Jump to content

Tomorrow (11/2/04)


Recommended Posts

I'm sure all of the American posters here have heard this rant (or something like it) several times lately but it's something worth saying again. And it's been weighing heavily on my mind.

Tomorrow is the general election, possibly the most important in many years. I'm not looking to change anyone's vote, I just want everyone who can vote to vote. The results of this election will be felt for twenty to maybe even forty years and I could go on for pages of why, but the real point is just please go out and make your voice heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. Whoever wins Ohio wins the country. Bush is about 150K votes ahead of Kerry right now, with 250K provisional ballots outstanding (that's the highest number I've seen, with some estimates as low as 175K).

Kerry needs nearly all of those votes to be for him to win the state. That likelihood that the votes are better than 60/40 in his favor is slim, and the likelihood that they're 90/10 (which is about what he needs) is almost nil.

I'm still praying for a miracle in the courts. It would be just perfect if Bush won the popular vote and lost the election due to a court decision. cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please try and remember that we live in a democratic republic here, people.

Four years ago people were pissed that Bush won and failed to get the majority of the popular vote ... like Clinton (1992) and Abraham Lincoln (1860), among others.

Now people are pissed that he won both the electoral college as well as the popular vote?

You want storm the barricades?


I am totally pleased that so many of us did come out and vote. It was over 70% in my area and over 60% nationwide.

People shouldn't be getting discouraged over this. The nation got out and voted and that should tell us alot about what our neighbors think and what their priorities are.

Respect that, even if you don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one's really ready to 'storm the barricades' - myself included. (c:

Which is actually a bunch of crap. This election has been the most passionate in recent memory. As you point out we had a fantastic voter turnout - highest since 1968. And yet, with all of that passion, we didn't have a single major riot.

Now, I'm not a bid proponent of mass chaos, but let's think about that. Americans riot when their freaking sports teams lose (or, for that matter, win), but we don't do more than bitch a little when a war hawk president president is elected to preside for the next four years. This isn't being civilized, this is being apathetic about the future and the political process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think two things have worked against the Kerry campaign and for the Bush camp, Alex.

1) American's aren't all that patient. We are results oriented. Look at the Bosnian Crisis, Kosovo, and Somalia. We are willing to risk our troops for a cause we understand (ethnic cleansing and famine relief), but we want something done.

The Clinton Administration tried to get things done with air- and missle-strikes and UN and/or NATO sanctions/action. Limited results led to an unsettled electorate used to the Regan-esque quick military resolutions (Grenada and Panama).

Bush did something, and though it may have been the wrong something, we are more of a people who hate to feel we are sitting on the sidelines.

2)The United Nations. With the way certain elements of this nation despise and fear it, you wouldn't think we were the nation that founded it. Still, we either ridicule it as ineffective and quarrelsome, or fear it as a step toward a Socialist New World Order where (gasp) non-white, non-Europeans will dictate to the United States both its internal and external policies.

As a colleague here pointed out, the conservative element in this country has been organizing for nearly twenty years and has a long term agenda. The Liberal elements seem to be divisive and ineffectual. The conservatives move in step, while the liberals fall over themselves, trying to be all things to all people (from the moderate independents to the left) and fail.

For the Liberal side of American politics, this is a policy of disaster.

Why did the Democrats lose?

I feel it was as much the fact that the moderates and middle conservatives (the people who voted for Clinton in '96) don't trust the Democrats. America can't be all things to all people. No nation can. To say that you can do it all breeds distrust and disillusionment.

I think that this election disproved the belief that we are apathetic about politics. Nor is the Bush electorate "stupid", or "misguided". They are real people with real concerns.

Uncivilzed, Alex? Think about that when you drive home this evening. More than 50% of your fellow Americans acted in a manner they thought was best for this country. They did their civic duty to the best of their ability.

Calling them uncivilized would be like calling you hopelessly niave, simple-minded, and unrealistic. Both descriptions are wrong. We are both Americans. We both did our best Tuesday, and that means four more years of George W. Bush as President of the nation.

If you really don't like living in a democratic republic, you can leave. It isn't all that difficult, as we don't work all that hard in keeping people in (or out, it seems).

Living here means that you don't always get what you want, politically. I know you already know this, but before you get too angry, you should realize that in some countries they do arrest you for saying what you have said. Joking or not.

This land is as free as we make it. If it isn't free enough for your liking, keep working at it. That is the nature of the political process and why we have elections every 2 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, what I said up there wasn't about Bush winning. (Well, the lynching comment was, but I think you got that.) I don't like Bush or his policies and I'm clearly not making any kind of secret about it. I wasn't saying 'people should riot in the streets because Bush won.' I'm saying that people ought to give little more of a damn about the whole matter, one way or another.

I don't believe I said a single thing about Bush supporters being foolish or misguided, and I'm not angry about Bush winning. That's the way the cookie crumbled, and I can live with it because I do support a measured, democratic government. This isn't something that I'm getting worked up about because 'my side' lost, and these aren't partisan arguments.

I didn't exactly call Americans uncivilized. I'll grant that I strongly implied that rioting after sporting events isn't civilized, but I'll leave that distinction up to you. (c; Point was, there apparently exists a cross-section of the population that apparently can get angry enough over a football game to start overturning cars, but nothing of the kind when the future of their nation is at stake. Interesting value system there, no?

And if you think civil unrest isn't a good barometer of interest in the political process ... well, ok. I fully admit that there are a couple of different ways of looking at that.

I agree that Americans were less apathetic about this election than they have been for quite some time. That's pretty obvious, given the statistics. However, all of this means that, for the first time in 36 years 60% of the population has cared enough about the election to get off their asses vote. If that inspires you ... why?

What percentage of the population do you think remembers all of the public questions posted on their ballots (in the states that had such questions)?

How many people do you think really sat down and put even ten minutes of research into which candidate for, say, their state's House of Representatives they'd vote for? Or, for that matter, what percent do you think bothered to really think about which national level candidate for senator they'd vote for?

Or, how many people do you think just hit every lever, button, or checkbox on their party line and called it a day?

And what about the four out of every ten people who didn't vote at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all riled up about 60%+ because it beats what we have been doing as a Republic.

As for the educated voter ... well, that's a tough thing to do (ensuring that the voter knows what's up).

Since I split my vote and never have gone straight party line, I can understand the frustration with those who simply vote straight ticket. Of course, that is how my grandparents voted democratic for their entire lives, but that was then.

About the 4 out of ten who missed it ... who knows? It isn't like they can claim they didn't know. laugh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Juri, don't read that much into the "values" and "beliefs" that the polls talk about. After all, I voted Bush and my values and beliefs go much more down the road of "loyalty" and "commitment", not "God First".

If they come after you, they will have to go through me and other freedom-loving Americans who understand that No one is free, if anyone is oppressed. I know the world isn't perfect. We need to keep working at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what group is that, Juri?

Fuck. Fuck fuck fuck.

Well, we survived four years. We'll survive four more. We can't get rid of him, but we can make him as impotent as possible. And next time we can do it right.

A lot of people I know who are not particularly religious voted for that fucking idiot mongoloid cowboy. I don't understand why. I see their points. I understand where they could be coming from. But I don't understand why they'd do it anyway. I wonder what demographic these people live in that their lives have not been dramatically negatively affected by the administration.

Fuck. I just want Clinton back.

And I hate Kerry for being a fucking pussy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The term "Moral Values" has plurality in the just passed election.

1: The Republicans were indeed going along typical "Conservative Christian" lines. Nothing to explain there.

2: The Democrats going by moral values were more of a pacifist nature, and looking to things like "Honesty", getting out of Iraq, Taking burdens off of the middle class, and more Liberal floor planks.

The term "Moral Values" can be looked at and defined in several ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alchemist: It would be just perfect if Bush won the popular vote and lost the election due to a court decision. cool
Bush was already going to win in 2000 no matter what happened. By the time the court ruled Gore didn't have any path to victory.

The Florida legislator (controlled by the GOP) was already in the process of certifying the Republican delegation. After that point, even if Gore had managed to "find" enough votes it wouldn't have mattered. At best he might have be able to send another delegation, and Florida's electoral votes would have been contested and neither candidate would have had enough to win.

And at that point it would have ended up in Congress, which was also controlled by the GOP. Any guesses as to which candidate they would have selected?

Alex Craft: Point was, there apparently exists a cross-section of the population that apparently can get angry enough over a football game to start overturning cars, but nothing of the kind when the future of their nation is at stake.
They don't serve beer at voting booths.

Juri 'Salamander' McClendon: Most people, at least in the polls I've seen, voted for Bush because he represented their "values" and their "beliefs" more than Kerry. Essentially, they voted their religion first.
Don't read too much into this. Pretty much the same group of people who voted for Bush last time voted for him this time, he just got a little bit more of a percentage of everyone else. My understanding is that this time there was a poorly worded question about "values" that the press threw in there in the exit polls. Ask a stupid misleading question, get a stupid answer.

If you want something to worry about, worry that the Democratic party might be dissolving. Bush was a WEAK candidate, and the Dems STILL didn't win. Neither the war nor the economy are going especially well. If either were great Bush would have gotten 60+ percent of the vote.

Bush didn't win because he deserved reelection. Kerry lost because people decided he didn't deserve to be President. Not being Bush wasn't enough.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in

Sign In Now

  • Create New...