Electoral post-mortem in advance
If there is any politician who has a right to blame George W. Bush, it's John McCain. In 2000, the one man standing in the way of McCain's quest for the presidential brass ring was Bush. In 2008, the one man standing in the way of McCain's quest for the presidency is Bush (and his sub-30% approval rating and 90±% nation-going-in-the-wrong-direction rating). Sure, McCain's opponent this time around is Barack Obama, but the Bush legacy of incompetence and cronyism--ladled with a big helping of economic crisis--is going to crush the McCain campaign into little tiny bits. A good debate performance won't change a thing. I'd like to be wrong, but the electoral map paints the picture .
There were several major presumptions the GOP held that George W. Bush frittered away during his time in office: We had better answers on the economy, we were superior to the Democrats in national security, we knew how to control spending, we were the party in favor of a smaller and more retrained government, and we were the more ethical party in the wake of the Clinton years. All gone.
Bush did not impose enough fiscal discipline while in office, then a mortgage crisis happened on Bush's watch, followed by a financial markets crisis. There goes the economic presumption. Bush blew it on Iraq, first by screwing the pooch on WMD intelligence and then by mismanaging a war for three-and-a-half years, costing us thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of our money. There goes the majorities in both houses of Congress, there goes Donald Rumsfeld and there goes the presumption that military-friendly Republicans knew how to run a war.
During the Bush years, we doubled our national debt and our president signed one big spending bill after another. Our budget deficit is going to be around a half a trillion. So much for controlling spending. In terms of ethics, we've had Rovian campaign tactics, an administration that was okay with violating international conventions on detainee treatment, and presidential appointees whose politicizing was only exceeded by their gross incompetence.
Bottom line, we deserve to lose, but given the substandard performance of the Democratic majority in Congress, not by much.
So how to go forward? To me, the first step is new leadership, especially in the House. Second, we need to challenge Barack Obama if and when he moves too far to the left. I predict he'll have a decent honeymoon period, given the dismal approval ratings of the Reid-Pelosi Congress. Back in 1993, Bill Clinton had more serious challenges with Congress because his Congressional counterparts weren't hyper-partisan lightweights. Obama has a natural advantage, not only of winning this election but of confronting fellow party members while in office, if he has the stones to do it.
What else? Plenty. Militarily, the GOP can stand behind the Petraeus plan for Iraq and a similar counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, and we can challenge Obama if (and perhaps when) he guts our military presence in Iraq too quickly. Conservatives should push for a more highly trained and adaptable and versatile military, combining high tech with high training.
Ethically, we need to clean house. Given the 2006 electoral aftermath, quite a bit has been done already, but we can do more and better. This is another reason why we need new leadership. We can't adequately combat Democratic corruption if we allow corruption in our own party.
Fiscally, we need to focus on eliminating waste, and we can do so by re-allying with Citizens Against Government Waste and the Concord Coalition and other similar groups.
Philosophically, we need more conservative think tanks, and those think tanks need to re-think what conservatism is all about. To me, we need to recognize that 20% of our economy is the government, and that it needs to be run competently while at the same time we should try to restrain its growth and intrusions. On immigration, conservatives have lost the argument. We should settle for comprehensive reform and try to work in as much border control as can be had. Conservatives should work to expand political and economic freedoms, both domestically and abroad, and protect rights.
We've lost the debate on health care, and I honestly have no idea what a conservative model for health care is. We've partially lost the debate on taxes. When it comes to income taxes, Obama prevailed. Because of this, we should push for tax simplification and for reasonable reductions in taxes on business and capital gains.
Communications-wise, we could use a conservative version of Media Matters and ThinkProgress to challenge the narratives and storylines put out by a non-conservative media (only 7% of national media were self-described conservatives in a survey a few years back). We need better internet forums (the 3.0 version of Redstate sucks , for example). We're going to be in the wilderness for a while, so conservatives are just going to have to get more chatty and more activist. In talk radio, Rush Limbaugh and others were influential in growing the conservative movement, but they also dumbed it down. We need fewer Hannitys and Levins and more Medveds and Bennetts. We need fewer slogans and more complete thoughts. Rush Limbaugh needs to untie the half of his brain that's tied behind his back.
Just a couple of thoughts.
Comments :
very well said
We lost the debate period. Most of the time listening to the GOP politicians, including McCain, you feel like it's all the same old recycled ideas and nothing fresh. There is no evolution with the times. Healthcare, education, environment, taxes, government, foreign policy, etc... just nothing new. A few gimmicky me-toos by McCain will not allow him to catch up.
And while I still feel that McCain can pull this one out (small chance), the party and the Conservative movement needs to reevaluate what it is that we stand for. Because there used to be a huge difference between what we said and what we did, but now we are not even saying that much.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
I could have wrote the same article
Get people to run for the GOP who aren't worried about what I'm doing in my bedroom but are worried about not just balancing the budget but producing surpluses so we can do more than just pay the interest on the debt and I'll consider voting for them. Give me guys like Ron Paul and Jeff Flake, not Virgil Goode.
I get the sense that half of the Republicans in Congress actively want the deficit to increase so that the government won't have the money to spend on social programs. I'd prefer a smaller federal government, but unless we're openly declaring that we're happy to default on our debt, we have to look at cutting spending and raising taxes across the board. If not, we'll get no government spending and high taxes. I fail to see how high taxes and no social welfare programs is better than low taxes and no social welfare programs.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Well, let's be fair here:
I don't disagree. But Bush had a majority-Republican House for almost the entirety of his presidential term. I'm sympathetic to the notion that he was a poor leader on matters of fiscal responsibility, but since all the spending bills were initiated in that House, it's hard to locate the source of the problem at the President.
I think it's in the Republican Party's best interest to concentrate as much of its voters' malaise on one person so that it can move forward more effectively, but if it's going to change it needs to realize that Bush was not the source of the problem.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
He never used his veto pen,
nor did he threaten to use it. He could've impose some fiscal discipline, but he failed to really do anything about it.
I wish the call for fiscal conservatism was more than a prop.
Sadly, we've seen that the party in power is prodded by their "freinds" to use that power, usually for the benefit of their "friends".
Clinton was an anomoly and that only came on strong after he got his butt waxed in the 94 elections & Republicans took over. But I'll give him credit, he did better than any other Administration of the last 40 years in bringing spending into line with revenues.
I'm hoping Obama runs it tightly.
Right, but what I'm saying is,
that's a Republican House that was sending him those bills in the first place. So while Bush certainly carries some guilt for not exercising that veto as you say, simply turning away from Bush-style politics isn't going to solve everything if most of those House Republicans are still in office. This is a party problem, not a single man problem.
As I said, it's in the best interest of the Republican party to place as much blame on Bush as possible, because the brand is suffering. But if you're not fixing the party itself, it won't change much in the long run.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Any republican Heroes?
Can you say that you want to follow the traditions laid out by any previous Republican leaders?
Eisenhower? Regan? T. Roosevelt?
This "good government" conservatism jives with my impression of Eisenhower.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
good luck rebuilding the party
That sounds like a solid agenda.
I think the biggest risk to that agenda is that Republicans will resort to demonizing Obama (as they did with Clinton) rather cleaning their own house. In recent elections, it seems that Democrats have won simply because the Bush Presidency (and Republican Congress) imploded.
This dovetails into the bigger problem--that it is so easy for politicians to be guided by an obsession with winning and taking power.
Any particular policy proposals for this? Is there anything that could deter power-mongers and carpetbaggers from running as Republican (or at all). Any reforms to introduce more competition (instant runoff voting) or otherwise limit the temptation to hold onto power at any cost (term limits)?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This is a problem for Democrats, too:
Implicit in this is the idea that the Democrats aren't winning on their own merits, which is sadly true. It took a catastrophic few years for people to grudgingly support Democratic policies. This is a much more conservative-leaning country than a lot of people are willing to admit.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Quite a bit has been done
Delay is out, Foley is out, Craig is out, Cunningham is in jail, Hastert quit, Boehner needs to quit.
I don't have any particular policy proposals, only that GOP politicians conduct themselves by the standards of their party and their promises, and they should leave if they don't live up to them.
One area I think we can do better is on disclosures. Campaign contributions should be immediate, accurate and transparent. Perhaps something could be done along similar lines with lobbyists.
Why write the need for having a post-mortem in advance
I've seen the map, and yes it looks dire, but the fact is a million things can happen. I agree an Obama win is probable, but canidates have made up large leads before ( and Obama doesn't even have a double digit lead yet), and it's still possible McCain will win. Polls do a pretty good job of showing what the present looks like, and you can guess that things won't change, however, it's still only and educated guess, and this certaintity of defeat verges on fortune telling.
Anyway suppose you're right, and McCain's lost, what good have you done by writing a post-mortem and not waiting till Nov. 4th after folks have voted? It obviously can be a part of demoralizing the McCain side and supressing votes on his side. Therefore, I see it as having nagative consequences ( add onto to the nagative consequence of people acting like the elections already decided will hamper voter turnout general - why vote when the polls allready decided the president), but I see no positive consequences - to not just waiting two and half weeks or so. McCain's campaign may be on life support and in a coma, but let's wait till he's pronounced dead to write the post-mortems, and that will not be until Nov. 4th.
+4
Agreed whole heartedly.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4why vote when the polls allready decided the president?
Because our individual votes have no impact on the outcome anyway. If you are voting with the perception that your vote really matters, then you are a moron and I would prefer that you don't vote.
Voting is a group activity, and I hope that the group you are supporting when you vote is the USA, and not just one faction within the USA.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
"Because our individual votes
"Because our individual votes have no impact on the outcome anyway. If you are voting with the perception that your vote really matters, then you are a moron and I would prefer that you don't vote" That's nice how you manage to contradict yourself within two sentences. Besides you managed to attack a strawman, because I never said one vote would decides the election. It is a part of deciding an election and therefore is important.
correction for JM; it's the aggregate that matters
First, I was sloppy when I wrote my previous comment and used "you" in a general sense, when I should have written "a voter". I'm sorry if it sounded like I was specifically referring to you, John Mark.
Anyway, we agree that the aggregate behavior of voting has an impact. For that reason, I would prefer that people who don't understand the system not participate. More accurately, I am opposed to any suggestion that we should modify our behavior in order to encourage those people to vote.
Which gets us back to the original point, in which you suggested that we should emphasize the uncertainty of the election outcome in so that people will be motivated to vote. In this case, when a voter goes to the poll, it should make no difference to him whether he thinks that knows the outcome already or not. Either way, his individual vote does not have a meaningful influence on the outcome, so his decision to cast that vote should not be based on his perception that the outcome is already "determined".
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
To be clear
I haven't given up. I think McCain is the better candidate and I do what I can (and will do what I can) to persuade others that McCain is a superior choice over Obama. Nevertheless, I'll write what's on my mind.
A post-mortem implies death,
A post-mortem implies death, if you think McCain is dead it is only logical to conclude you have given up, we don't keep working on dead folks. Write about why McCain's losing, but why can't anaylizing why he' s lost wait untill he has.
Eh, I think "post-mortem" has a generic meaning, too.
It refers to any after-the-fact analysis of an event. You're right about the word "death" being in there, but its use is so widespread in the more generic form that it didn't strike me as so negative here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Seconded
We have "post-mortems" at work after all kindds of things despite no deaths involved. It's just a figure of speech.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
True ...
But the point is ... the "after-the-fact" analysis should be, well, after-the-fact and not before.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Poor logic
In politics, post-mortem means post-election analysis.
If I thought McCain had a 100% chance of losing, I'd give up, but I don't think that.
What a whiny, self-defeatist P.O.S. you have written here.
When, exactly, did you turn into a liberal? I demand that you turn in your red bar and don the brightest blue that you can get after writing this. You are a disgrace to your colors, sir. :)
I must say, you sure have drunk deeply of the liberal koolaid here. They have you beat before the first vote is even counted. Stop acting like it is over until it is actually over. While I agree with your summary of the things to be upset with regarding the last eight years, this is not the time to be recounting them like they are a post mortem of the already failed election.
A quick summary of why this piece makes you look like a bufoon and/or a useful idiot for the Democrat propaganda machine:
(1) If we learned anything from the 2000 election, it ain't over until its over. So stop acting like it is already. That only lends aid to the liberals at a time when we need to all hands on deck and we need to all be pulling together to keep Obama out of the white house. This piece reads like we might as well not even show up at the polls on election day.
Whether you believe that all is lost or not, telegraphing that you think so BEFORE the election is just plain stupid.
(2) The main points you make in this piece are valid complaints, but to try an put them all on Bush is a mistake. Bush has to take his share of the heat, but he is hardly the only one in the kitchen. Stop trying to turn him into a scapegoat for evey ill that has become the Republican party. Doing so only plays into the liberal agenda of running against Bush. You are enabling them on that front which, again, is just plain stupid.
(3) Bush is on his way out, so stop talking about Bush and all his baggage. Move on already and put the man behind you, and the rest of us. While we need to address the shortcomings of the past 8 years we can certainly do so without making them a referendum on George W. Bush. I'm certainly no fan of McCain ... I still like Bush more that I will ever like McCain ... but at least he is not yesterday's news. Look forward. Plan for the future. Stop being such a defeatist already.
(4) Polls, schmolls. The exit polls said Kerry (who served in Vietnam and then protested the war) won. They were wrong and they were taken on ELECTION DAY. So much for polls.
Sorry, but I think all you have done here is help the Democrats.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4One more thing, this isn't
One more thing, this isn't the first time during the presidential election that folks have been writing McCain's post - mortems.
I know.
And it's just plain stupid, at least for a Republican.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4It's hard to get "all hands on deck" on the Titanic
Don't comments like "I'm ceretainly no fan of McCain" and "I still like Bush more than I will ever like McCain" give aid and comfort to Democrats? Wasn't your support of Bob Bar an example of you being a useful idiot for the Democrats?
Seriously, you guys ought to thank your lucky stars that McCain is going to get humbled in this election. It's looking like the next four years is going to be a pretty thankless time to govern, and whoever is in power is likely to get blamed by impatient voters. Besides, It's painfully obvious that most of the hardcore red-bar types like you don't even really like McCain and consider him to be an impostor in their midst, so it shouldn't be a spirit-crushing loss for you if he goes down.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Silly skymutt ...
No, why would you ask that? :) Silly skymutt.
No, I was being a useful idiot for the Libertarians at the time. :)
A spirit crushing loss for me when McCain goes down (assuminghe does)? Hardly. I'll celebrate with the best of them if this comes to pass simply because I don't like him and never will. I have made no bones about the fact that I have no horse in this race. So that frees me to sit on the sideline and take pot shots both sides, which I find has greatly reduce my stress levels during the election season.
This election is between "Mr. Bad" and "Mr. Worse" in my opinion so my spirit isn't going to be "crushed" no matter what comes down.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sometimes a little time in the wilderness helps political
parties. It did the Democrats.
The sad part is that it seems that whatever party that assumes power, especially if they win all 3 branches of government, they tend to lose their way. Their sights & constituencies shrink to the major contributors & the rest of their supporters get lip service or the occasional bone thrown to 'em.
It'll be a miracle if the Democrats escape that after these elections. I may not be the most religious person here but I do believe in miracles.
My do's and don'ts
I do write to learn and I do write to persuade. I do call things as I see 'em.
I don't write to cheerlead and I don't do pep talks.
As to your points, just because I expect McCain to lose, doesn't mean I'm going to stop trying to help him win. McCain is the superior candidate on judicial appointments and the War Against Militant Islamism alone. I'm not quitting. If I were a defeatist, I would've tossed in the towel, but I haven't. But I also see the writing on the wall, and I'm not going to go whistling past unpleasant circumstances as if they didn't exist.
As for putting it all on Bush, the buck stops with him. He is responsible for mismanaging Iraq for 3½ years. He is responsible for signing bills that blew up spending. He is responsible for his near complete inability to communicate or use the bully pulpit. He is responsible for a bevy of mistakes small and large. It is Bush's failing presidency that caused the GOP to lose the majority in Congress, and his failing presidency is the reason why Obama has a natural adavantage in this race. Bush's failed presidency is the reason why McCain does not speak Bush's name while campaigning, and it's why Obama is trying to label a McCain administration as a Bush third term. Republicans are going to have to face this unpleasant reality. George W. Bush did a few things right, but on the whole his administration is the worst since Harding or Hoover.
As for you wanting me to stop talking about Bush, nobody is going to stop me from talking about anything. Ever. I'll write what I want, when I want to write it.
As for polls, I agree. Polls change. There's a reason why I used the Realclearpolitics electoral map. McCain is going to have to win every toss-up state and he's going to have to win Virginia (which is leaning Obama) and either Minnesota or Colorado/New Mexico (which are also leaning Obama). McCain has a major uphill battle and time is running out.
Whiney? No...Honest
I have to disagree with my buddy GR on this one. This is a piece of refreshing honesty and shows that some Republicans are not afraid to examine their party's actual accomplishments and not hide behind nice-sounding but never fulfilled rhetoric. And I doubt a piece like this will affect anyone's vote, except maybe to *encourage* wavering R's to go ahead and give the party one more chance.
I can't help but contrast this with John's piece about the GOP going forward, and wonder where these two diaries describing the GOP intersect. (I've been trying to make some time to rightly respond to John's diary but probably won't get around to it before it ages off of everyone's mind, which is a shame, because I think it's a great topic to explore.) But how can Bird Dog's vision of the GOP meld with the rather "social conservative" vision that John describes? Which faction actually controls the party and can the two continue to co-exist in the big tent?
If the GOP matches Bird Dog's vision, his points are valid starting points for reform. I personally think that more (citizen) Rs are of this stripe that the ones described within John's diary. But the liberal-leaners of the nation obviously don't think so. This disconnect is quite interesting. Wish I had more time to flesh it out.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
I don't mind honesty and objective
but talking about the race being over before Nov. 4th is fortune telling not objectivity. I think that's the case whoever is ahead. I don't mind a discussion of why he's losing now or why he lost on ( if he does) Nov. 4th, but let's not get things out of order.
Sort of agree
But there are deficits and timeframes in which recoveries are essentialy impossible.
If you read the RS version of this diary he explicitly states that he'd love to be surprised by a McCain win, and plans to vote for him, but fully expects McCain to lose and wants to look at the reasons why (in his opinion). Granted he didn;t leave that intro on this version because the audience here is a tad different :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Agreed, but turn the prism around
I get your point, that Bird Dog should not be taking the loss as a given. The odds are in his favor, according to such augeries that exist, but it is not a certainty. So, point ceded.
But to turn this around a bit, given the demonstrable "straying" from GOP philosophy as outlined here, would not a healthy party asking these same questions / outlining these same reforms if the polls were showing McCain as leading? I would say yes. But if McCain were leading, would it be hubris or good strategy NOT to be thinking or writing about these things?
I would like to see both sides do a bit more navel-gazing, myself, instead of what sometimes seems to me to be the "might makes right" attitude of the party in control.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." --R. Heinlein
The eternal problem:
This happens to me quite a bit, too. We should start an informal series at SW: "Remember that discussion?...", where we resurrect old debates and throw in our more digested responses.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
"the best of swords crossed"
I think that's a great idea--especially when we have a dry-spell with new essays.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
This is a piece of refreshing
Well I DON'T disagree with you. :) Nor did anyting in my post complain about anything related to your point above. My complaint was about the timing, not the substance of the diary.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Excellent insights!
I've thought for a long time we should be defending the right's record. You have to give people a narrative to hold on to! McCain has been in counter narrative mode too much.
If McCain stuck with his party, and picked up on what he claimed, and stuck to a Reganesque solution, Pride, Patriotism, No bailout, low tax, point out how well the Markets have done, and saying we will have corrections, small government, but the record is clear Reganomics works, especially to win elections.
JM's just off message all together right now.
That being said, I believe this will be a nail biter.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Just thought I'd point out the inherent contradiciton
between "Reaganesque solution" and "small government".
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Go Ahead...
He advocated a strong Defense to be sure, as do most conservatives, but overall RR wanted a small limited government. He wanted to abolish the Dept of Education...etc, etc....
So whats your point Pico?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Well, I'm no libertarian, but I suspect
they'd argue that both parties are big government, with their own rationalizations for when and where to use that government. So the issue isn't whether Republicans believe in small government (they don't), but what areas they feel are better suited for spending tax money. To wit: military defense is just one area where Reagan expanded the government - the multi-billion dollar "War on Drugs", increased funding into the NEA, created a cabinet-level department for Veterans Affairs, added a branch to the Office of Management and Budget, etc., etc. If you think he was all about small government, you're sadly, tragically mistaken.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I tend to view Reagan
as being more libertarian in private than he was in public life.
Problem is that public life made him more conservative IMO and more willing to expand government and certain programs for pragmatic political posturing or perceived necessity. That doesn't make it OK in my book but I do think it's a valid explanation to show the difference between Reagan the man and Reagan the poltical animal.
Overall, I look at Reagan with mixed feelings and a somewhat indifferent smirk.
Tragically mistaken indeed
Isn't it just plain as day that Republicans always blow up the budget, while at the same time shrieking in panic that Democrats are coming after your wallet. The recent credit crises being the frosting on the cake of Reagan era policies?
Isn't the conventional wisdom that Democrats manage the economy better, historically accurate?
Yet every four years we hear this howling that somehow the only way to balance the budget is to decrease spending. Well there is an obvious alternative, which is increasing revenues, or raising taxes. As the budget crunch continues we will see states in a severe and growing state of economic distress. They can either cut programs like crazy, which they are already doing including funding for education, or they can raise revenues.
This year the howling is worse than ever. Obama's returning to a similar taxation plan as Bill Clinton is being referred to as Evil Socialism. Pathetically I heard a more paranoid than ever John McCloughlin, of the Weekly Group, try to insinuate that Obama was possibly even a Marxist, because he said the word one time. Insanity reigns. This hysteria over paying taxes is out of control.
If folks want more crime, more homeless people, higher drop out rates, and higher prices for all services then by all means continue to insist that the Reagan/Bush/McCain tax plan is a utopian dream.
I'm only half stupid
Is the writing on the wall....
or how Obama blew was also posted as a dairy
. So both candidates have had their ebbs and flows.
If I were a Republican I would be concerned about the extreme negative tone of the campaign, and having the party be hijacked by the social conservatives, who come across as blatantly misinformed and somewhat racist. I would be embarrassed to call myself a Republican right now.
I'm only half stupid
Polls, Results, and Republicans...
Here is the rest of the story.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Keep on believin'!
Not that I would ever question the impeccable fairness and honesty of Ann Coulter, but it's funny how she picks specific polls on specific days to make her point, rather than, say an average of the polls, like this article
does. Strangely, they find that the polling errors have been pretty small, usually less than a couple of percentage points. Of course, why would you trust Oxford Journals to get it right when Ann Coulter is out there providing a more fair and balanced view.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
This is a muddled bit of analysis.
Just to pluck an example from the middle:
Well, it'd be nice if the author noted that these numbers are measuring two entirely different things. Take the second set, and note what's missing: the 12% of voters who are undecided. There's no way for a poll to make that decision for them, so if 12% of respondants are listing themselves as undecided, you have a potential for a ±12 point swing there. With that large a percentage undecided, the comparison of expected Bush/Dukakis votes is entirely meaningless, and you don't need a conspiracy about the great liberal demon media to make that happen.
There's a much simpler answer here: undecided voters may tend to vote Republican more often. And given that Bush was the incumbent here, that's entirely expected. Why is that so hard?
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
She just stated facts....
n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
No, she made a comparison
between two numbers that measure different things, but she presented them as if they were the same. If she's drawing those kinds of conclusions from that comparison, then she's being dishonest about the real terms of discussion.
[edit: here's the kind of evidence she could have used to support her assertion: in many cases, the undecided voters actually break disproportionately for the challenger
rather than the incumbent. It doesn't prove her point (and in fact the pollsters only lowballed Reagan and Bush I, not Bush II or pre-Reagan Republicans) but it at least shows concretely how voting trends could support her argument.
All I'm asking for is some intellectual honesty here - although she's not exactly known for that.]
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce