Beating Bush: Reason for Optimism in the Numbers?

[BurtWorm]

In 2000, only 40% of eligible voters actually voted. Of those, 48% went for Bush, and 48+% went for Gore. If you assume that the same 40% vote in this election (and if it follows trends in recent history, it will actually be less than 40%), then Bush will have to score his same numbers plus some of the Gore voters in order to win. But this assumes the 3% who voted for Nader will again not vote for the Dem, which is probably not the case this time around.

Can Bush inspire some of the 60% who haven't been voting to go to the polls? Is terror enough of a reason for a critical mass of nonvoters to get out and vote FOR Bush? I don't know. I doubt it, but it can't be ruled out. But it seems at this stage that Bush will have to work a LOT harder to get nonvoters fired up to vote for him.

Chances are, the Bushists will continue to try to win this at the margins, by working extra hard to shave off Democratic voters through disenfranchisement techniques (like felon scrubs) and intense negative campaigning against the Dem nominee. Their goal, as usual, will be to make the electorate totally sick of the whole campaign. (That is, if the Terror Theme doesn't inspire nonvoters--and even if it does.) If they succeed, turned off Dem voters will stay home and the automatons who vote Republican will once again depress us.

Or can the automatons be turned off at the margins?

(Adapted from a post in another thread)

[the populist]

1. Don't "misunderestimate"

the fanaticism of the neocons and the Christian reactionaries.

[BurtWorm]

4. The problem for Bush, as far as those guys go,

is their numbers can't expand much beyond where they are now. It seems to me that there is a core of committeds on each side that amounts to about 20% of the total voting population. Actually a little less than 20%. These are the core Democrats and Republicans, the ones who split the vote in 2000. I think it's more likely a Democrat will add to Gore's 20% (with the help of Nader's 3%) than Bush is to add to his. I could be wrong, but I could be right, and I bet Republicans are doing the same math as I am and worrying a little.

[the populist]

5. Bush has other numbers on his side

he has an economic recovery (which to me seems extremely tenuous), Saddam captured, Libya's disarmament (which had more to do with Col. Qadaffi's desire to open his country to the rest of the world than fear of the neocon doctrine of preemption), and continued "threats" from the "terra".

I'm praying Bush loses but it's looking good for him. The average voter doesn't dig deep behind the stories, therefore the aforementioned events boost his image.

[BurtWorm]

6. The question is, are those enough to get people to vote FOR Bush?

I personally don't think so. I think Bush will have to try to make people terrified or disgusted with the Dem, whoever he is. His only option, I believe, will be to sap the opposition's strength. He doesn't have the stuff to do anything else.

[the populist]

8. Are you suggesting that these people will abstain?

Bush has a tendency to arouse jingoistic feelings in people. Hell, even I turned into a fascist after September 11 for a few weeks. All it takes is a well-run campaign to make Americans feel as though a Democrat would make America more susceptible to the terra.

There's an article in a recent issue of the Nation that discusses George Bush's image. The sad thing is that this image is strengthened by some leftist attacks on Bush. He wants us to think of him as the aggressive provincial rancher (in reality he's a carpetbagging halfwit with a knack for making use of his connections). The recent moveon ad portrayed Bush as a Santa Claus with cowboy boots. PEOPLE DIG THIS IMAGE! Image is very important in politics and we need to shatter this illusion.

Bush runs on fear and image.

[SaddenedDem]

10. You're leaving out many

Beginning with the unemployed, the underemployed and workers facing unemployment.

Don't forget, for most of these people, there are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and extended family who have had to help these unemployed survive the situation.

You know, like the financial aid advisor and his wife whom I met at the local aid office while they were applying for financial aid, foodstamps and medicaid. They arrived in a van loaned by her parents, with gas paid for by his brother.

These are all voters who won't be voting for the same policies again.

[BurtWorm]

15. No, I'm saying they are probably maxed out.

They will probably vote in the same numbers and proportions as the last election. The Dems could try to experiment with dampening their desire to vote for Bush by feeding them some of the medicine Repubs have been feeding Dem voters: highly targeted ratfucking. I have no idea if it will work. But it seems to me that the winger envelope is probably pushed as far as it will go. The key to beating Bush, I think, will be in energizing Greens and nonvoters to get out the vote for the Democrat.

[mlawson]

7. The voters who worry me the most, are the ones who

may or may not agree with everything bush has done in office (if they even know), but will wind up voting for him anyway, because they LIKE him. This is how it was for Ronnie in 1984: millions didn't like his record, but they happily voted for him anyway, because he was Ronnie.

And there is no known method of successful reasoning with people like that, either.

[the populist]

9. exactly

for the average American: Bush is the principled Southern Christian who stands for his people.

Democrats for them are liberals who promote "the homosexual lifestyle" and who succumb to "french interests"/

[BurtWorm]

17. Remember: Only 40% of those who can vote in the US do.

Less than half of those can be pretty much relied on to vote Republican. Most of the rest vote Democratic. I don't see how the percentage is going to change in this election coming up. And I don't see how Bush can possibily get a Reagan-style landslide when half of the people who will vote are still pissed over the way he stole "Election" 2000. I could be wrong. But I could be right.

[w4rma]

16. It's not an economic recovery. It's a stock market recovery. Jobs are down

Salaries are down. Debt is up. The deficit is up.

[CMT]

2. i'm optimistic

I look at it this way. Bush will probably gain some Gore people, but there will be a certain percentage of Bush 2000 voters who bought his line about being a "uniter and not a divider" who will not vote for Bush this time. So it could be a wash. The big thing which makes me optimistic is the nearly 3 million Nader voters. I know lots of Nader voters who say they will hold their noses and vote Democratic if necessary to get rid of Bush--he is hated that much. I hope we can nominate a candidate who they don't have to hold their noses for though.

[NewGuy]

3. Repug will vote repug...

and dems will vote Dem. The swing voters will elect a new president. This is why having $200M right now is more important than doing a good job up until now. bush* needs to convince those that have not paid much attention up till now. His huge war chest may make this possible.

We should not try to convince ourselves that all of America splits down the line as either Dem or Repug, Liberal or Conservative. There really are a ton of single issue people and non-political types who roll out of bed and vote one time in four years. They vote for the tall guy, the good looking guy, the guy they think they can trust, etc. That is what a lot of the ads are about, and it works.

Our side is generally better at touching the heart strings than the repugs and this is important because it convinces more people more quickly.

[the populist]

11. I'd like to add that Bush is extremely cunning.

Look at how he has asked for Iraqi elections to be held in August or September. Of course these elections are going to be modeled after his own, so the crook, Chalabi, will win no matter who actually gets the most votes. Both Ba'athists and their enemies the Islamic Republicans will be barred from voting I'll bet.

[sable302]

12. That could backfire, right?

I mean, fake Iraqi elections in September might equal more fighting and dying in October and November?

It's a risk, I would think. And, what if an Islamist was elected, but the Americans called it a do-over? He'd better be d*mn sure he knows what the outcome is going to be that close to his own election day. In other words, you're probable right. THe crook will win.

[the populist]

13. What Iraqi would actually vote for Chalabi anyway?

The guy will win, but it's mind-boggling how our compatriots will buy the election result. I guess that's what happens when people don't research current events.

[sable302]

14. Well,

I think you're spot on.

But, if no Iraqi votes for Chalabi, but he is the one who ends up being prolcaimed the 'winner', wouldn't the fraud get noticed? One would think so, anyway. More anger..More war...more killing, all right before we cast our votes.

It just seems that the two outcomes are either the Iraqi election gets rigged, or Iraq risks electing an Islamist theocracy. Neither outcome seems good to me, but the first seems better for Bush than the second.

Obvious Iraqi election fraud two months before an American election can't be a good thing, at least for those of us who got used to living in reality. But, in bushco land, who knows.