The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Vote for whom you THINK will be the next president, NOT whom you WANT to be the next president.

<b>I selected bush in this poll:</b>

I am voting Kerry...however, I feel like this is futile.

I don't know what it is that is going to happen..whether it be:

1. The election being stolen by Bush or his cronies.
2. Diebold botching the election with their inferior voting machines.
3. Kerry wins the election and then some sort of event will keep him from going into office.
4. Kerry and Edwards get assasinated by
--- a. Current administration (hey, it's happened)
--- b. Whomever (hey, it's happened)
5. Bush declaring some state of emergancy that will allow him to keep power for an undetermined amount of time (hey, it's happened)
6. Bush simply winning the election.

7. ANY OTHER senerio that may cause this eventuality.

All I know is that I was right the first time when I called it for Bush despite my preferences or popular opinion...and I FEEL like, without a doubt, that Bush will remain the president by any means necessary.

/my paranoia

Geez, Hoblit....

YOU HAVE COMPLETELY AND EXACTLY MATCHED MY SENTIMENTS

I could have written your exact post. Especially your last line. Well put.

Jim of Seattle wrote:Geez, Hoblit....

YOU HAVE COMPLETELY AND EXACTLY MATCHED MY SENTIMENTS

I could have written your exact post. Especially your last line. Well put.

I'd say 'cooool' but ... it's not somehow We're probably not the only two who feel this way but I"m glad you gave me teh chance to just put it out there like this.

<font size="1">and I hope my editing it into an outline didn't lesson my post for you</font>

all of those things are scary and possible. and therefore more scary.
-bill

from Donkey Rising:


* Bush’s vote is at 47 percent in our two post-debate polls; his job approval rating has dropped to 47 percent and his vote in the public polls is at 47 percent…As the incumbent, it is very difficult for him to get a vote on election day higher than 47 percent, unless he can raise his position before then.

* That is mostly true because “undecided” voters are not really undecided and almost always break against the incumbent, particularly if the incumbent is a polarizing figure, like Bush. The undecided in this election are populist change voters. By 63 to 28 percent, they want to go in a significantly different direction than Bush; they are critical of big corporations; and break two-to-one Democratic at the congressional level.

* Independents have moved steadily to Kerry, as President Bush has waged his conservative, base-oriented campaign. Today, Kerry has taken a 4 point lead (49 to 45 percent) in the Democracy Corps poll, but that is also true in the CBS/New York Times and ABC News polls. For Bush to win, Republicans would have to be more united than Democrats and outnumber Democrats on election day. But the latter is very difficult, since the likely electorate is more Democratic by at least 3 points.

* The Democrats have consolidated behind Kerry in the post-debate period. While Kerry had not consolidated Democrats before the debates, he has done so with a vengeance afterwards. Kerry is getting 91 percent of Democrats, while Bush is getting 92 percent of Republicans. Kerry and Bush voters now express an equal enthusiasm for their nominees and equally strong intention to vote. Part of that consolidation includes substantial gains with African-American, union, and Hispanic voters.

* The Democracy Corps poll includes an increasing number of new registrants, now at 7 percent of the likely voters – up from 2 percent in July and 6 percent in September and early October. These new voters who could play a decisive role in this election support Kerry by 61 to 36 percent.

* Young voters (under 30 years) could play a very big role in this election. They will for sure give John Kerry his biggest margin of any age group, now giving him over 60 percent of the vote.

You can oftentimes predict the future based on the past, which is why I thought the Sox would lose Game 7.

We should just have an Astros vs. Red Sox Series and the winning team has its state's candidate elected. We can use the money saved to pay down the national debt. (kidding)

Henrietta wrote: We should just have an Astros vs. Red Sox Series and the winning team has its state's candidate elected. We can use the money saved to pay down the national debt. (kidding)

And if it's Boston, we can use the money saved to pay for property damage caused by the biggest riot since Rodney King. Or at least, since Axl Rose had a hissy fit and stomped off stage after James Hetfield got set on fire.

I'm more concerned about post-Bush victory rioting.

But hey, I never thought of that. That's got to be the first time in history such a thing has even come this close to happening. I know Arkansas doesn't have a team.

Go All Massachusetts-based Thingies!!!! That's my rallying cry for the next two weeks.

Marcus, your political knowledge inspires idolatry. I wish all people your age were as informed. And God, I hope you're right. However, your argument doesn't rule out 5 of Hoblit's 6 reasons why Kerry might not ever get there, so my fear is still well-entrenched.

While I'm completely ignorant of the intricacies of your electoral system (and I suspect I'm not Robinson Crusoe here) - I maintain my prediction that your election will mirror the Australian election a few weeks ago - ie. Government will be returned with an increased majority.



From todays Sydney Morning Herald for anyone interested in an outsiders perspective
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/ ... 86220.html

I think Bush just lost a crapload of votes after the Iraq story on NewsNight with Aaron Brown (on CNN) tonight. Amazing shit. It's repeating at 1 am (EST) if you missed it.

what happened?
-bill

HeuristicsInc wrote:what happened?
-bill

He just interviewed some journalists about how hard it was to journalize in Iraq. They showed a montage of really amazing pictures a couple photojournalists took. I guess it's really dangerous in Baghdad now. Writers are having to write in hotel rooms, hoping that no one shoots a rocket into their room, and photographers are now only allowed to travel with the military. It doesn't look good.

All I can say is, I disagree with both candidates on quite a few issues, but it comes down to I honestly don't think the country (and world) is better off than it was 4 years ago. I'm a simpleton, I know.

On your recommendation I watched that CNN report last night, C Hack, and it did indeed look grim. The mood of the whole piece was much more "Look, things are REALLY REALLY bad over there". While it did open my eyes to what it must really be like there, I don't know that it was enough to change a lot of minds.

I was particularly struck by the guy who'd covered other wars and said "This is the first time in my career of reporting wars that there's nowhere at all safe to be. Basically the entire country is dangerous. It wasn't like that in Sarajevo, for example."

Jim of Seattle wrote:I was particularly struck by the guy who'd covered other wars and said "This is the first time in my career of reporting wars that there's nowhere at all safe to be. Basically the entire country is dangerous. It wasn't like that in Sarajevo, for example."

I think he might've meant that the entire city of Baghdad wasn't safe, not the whole country, but I could be wrong. I saw reports on the same show weeks ago that looked promising -- schools getting built, etc., and army guys saying it was hard, but doable. Now it looks like it got a whole lot worse in a short period of time. But maybe it's just a matter of perspective?

How about those pictures, though? Wow.

Yeah, he might have meant only Baghdad, I can't remember.

But oh I know. Someday photos of the REAL Baghdad will be widely distributed and the country is going to recoil and think, "Man, what were we THINKing?"

Remember that one guy who said he'd gone to Iraq six times since the war started and it's been worse there every time he's gone.

Jim of Seattle wrote:Remember that one guy who said he'd gone to Iraq six times since the war started and it's been worse there every time he's gone.

Yeah, but worse from a journalist's perspective. Don't forget, things weren't too peachy under Saddam's rule. Remember that they said that half the poopulation of Iraq was under 18? I'm not sure all those adult corpses in the mass graves would agree with that word, "worse."

Well of course, but my point is the picture the administration is trying to paint is a hell of a lot rosier than what they showed us last night.

c hack wrote:I think he might've meant that the entire city of Baghdad wasn't safe, not the whole country, but I could be wrong. I saw reports on the same show weeks ago that looked promising -- schools getting built, etc., and army guys saying it was hard, but doable. Now it looks like it got a whole lot worse in a short period of time. But maybe it's just a matter of perspective?.

Well, if the Green Zone isn't safe, anymore, and journalists are having to go under military escort if they're to leave their hotels, I don't have confidence the rest of the country is much under control. Supply routes and Fallujah particularly.

Yep, my dad leaves in 17 days to Kuwait. Not looking forward to that.

Jim of Seattle wrote:Well of course, but my point is the picture the administration is trying to paint is a hell of a lot rosier than what they showed us last night.

Yes, but what benefit is it to us to know whats really going on.....

/snysism

mkilly wrote:I don't have confidence the rest of the country is much under control. Supply routes and Fallujah particularly.

Fallujah is under the control of that Cleric (forget his name). He's warned us that if we try to re-take it, there'll be hell to pay.