dont think people can look at Kerry's record and say that he is a mediocre candidate. I think people are just being lazy and not bothering to look. It is so easy to be cynical and say "Well, I'd vote for whoever the Democrats can scrape up, because I can't stand Bush". But it plays into the Republican's swing voter talking point, which seems to be convincing a lot of people, that neither candidate is worth a damn, so go with the devil you know. I wish people wouldn't buy into this idea that the candidates are the same. There is a world of difference, and no reason to think that voting for Kerry is settling.
  • Well said, yentruoc. John and John, Say it loud! I'm a liberal and I'm proud!
  • yentruoc gets a banana. Shame on moore, and anyone else who bought into the republican propaganda. I think people are getting confused between how good a president a candidate would be, and how well he can campaign (/deal with rove's shit).
  • pants: I agree that regression between different polling outfits is utter nonsense, but it would still be very interesting to see what the lines look like on a per-poll basis.
  • Regression lines don't take into account the following factors- -Every day Iraq gets worse and more soldiers die and get wounded. The worse it gets, the more swing voters notice. -The media, up to this point, has mostly focused on the poo being flung. Maybe, just maybe, the debates will encourage them to report on the issues. -Kerry, in the past, has tended to run a weak campaign early on, then has a strong and agressive finish. With things the way they are, both in Iraq and domestically, I see the current situation as a best-case scenario for Bush. People aren't calling for his head over his failure to catch bin laden and the regular deaths of troops in Iraq. Many people have forgiven him for his past lies and are buying into the new ones. And he's only barely breaking even with Kerry. All the money, all the diabolical genius (muahahaha) of Rove, all the propaganda and the cooperation from the media, and he's only tied. The dems have been running a lousy campaign (up until about a week ago) and they were doing just as well in the polls. Everyone just relax, take a deep breath, and vote. Even if you're not in a swing state, even if you're a dem in south carolina, this election could turn out to be a huge turning point in american history, and you should be proud to be a part of it.
  • I dont think people can look at Kerry's record and say that he is a mediocre candidate. Kerry's career record tells me that he *might* make a good president. Kerry's campaign record so far tells me that he's a mediocre presidential candidate. Good presidents govern well; good presidential candidates win. The two are no more related than, say, good musicians and good popstars.
  • Still feeling down in the dumps? Watch Kerry's interview with Letterman (WMV).