Pulse of the Apathetic Swing Voter, Part II

(Link to Part 1)

It's time again to take the pulse of the apathetic swing voter.

It appears that these voters have finally soured on the War in Iraq. They supported it initially (remember the pre-war polls showing 60% of America supporting the war?), but now they've had enough. Why can they no longer stomach our adventures in Iraq?

It's their simplicity, stupid.

See, here's how Bush sold the Iraq war to these apathetic voters:
1. Saddam is a bad guy. Some other brown people are bad too. In fact, they blew up the WTC and the Pentagon in 2001. Remember that? Are you still hungry for vengeance? Let's go overthrow a bad guy.
2. Saddam is going to blow up America with nuclear weapons any day now.
3. The war will be cheap, easy, and quick. We'll be down to 75,000 troops by September of 2003 (they ACTUALLY SAID THAT!). This isn't Vietnam. It'll be easy. So come on, let's go kill some brown people, shall we?

These are some strong selling points, I must admit. If I had very little information, felt latent racism towards Muslims, and was paranoid of another terrorist attack, this argument would be pretty effective. And it was.

But what happens when those points fall through?
1. The evidence is mixed regarding Saddam and Al Qaida, but he hardly worked with them. At best, he sent one of his intelligence officers to meet with them many years ago. At worst, he hated them with a passion. However, there are mountains of evidence that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. (Wait - these people don't pay attention to evidence or intelligence reports. They're uninterested in complexity!) Right. But remember that the media has been screaming, "9-11 and Saddam = no connection" for over a month now. And some of these news reports may have directly preceded some sort of celebrity gossip report. Eventually these people probably got the message.
2. This argument was pushed using speculation and innuendo, but it's clear that the Bush Administration wanted people to fear a nuclear attack on American soil. Now that it's clear that Saddam had (1) no nuclear weapons or programs and (2) no ambition to pursue such programs, this one sort of falls through...(once again, the media has been screaming, "NO WMD!" for months now. The message got through).
and the most important part:
3. We're stuck in Iraq for a long time. It wasn't easy. It's not going to get any easier. "Our boys" are over there getting killed, and the apathetic swing voter can't figure out why. After all, "Saddam's already been captured, so why should we stay?" thinks this highly intelligent individual.

Who says such things? How about former war supporter Terry of Martinsburg:

"They shouldn't have gone over there," he says. "They are killing a whole lot of innocent people. It isn't worth it. They already caught the guy. They should have gotten the troops out then."

And then there's Christine:

Christine, who works for a government agency, is sitting in her front yard, overseeing a garage sale. Like others on her block, she has a pride in the United States flag prominently displayed. But her support for the troops in Iraq doesn't extend to the war itself. "I don't think it's been worth it," she says. "I don't know why we blow someplace up and then spend so much to rebuild it when we have our own issues over here. I did support it when we went over. But now I don't think we had any reason to go over there." She says she hasn't decided who to vote for but is leaning toward John Kerry

GOP's moderate convention vs DNC's liberal convention

With all of the outrage over the GOP's false front of moderates with prime time speaking slots, the media has missed one interesting fact:

The Democratic speakers are incredibly liberal/polarizing figures!

From Nancy Pelosi to Al Gore (Ok, so he's a born again liberal) to Hillary Clinton to Jimmy Carter to Barrack Obama, this year's crop of speakers represent the liberal wing of the party.

This, of course, could mean one of two things:

1. John Kerry actually IS a Massachusetts liberal (no, couldn't be!) who is far out of the American mainstream.

2. This election is about the base. The Democrats are throwing red meat to them because it will help them (1) raise more money and (2) get out the vote.

Let's start with #2, since I find it absurd.
The Democratic base is infinitely engaged, enraged, and excited about this election. They need zero encouragement. In theory, this would give John Kerry an opportunity to move to the center and perhaps build a lasting Democratic Majority coalition.
My second problem with this theory is that the "Democratic base" isn't as liberal as the speakers featured in Boston. The "base" is made up of a coalition of moderates and liberals, unlike the Republican base, which is much more ideologically pure. For example, I consider myself part of the base, but I must admit that I find some of Ted Kennedy's policy proposals of quite appalling.

#1 seems more plausible. Maybe John Kerry is a liberal from Massachusetts. In fact, maybe he's as liberal as Michael Dukakis...

Of course he is. But his campaign has implicitly promised to govern from the center-left, ala Clinton. Hence, the attempt to recruit McCain, the hawkish positioning on Iran.

Maybe it's all a sham. Maybe John Kerry means to usher in a new era of Kennedy style liberalism. Certainly, he couldn't accomplish this task without control of congress (control that he'd quickly lose after 2 years of this experiment). But maybe that's what he aims for. It's worth thinking about, because the Kerry campaign certainly hasn't given us any ideas about where it plans to lead.

Don't get me wrong: the idea of a true liberal in the White House doesn't scare me a bit. My social liberalism is way out of the mainstream, so Kerry's social liberalism doesn't scare me. My economic moderation doesn't jibe with Kerry's liberal approach, but he's promised to govern like a "fiscal hawk" - that much we know for sure.

My main fear isn't the POLICIES of a Kerry administration - it's the idea that the Democratic party could squander an opportunity to open up it's doors to disenchanted moderates from the GOP and form a lasting governing coalition. Say what you will about Clinton's "third way". Call it the Dems selling out to corporations, etc...but at least it kept the Republican right-wing at bay.

This is a crucial point in our country's history. Time will melt these loony conservatives' numbers away (eventually they have to realize that the world isn't 4000 years old), but we have an opportunity to crush their movement right here and now. Unfortunately, I'm worried that Kerry won't seize the opportunity.

Add Missouri

After seeing a month of polling that shows Missouri locked in a dead heat, I'm sufficiently convinced: Missouri is a battleground state.

Initially, I didn't think Kerry had even the slightest shot, but somehow he does.

Battleground states:
Missouri
Nevada
Florida
Ohio

The rest, as I've said before, shouldn't surprise anyone. If Kerry wins even one of these states, then he wins the election (or ties if he wins Nevada).

Berger scandal

This is quite possibly the most pointless scandal ever concocted.

Josh Marshall thinks the Republicans are reacting like a cornered animal.The very fact that they're feigning outrage and working themselves into a fury about a ridiculous event is telling. They know Bush is in trouble.

Remember my post about the Christian Conservative world view? These people think God appointed Bush as President. They think a Democrat's want to crush Christianity and create an ultra-secular society in America. A Bush loss in 2004 would be almost apocalyptic to these people. In other words: they're desperate. Be prepared for some outrageous tactics over the next 3 months.

In 2000, no one (on the left OR right) really thought much was at stake. We'd been at peace for a decade and were enjoying the prosperity of the tech boom.

This election will be different. Both sides know what's at stake.

The media searches for a stupid scandal, part II: Sandy Berger works for Al Qaeda!

Yes, that's right. He stole sensitive documents in order to SELL THEM TO OUR ENEMY FOR A HEFTY SUM!
 
There's no way he accidentally put them in his coat pocket. Clearly he's working for Al Qaeda. Furthermore, John Kerry also works for Al Qaeda. He was recruited by Clinton originally, anonymous made up sources tell me.
 
The only remaining question I have on this slow news day: who killed Chandra Levy, and what are we going to do about all of those shark attacks?

Where have you gone, Gary Conditt?

Time for more in-depth analysis of the Story of the Century, Girliemengate. Some questions I'd like to have answered:
 
Did Arnold call California Democrats "girlie men" because of his Austrian ancestry?

What led Arnold to do such a STUPID thing? I mean, his political career is now over. When does the recall start?

Didn't Arnold say something like this during the 1992 Presidential campaign? If so, is this part of a larger pattern of homophobic/heterophobic/sexist/racist/anti-human behavior by Arnold?

Are California Democrats offended by Arnold's comments? I'd feel better if they were invited onto TV to whine and further emasculate themselves.

Is this comment the latest result of the dead spirit of Bobby Kennedy channeling himself through Arnold?
 
This is a fascinating issue. I'm going to devote dozens of posts to it because it's just so interesting and important. I hope the cable new stations continue to cover it 24/7. I thirst for more expert analysis on this subject.

Arnold called some legislators "Girlie Men"

Will everyone please SHUT UP about this??? Every time that story appears on the news I get very sleepy.
 
Please. Go back to paying attention to the Laci Peterson trial. Nothing to see here.

$250,000 malpractice suit limit?

Best argument I've seen yet against such a thing.

The math works out for Kerry

Repeat after me:
 
Ohio, Florida, and Nevada are the ONLY tossup states right now.
 
Forget Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, and Arizona (easy Bush wins). Forget New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, and Oregon (easy Kerry wins). These three states are the tightest right now, and they will decide the election. Possible scenarios:
 
Kerry wins none of these.
Result: Bush wins 274-264.
 
Kerry wins only Nevada.
Result: tie.
 
Kerry wins Florida or Ohio
Result: Kerry wins.
 
Bush can keep his national poll numbers. The only numbers that matter are in Florida, Ohio, and Nevada. Keep a close eye on them.

My ivory tower

Maybe if I came down from my ivory tower and I'd discover that the American people are quite prone to effects of an implicitly intolerant appeal - and just the kind of appeal that Rove has employed during this campaign.
 
Take these facts into account:
1. 50% of Americans don't like gays. Homosexuality discomforts another 20%. The remaining 30% are fully tolerant.
2. Bush has skillfully sold gay marriage as a threat to families and a religious institution.
 
People have two different types of intolerance: public and private. A vast majority of the population supports anti-discrimination laws for gays, because, while they may dislike gays, they can tolerate what doesn't effect them personally. But they are less likely to tolerate gays' encroachment into their private sphere (i.e. their family or their church). The Republicans have cleverly framed this debate in a way that pits gays against families and churches. They've created this invasive gay boogie man who wants to push Americans to levels of private tolerance that they haven't reached.
 
The most effective argument I've heard yet against gay marriage is this one:
"What if you die, do you want your children adopted into a gay family?"
I've heard this repeated several times on television. It brings the "effects" of gay marriage right into people's faces.
 
Certainly, inventing the "institution of marriage" has helped the Republicans as well. I say "invent" because it probably wasn't used before 1990. It's a propaganda term and little else.
 
My point is that this issue, like many, is largely a war over semantics. And the Republicans are winning right now.
 
Rasmussen's daily congressional tracking poll (the one that asks, "Which party do you want controlling Congress?") has swung 8 points towards the Republicans since the gay marriage debate in the Senate last week. The message has been effective.

Libya BS

Why does Bush continue to take credit for Libya's decision to "disarm" it's "weapons" program. Clearly Libya didn't have a significant program. And diplomatic efforts were well under way before the War in Iraq. Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that Qadafi fears a US invasion (or that he fears it more than he did before the War in Iraq)?
 
This is all just wishful thinking by conservatives. Qadafi is a smart man. He looked at the US political situation and saw an opportunity to extort money from the US by giving up his paltry weapons program.
 
Slate has a piece on this right now that's worth reading.