Well I don't care if the sun don't shine

[sanpaku_backup]

Yes, another week has gone by, and I haven't gotten my act together to write a decent LJ update, let alone accomplish anything substantive.

My thoughts of late have been of like-minded folks slowly realizing, Fuck. Bush is going to win the election.. Now no one is responsible for anything, ever again. There's no limit to how much you can fuck shit up and still get the slack-jawed citizenry to vote for you.

Then again, as I've been saying for some months now, so much shit has been so fucked up by these people, including turning Iraq into a completely hopeless basket case, that you have to wonder why we want Kerry to win. If we learned anything about Clinton, 1993, and the deficit, it's that Americans might not care about structrual societal problems, but they sure will beat the crap out of anyone who tries to fix them. And Iraq reminds one of Tom Lehrer's old joke about being a Christian Scientist with appendicitis -- there are no options that won't make things worse. (Which is why it was stupid to do to begin with.)

(Lest I be accused once again of compulsive naysaying, let me point out that the state polls show how much work Kerry has cut out for him. Most of the real swing states are ones Gore took by a whisker last time out. Kerry needs to win all of them plus a few more, since they add up to fewer electoral votes since the 2000 census. Aside from New Hampshire and possibly West Virginia, he has little chance in places Bush took last time. Granted, right now is a low point for Kerry, but it doesn't look promising at all.)

So we have to come to grips with this, people. Despite what I said about do we really want to win -- I'm wondering what will happen to all that energy and united focus that emerged this year. I mean, usually when Democrats lose, it's because they're fractured into a million pieces. But this year we had Michael Moore, Air America, Barack Obama, everyone united for once. I'm worried that the demoralizing effects of a loss, coupled with four more years of gutting this country perpetrated by the other side, could just lead to decades of fatalism at the Dickensian slide this country is heading into.

But anyway, with librarygrrl's mix CD I can jam all day long and try not to think about it. Been working so far.

Comments

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

GAH. I'm worried about the judges and the environment, things with long term effects that'll extend long beyond four years.

And I just don't get it. I keep saying that, but I just don't get it. How is this happening? Argh.

But I'm not going to totally give up hope until November. Not that my attempt at optimism is stopping me from my backup plan of leaving the government and going into teaching, which is looking even more attractive because then I can rail in public and (hopefully) with the credibility that comes with being a law prof.

[cellio]

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: people see polls (and one might ask who compiled and published them) saying we're doomed, so they give up in disgust and don't bother to vote, and they thus help produce that outcome. The Democrats are going to have to really mobilize their people and get them to (1) show up and (2) bring their friends and family members.

I am conflicted because I always vote my conscience (which is for neither of the major players), yet I live in a swing state.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Well, last time the polls said Bush was going to win, and then Gore got a half million votes more on election day, so the self-fulfilling part of things isn't always the case. But there is truth in the idea that some people like to vote for who they think will be the winner.

In this case, polls showing that things are still very close will probably help motivate both sides. Everyone remembers Florida.

As far as the third-party thing, I helped create that monster Nader by voting for him in '96, in a safe state. So I can see both sides. One might also add that if Kerry loses Pennsylvania there's pretty much no chance he can win the election, since he probably needs Pennsylvania AND Florida OR Ohio -- two out of the three. So it's a "swing state" only in the sense that it's absolutely necessary for Kerry.

Of course in a completely rational frame of mind your vote doesn't matter unless one side or the other wins by one vote, which is very unlikely as well. So...

[cellio]

Of course in a completely rational frame of mind your vote doesn't matter unless one side or the other wins by one vote, which is very unlikely as well. So...

Yup. And I tend toward the rational view. Actually, my vote doesn't matter if I vote for a Republicrat, but it does matter if I vote for someone else, because it helps bring minor parties into the public view. (It also helps keep said parties available as options in voter registration, at least in PA.) So my vote actually does some non-trivial good if I vote for Michael Badnarik, and it's hard to overcome that. I could vote for Kerry, but then I'm driving one tiny little tack (no vote is as big as a nail :-) ) into the minor-party coffin. And since no one ever wins by one vote...

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

How is this happening? Because people believe for some reason that Bush is honest and is doing his best and they can trust him. I have no idea why. I read (maybe in a New York Times article?) that some people actually do believe that Clinton withheld information about terrorism from Bush when the transition happened--which, according to the facts as I understand them, is the opposite of what really happened. I think we already do feel demoralized and close to giving up. At least I do.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

A lot of people (like in the 30-40% range) apparently believe we did find WMDs in Iraq. So now a hegemon that runs the entire world is based in a citizenry that is unbelievably ignorant of major news, let alone the nuances of the places and peoples we rule. There's no way such an order can last for very long. But politically, yeah, people have just decided that Dubya's neanderthal grunts mean he must be without guile.

The real point is that as long as we are talking about Dubya's character, etc., he will be reelected. He presents this enigma that people are fascinated to dissect.

[sethg]

See my blog regarding the "Bush is going to win" panic. I think the election is still Kerry's to lose, although at this point I wouldn't be surprised if he bobbled it. The real places to watch are the state-by-state map and the meta-analysis.

Also, I suspect that the Democrats will do better at voter turnout this year than in 2000, and the Republicans will do worse. If Bush had a powerful base of grass-roots support, he wouldn't be making people sign loyalty pledges in order to get admitted to his speeches.

[sanpaku.livejournal.com]

Hey, no panic on my part -- I've been saying this for months. Also it's very difficult to keep track of these polls because the Dave Leip page (which I put in my post) has a different set of results than the poll page you link to. I would say that I haven't yet seen a poll giving Kerry a lead in WV, and CO is probably not going to Kerry. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, last I've seen, are tied or slightly Bush-leaning. So that puts things right back... to Florida. And we know how that goes.

It's unnerving that the election could well turn on some kind of last-minute fluke, like Kerry wears a bad tie in the debates and goes down three points. I mean, quagmire, deficits, job losses, extremist policy -- and this is still a tied electorate? What could it possibly take?

I agree with you that it seems anecdotally that there will be better Democratic motivation this time around. The loyalty-pledge thing, though, I just take as an indication of the Republicans' ironclad desire to stay on message at all costs. Not counting "nutcake Zell," who was a Democrat after all, they're pretty good at it. Yeah, underlying my feeling is the sense that when the chips are down, Republicans run a better campaign. Give credit where it's due.

[msmidge.livejournal.com]

Do you think they'd run a better campaign if it didn't include dishonesty and dirty tricks? I know that people claim that both sides are dirty and dishonest, but I don't think it's true equally for both sides. For example, I haven't heard of any secret phone campaigns on behalf of Democrats that tell voters that the opponent has an illegitimate black child or is secretly gay or whatever.

[librarygrrl.livejournal.com]

I'm glad I could provide some balm to soothe your troubled mind.