tell me about american politics and developments in the presidential race

ABCNEWS Poll Finds Country Evenly Split Between Dems, GOP

Unleaned Party ID

Democrats Republicans Independents
1983 average 39% 23 34
1993 average 35 26 35
2003 average 31 31 31
1981-2003 34 28 32

Teeny's summary is very good, but leaves out:
1) the electorate, broad brush, likes Bush personally while at the same time disliking his policies and giving him negatives on nearly every issue
2) Dean is the frontrunner in every respect (though barely so, and if he slips, the race is wide open), and Clark's post-announcement boom fell off quite a bit (though he's still a strong contender).
3) very few people have started paying attention
4) the recent quarter's enormous growth numbers are considered very good news for Bush, provided they are sustained, and on the (largely unchallenged) assumption that a good quarter = subsequent satisfaction with the economy (and jobs)

Among the candidates, Gep has grown stronger in the last two months. GOP claims he's the toughest to beat, which is likely reverse psychology though he has his good points. Gep or Dean is likely to win Iowa. Dean is likely to win NH. SC is open but seems to be trending Clark. I'll try to do more on "my" thread later.

Because he looks creepy and no one will actually ever vote for him.

So, there is disgruntlement abroad in the land and the Bush people are worried. It is clear that Phase One of neutralizing this danger is simple enough. They made a few jabs at the press about 'negative coverage' - always an effective way to inspire the lapdog press to volunatarily stop reporting inconvenient facts. All that remains is to start a constant drumbeat in the media about the Grave Terrorist Threat to The American Way of Life and the Horrific Danger of Backing Away in Iraq.

Sadly, this should work just dandy for them. It is the Alfred Hitchcock Effect transposed to politics. Unknown, imagined terrors are more terrifying than ones you can see and measure. The engulfing wave of violence that would soon wash over this great land, were it not for the war in Iraq, will become a settled fact in the average American mind, despite the fact that it doesn't exist anywhere but in the mouths of politicians. This will convince them to reevaluate the huge cost of the war and reconcile themselves to it.

The National Guard callup represents a far worse PR problem than the $87 billion. When those soldiers return, they will not be fooled by the Bush propaganda and they will be furious. The obvious solution: keep them bottled up in Iraq under military censorship for as long as humanly possible and hope this nasty variety of shit hits the fan after the election is over.

The Bush administration still has the critical support of the wealthy and powerful. Most of the money spent on the war is going into their pockets anyway and the sacrifices made by our soldiers are utterly trivial to most of them. They'll back Bush to the hilt.

As for the Democratic challengers, the only interesting development is the grassroots money machine for Howard Dean, via the internet, that may put him into the nomination as an anti-war candidate. That is good. We need an anti-war candidate in this election. Clearly, though, the Bush campaign will have SO FREAKING MUCH MONEY to spend that they are confident of controlling the terms of the debate and putting their opponent on the ropes counter-punching the whole time.

It will be an interesting, but typically nauseasting, campaign season in 2004. Bush has a good chance to win, depending on how utterly bleak the war and economy news are in 11 months.

They sure are not treating the reserves or guard members that got wounded/injured and returned home from Iraq/Afghanistan very well.

Take a search on for some of the goings on with dealing around Ft. Stewart in Georgia. It is total B.S., especially considering so many of these axxholes like to wrap themselves in the flag and say 'support the troops'.

It is a disgrace, but not suprising considering how the Govt. has treated many Vietnam and Gulf War vets.

If he had substituted "Dale Earnhardt #3 stickers" instead, it would be much better for him.

what is the national guard callup?

"White folks in the South who drive pick ups with Confederate flag decals on the back ought to be voting with us and not them because their kids don't have health insurance and their kids need better schools too."

it's unclear if the change in language was intentional or not; i'm willing to believe either way.

if you believe the statement is objectionable (i'm not saying it isn't), explain why. if you believe it's a "bad move" without stating an opinion as to whether it's objectionable (though maybe you consider your objection self-evident), explain why.

i think that Dean is attempting to straddle, perhaps even "heal" for lack of a better word, a cultural divide, by adopting symbols of both of what are conventionally considered its extremes (civil unions & graffiti tags v. hunting & confederate flags), and i find that very interesting. am i momus now?

(oh, and fwiw amateurist, dean hasn't had a drink in 22 years.)

It is a division of part-time military forces that are stationed regionally around the country, generally by state. They usually meet once a month and a few weeks a year for training.

In cases of need, they are called to active duty. Many guard and reserve troops have been on active duty for greatly extended periods with the conflict in Afghanistan/Iraq or to back fill for soldiers sent to other theatres.

They don't get called to active duty just for war, they will call them for duty for other things like natural disasters to help out where needed.

There are a bunch of injured guard/reserves troops that have returned from Iraq/Afghanistan that are getting the run around from the govt. in getting medical treatment and pay, especially in comparison to regular full time military. Beyond that, there are some troops that have been kept on extended active duty for up to a couple of years and it has cost them jobs and problems back home. (They are not supposed to be held in active duty beyond a year, but with shortages it has happened to some.)

i didn't know he was a teetotaler.

i like jesse jr.

i'll have to think some more about the confederate comment.

(Haha stereotyping is FUN!)

From Vietnam to Iraq: How Americans Have Rated the President

by Lydia Saad, Senior Gallup Poll Editor

Public approval of the way President Bush is handling the situation
in Iraq has diminished considerably since his peak rating of 76% in
mid-April. Following months of decline, only 47% of Americans in
early October* approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, and, for the
first time, more of them disapproved than approved.

The change is not surprising given the ongoing attacks on coalition
forces in Iraq that, at the time of the survey, had claimed the lives
of almost 180 U.S. soldiers in the "postwar" period. Bush declared
major combat over on May 1. That death toll has since mounted to 240.
Were it not for the postwar phase, public opinion about Bush's
handling of the Iraq situation would compare favorably with how
previous presidents have been rated for their handling of other U.S.
military ventures.

When looking just at the six weeks U.S. forces were engaged in major
combat in Iraq -- from March 20 to May 1 -- Bush's approval rating
for his handling of Iraq averaged 73%. That comes fairly close to the
average approval rating of 84% that Bush's father earned for his
handling of the 1991 Persian Gulf War from Jan. 17 to Feb. 27, 1991.

Immediately after the Gulf War, approval of the senior Bush's
handling of the situation in the Persian Gulf region shot up to 92%.
Six months later, 64% of Americans still said they approved. By
contrast, five months after the 2003 Iraq war, only 47% of Americans
approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. The difference is that the elder
Bush had limited postwar military operations in Iraq. After the war,
he was mainly being judged on the success of the original military
campaign. For the current president, his performance on Iraq is
continually being re-evaluated because of the increasingly
challenging situation there.

On this basis, the 2003 war with Iraq may look less like the 1991
Gulf War and more like the war recent presidents have avoided
repeating: Vietnam.

For an economy in robust turnaround, it sure as hell doesn't feel like it. (The only thing that makes me partially think that is how my life insurance policy is doing these days.)

more later, but for now: because he lost his frontrunner presumption very early, as Dean rose, and he's nowhere in any poll of candidate preference except for NH, where he's a clear or even distant second, and Dean will win there unless something changes. there have been two national polls that give him slightly better numbers than anyone else up against Bush, but given the attention people have paid to this and the lack of name recognition, I think this means only that people like the way his name sounds. (not that that should be ignored)

The best hope for change, all else beng equal, would be an electorate that is feeling radical and isolated themselves. Real bad news would do it. But who in their right mind wants an economic or military catastrophe?

Considering the state of the economy before the recent upswing (due, primarily, I'd guess, to cars being bought with low or no interest) and the morass of Iraq, Bush's numbers are down drastically from his peak....still, he HAS the country's patriotic (jingoistic) nature on his side. After 9/11, that side was multiplied exponentially. Before that fatal day, the US could be flag wavers extraordinaire but never seemed intent on rubbing others noses in our international superpowerdom. But, whenever this country shows vulnerability, the right invariably makes a case for the weakness of diplomacy and lots of people, even would be liberals, began feeling their oats again and wondering why we don't kick some international ass. It may be hard to quantify, but that ass kicking mentality will probably have as much to do with Bush's chance to repeat as his ability to convince the American people that there really IS an economic upturn that will result in more new jobs (not at McDonalds) and that someone knows what in the hell we're doing in Iraq.

Unfortunately, if things DON'T look that good for Dubbya after the Dems pick from the litter, they may NEED a new terrorist threat to seal the victory.

As for those who live elsewhere, our electoral system IS a key to the whole thing. From the beginning, Presidental races are NOT viewed in terms of the populace as a whole but as "winning states". Their strategy boards are always viewed thusly. That's why Dubbya, e.g., could go to one state and cozy up to the racist Bob Jones U. and go to another and talk compasionate conservatism. Or why Dr. Dean can embrace ex-Dixiecrats.

Right now I'd bet Bush in a horserace but we need a challenger first. Does anyone think the doctor and the general could co-exist on the same ticket?

"Keep spreading the Word and Truth to the People, Doc."

"God bless you, Mr. President."

Dr.WTF? James Dobson
Keep lookin up...deez nutz!!!

"Whosoever ushers in this neo-paganistic secular humaniod age of Gog and Magog, will perish by the everlasting wrath of the Divine instruments of Heavenly Fury."

"Lo, the End is near, Ms. Rice."

"And I love it! I love it! I love it!"

I didn't see debate, just got play by play. I think I've exhausted everything I could possibly say on the Dean issue du jour. Somebody did observe on the Dean blog that Edwards echoed a very old familiar attitude when he started yelling at Dean & saying, "we don't need you coming down here telling the South what to do."

There are some funny people in Dean land sometimes:

>>My daddy who worked at the mill had a confederate flag on his pickup truck.

Posted by John Edwards at November 5, 2003 12:34 AM>>

http://www.msnbc.com/news/989226.asp?0sl=-13

also (hopefully this isn't totally inappropriate), i've gotten involved with some democratic groups over here in london. if any of you are americans living over here, drop me a line. if you sign up with democrats abroad, england gets more seats in the international caucus, and we get to send more people to the DNC in Boston. it's pretty cool.

i'm also working with the Dean campaign over here. i don't think he's perfect, but i like him best out of everyone, and i need to feel like i'm doing something to help the dems. we have social events (including thanksgiving coming up), and they're open to everyone-- american and not, dean supporter or not. just trying to get people talking about politics and thinking of ways to get rid of bush, as well as having a few drinks and a good time.

anyway, if you're interested, email me at this address or at gendean@deanforamerica.org.uk

Britney's back home in Kentwood recovering from a bout with flu.

Also, steel tariffs backfiring, is this going to hurt Bush, or do factory workers not vote for Bush anyway?

What wd the Dems do re: tariffs. Raise or lower -- anyone, anyone?

Oh and

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2003/11/05/1105alienbell.jpg

meanwhile, why you should never watch anything associated with 'rock the vote' (ie. the youth of america are fucking morons)(from slate)

Dumbest question from the audience: "Like many youths, I haven't fully gotten behind any one candidate. What are you going to do to impress me?" (Correct answer: I'll answer you when you've paid enough attention to this election to impress me with a more substantive question.)

Second dumbest question: "If you could pick one of your fellow candidates to party with, which you would choose? … If you get sick, who's going to hold your hair back?"

Third dumbest question: "You're the manager of the Boston Red Sox. … Do you make an executive decision and take [your pitcher] out?"

Fourth dumbest question: "It's not quite boxers or briefs, but--Macs or PCs?"

Most groan-worthy PC question: "Senator Kerry, why did you have to kill those two pheasants in Iowa last week? Do you find it necessary to kill animals for photo-ops?"

Voting for candidates vs parties -- okay, but in practice you either have tariffs or don't on a federal level, so there must be some decision at some point?

dean shouldn't apologize, though it's turned into a can't-win situation for him. he's explained what he meant, pointed out how they applauded the statement when he's said it over the previous months, but apparently anything short of the new party line 'we don't need "those people's" votes' is going to be enough to calm the dogs. it might help him actually get that vote, but the matter has probably meant he can count on a decreased black vote, with high black voter turnout being just as crucial to the dems holding their own in the south as appealing to working class whites. I'm not sure how many southern states are really in play - arkansas? west virginia? (no way they go republican two times in a row right?) florida? (does it all come down to florida again?)(is jeb more or less popular there now than he was three years ago? what does this mean in regards to his broheems?)

Sure, but the party machines have a way of influencing individual politicians!! A bit!!

not when they have the green party to worry about

Is that right? Need they worry about the Greens -- I thought they polled less than the US Communist party...

what, is that an actual bbc headline? < /andrewsullivan>

Steel Tariffs Appear to Have Backfired on Bush
Move to Aid Mills and Gain Votes in 2 States Is Called Political and Economic Mistake

Mike Allen and Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writers
September 19, 2003; Page A1

In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection.

Eighteen months later, key administration officials have concluded that Bush's order has turned into a debacle. Some economists say the tariffs may have cost more jobs than they saved...

It is funny when Edwards says the President is a phony while he himself is in touch with the American people, then Russert asks how Americans will respond to calling the President a phony, and Edwards says, "I don't know."

I bet Wes Clark makes an utter fool of himself next week.

But Kucinich has really been treated shabbily by the press, mainly because he has no money and little national recognition except as the boy mayor of Cleveland, Ohio who caused the city to go bankrupt (because the banks and the local electric company wanted him to sell off the muny (city) light system and he wouldn't).

As an example of the unfairness, Dean and the media will suggest that only one candidate came out against the war in Iraq. Kucinich did early on. He's also for bringing the troops home, cancelling NAFTA, a single payer full coverage health plan, etc. But, instead, the media only wants to harp on his switch to supporting a woman's right to choose. Meanwhile, candidates have been switching issues like crazy (Dean's recent decision not to take matching funds) and seems to get away with it without a hitch.

If there truly IS a populist in the fray, Kucinich is him. He did get a bit of buzz with his Prayer for America after 9/11. It's on his website. He hasn't a chance in hell to even last thru the Southern primaries let alone win. But I like that he's there, giving a voice that's not so damn predictable.

SEIU and AFSCME, the two huge service unions in the AFL-CIO are endorsing Dean, further solidifying his frontrunner status and threatening Gephardt (though he still has the support of lots of manufacturing unions).

my favorite game right now is coming up with VP candidates. a good candidate should add one or more of the following:
- appeal to a demographic that the top of the ticket is weak with
- strength on an issue the top of the ticket is weak on
- ability to pull in a swing state

here are my possibilities (pretty much assuming Dean will win the nomination):

Clark - strong on defense, obviously, and the second most compelling of the candidates (other than Sharpton). Could pull in Arkansas, and has some appeal to elderly voters and young investor class types. Any love lost between him and Dean seems to have been patched up to a sufficient extent.

Bill Richardson - foreign policy experience, latino appeal, would help solidify NM and pull AZ

Bob Graham - could help with FL, older people, and security/foreign policy, but I think he's too over the hill. By hanging around for one term though he would help pave the way for HRC as 2008 veep.

Mary Landrieu - I got this idea from Markos at Daily Kos. I think she and Dean would look great together. She's the ultimate security Mom (although security Moms may not be looking for one of their own). Could help pull Louisiana. And appeal to cultural conservatives.

Gephardt - I don't see any good reason to pick him over Clark, other than Clark's opacity, but may appeal more strongly to older people and midwesterners and help unite the service and manufacturing sides of Labor.

Max Cleland - they can't do to him on a national level what they did in GA, and he maybe could help pull in Southern votes and blunt anti-war attacks, but it would still be the liberal and the cripple

Edwards - lots of people talk him up as a mate for Dean, but I don't see what he brings to the table.

Clooney - a joke, but only sort of