i don't know if its that easy. who's going to risk their life showing up to a voting station? what if a majority elected official does come to power, and large sections of the population just refuse to listen to him? It doesn't much look like they're taking commands from anyone right now, why start if its someone you don't like? Or believe is a U.S. puppet (even if he isn't)? Building Iraqi troops can be tricky, and lead to the kind of implosion and violence that even happened in particular spaces in the U.S. pre-1975.

I don't know. I think it really does require an investigation of new approaches. Fahulla sounds like Narmandy, and its not the same type of war-fare at all.

-Dolce

Well, if you specifically look to overcomplicate problems, then nothing ever is going to get done.

Just take a look at Afghanistan: that country was in far worse shape than Iraq, yet they had a successful election.

Yep Texas has early voting, and it was packed, GWB will win TX but I did cast my descenting vote today for Kerry . Took about 45 minutes to actually get to a booth.

Read an article today in the Economist about how close the presidential race is in some of the states around the Great Lakes. Pretty interesting read:





The battle for the Great Lakes

Oct 22nd 2004
From The Economist print edition

As the race between George Bush and John Kerry turns increasingly nasty, it is slowly closing in on one particular region of the country: a cluster of northern states touching the five Great Lakes...

MORE HERE AT THE LINK...

John, yes. Actually, I was on a site yesterday prez somethingorother, that updates it daily, and those numbers show a biger lead than the ones I saw. I think its even closer. Most states were tied or down to 1% difference. I already said I don't think it comes down to Florida this year. They got hit with 4 hurricanes and know full well who their governor is. I still don't think the Southwest has a high enough population the command the electorate college, and with the exception of the split New Mexico, its all going to Bush anyways.

It really comes down to the Lakes region this time around.

-Dolce

From the Onion:

Battleground States and what they are looking for:

Minnesota = Wrestling Ability
N.Mexico = Giving Texas back to Old Mexico
N.Hampshire = Finding Candidate who's not under sticky thumb of Big Syrup
Washington = More/less logging, banning/protection abortion, blowing up Seattle/letting Seattle secede
Ohio = Returning music scene to glory days of Pere Ubu, Devo, and The Waitresses; reclassification as East-Coast state, instead of midwestern or southern
Oregon = will vote for the candidate who visits Oregon the most times
Colorado = Stopping Spanish from being spoken in schools and inadverntently changing name of state
Michigan = $5,000-per-lake tax credit
West Virginia = Wanna know, is people descended from monkeys, or ain't they?
Pennsylvania = Stiff tariffs on foreign cheesesteaks

-Dolce

I laugh at this silly notion!

We don't need no stinking tariffs; we beat all foreign cheesesteaks on size, calories, cholesterol, rudeness to customers, and all the other important characteristics!

The Guardian, that bastion of uneducated morons who like the sound of their voices, is weighing on the American election yet again:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguide/colu ... 48,00.html



If you think I'm being unreasonable in using strong language against Guardian you might be right; but geez, if they get away with spewing such filthiness, what does that say about their readership?

Interesting opinion about the polarization of our political life...

The More Things Change...
By DAVID BROOKS

Published: October 23, 2004

Why is this country still tied?

Over the past four years, we've experienced a major terrorist attack, a recession, a dot-com shakeout, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, corporate scandals and an active and tumultuous presidency. We've had an influx of new citizens. Millions have died of old age, and tens of millions have moved to new towns and new states.

Yet the political landscape looks almost exactly the same. We're still divided right down the middle. We're still looking at razor-thin margins in states like Florida. If you compare the demographic breakdowns of the Bush-Kerry race to those of the Bush-Gore race in 2000, you find they are quite similar. Why does everything in America change except politics?

That is the central mystery of this election.

The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years.

But what explains this stable divide?

Let me first tell you what it is not. Foreign, domestic and social policy debates do not explain the current tie. The election of 2000 was fought on a different set of issues. Then, we were arguing about things like lockboxes, compassionate conservatism and how to use the surplus. Now, we're arguing about war, terrorism and the deficit. The issues have changed, but the political landscape has not.

Moreover, as the Stanford political scientist Morris Fiorina has shown, Americans are not that polarized on issues. When you ask people about policies - even abortion - you see a big group of moderates. If issue differences were shaping this campaign, you'd see these centrists sloshing back and forth and breaking the tie.

CLICK HERE FOR THE REST...

Perhaps the answer is that something like 90% of media outlets are owned by only 5 corporations. There is a centralized and stable control over access to information. Although hopefully with the internet people are using workarounds to get past that but it still constricts everything.

I don't like Brooks' analysis. It starts off with fair premises: "The only possible conclusion is that there is some deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years. Remember, it is very unusual to have two close presidential elections in a row. This hasn't occurred for about 120 years." But then he goes into saying how the Democrats and Republicans are different and that's hwat explains the divide.

Well, unless he's suggesting that Deocrats and Republicans have just started to be different in the past 4 years, that doesn't explain why in the past 120 years there haven't been two such close elections back to back.

My own view is that for the past two elections there hasn't been a clear third candidate. 1992 and 1996 saw Ross Perot. Back in the 60's there were all the segregationists that were getting millions of votes. Nowadays, the Dems are worried about Nader, who won't even receive 1% of the vote. And I would like to be able to say that Republicans are worried about badnarik, but there's no reason for them to be, unfortunately.

I think there is enough media to go around for everyone.

30 years ago all you had was three networks and a local newspaper. Now you have the three networks, 3 big all news cable channels, access to any newspaper in the U.S. and the majority of big newspapers aroudn the world, and the Internet-only media.

I read it more as a case of the last 4-6 years issues (Clinton morality bashing, economy (or dot.com) collapse, and the war on terror), achieved antagonizing the middle voting ground... Plus, together with the recent continuous beating of war drums and drive to dumb down political marketing, voters have become increasingly partisan, or as he says tribal... So, we are (Reps. vs. Dems.) quite divided, esp. in times like this...

His second point is the issue of a leader and our trusts in him, that again becomes more important in times of societal/cultural stress... I wouldn't claim though that those are the only reasons of why we are in a presidential deadlock/tie :wink:

The British left goes off its rocker in the Guardian:

"On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858, ... 23,00.html

Taking another stab at an answer on the division question and the brooks article...it might have a little to do with the different levels of being unionized in different parts of the country.

Also remember that in 2000 and 2004, one of the candidates is the same. Is it that surprising that he would poll around the same amount as before?

I posted this 4 posts above yours

That makes sense.

The only other recent election that was as close was in 1960; and by 1964 both of the candidates were different.

Experts Weigh Bush, Kerry Economic Plans
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: October 24, 2004

Filed at 2:05 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite the stark differences in economic plans from President Bush and John Kerry, growth and job creation should turn out pretty much the same no matter who takes the White House.

Private economists also say the federal budget deficit, mentioned infrequently during the campaign, will bedevil the winner of the Nov. 2 election.

Experts who have analyzed the spending and tax proposals of both candidates say the plans, if enacted by Congress, would have a similar effect on growth, but the gains would come in different ways.

"If both candidates were to follow through on everything they have promised, then the economy would be roughly the same four years from now under either plan,'' said Mark Zandi, head of Economy.com, a private forecasting company.

Global Insight, an economic consulting firm that has fed the details of the two economic plans into a computer forecasting model, reached the same conclusion.

"The economic impacts of the Bush and Kerry budget plans are so close as to be almost indistinguishable,'' said Nariman Behravesh, the firm's chief economist.

THE REST AT LINK...

Todays Rasmussen Report

Election 2004

Presidential Ballot
Bush 47.6%
Kerry 47.2%
Other 1.5%
Not Sure 3.6%

Are these the same wolves as in The Day After Tomorrow?

Hehe.

They told us we were shooting a Greenpeace commercial!

When the camera crew showed up, we wondered
why they were all driving Hummers...

We are not Terrorists!

Classic Stuff.

-Dolce

So what is the deal with Gore and Kerry coming together to try and appeal to minority votes. Besides the fact that I have two issues with that (one tectical and one conceptual) I hadn't really heard that much about Gore since the DNC.

First of all, even Bob Dole said to be weary of answering the phone in case it was a congratulatory Gore on the other end. Look what happened to Dean in the primaries.

Second of all, if the Democrats appeal is slipping amongst minorities, there very well might be a reason, like, oh they sound an awful lot like their opponents on occasion. I'm shocked that minorities, especially Africans and African Americans, would switch parties though, I'm more convinced in contientious non-voting or just voter apathy.



Ahhhh. The Gay marriage thing (tm). I'm actually quite shocked since the most eloquent and vocal opposition I heard about the Constitutional Ammendment came in the sign of a warning from African Americans about putting anything in the Constitution that is specifically about removing people's rights. I thought there was a big push to let states decide, etc. Apparently memory is still weak around denial of individual rights.

-Dolce

Sorry dolce, but for the majority of black people memory is still weak on which party formed a major opposition to the Civil Rights Act as well.

Barry Goldwater's opposition nonwithstanding (and on solid grounds too), the Republicans in Congress were the ones pushing for the bill.

First of all Krem, I have no problem with people embracing a party because they think it supports them, my issue is with mobilization around the fact that the party is against someone else.

Secondly, last I checked the Lott/Thurmond fiasco wasn't exactly supportive, and nor were they democrats. and that wasn't even 40 years ago, it was three.

-Dolce