american politics

[deathboy]

Another reason why Obama is the better candidate (well, kinda, or more that his supporters are marginally less twattish than Clinton's):

"Recent polls suggest that more than a quarter of Mrs Clinton's supporters would defect to the Republicans if Mr Obama wins. Almost a fifth of his voters threaten to switch if she becomes the Democrat nominee."

1/4 and 1/5 of democrats would go republican if their democrat didn't win??

You've got to be fucking nuts. I'm such a strong supporter, I'll change my whole ideology out of spite if my horse don't win the popularity contest, yeehaw!

Fucking politics blah blah fucking americans grumble blah rant GOOD MORNING WORLD.

I have rehearsals today. I shouldn't be in a bad mood as it will be fun, but it's also The Morning. Blah.

¬_¬

Comments

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

He fucked things up by being incompetent, though - you don't need to bring his personality into it; just looking at his track record should be enough to show that he's an unreliable and unprofessional twit who's at best borderline-competent to be responsible for the contents of his own bladder, never mind a whole country. Were it not for the public support of his perceived "down-to-earth" personality, he wouldn't have gotten anywhere near power.

Eh, not really true. His personality was part of what attracted some people and repelled others, but ultimately, I think it was his penchant for religious platitudes and his campaigns' use of fearmongering ("Oh noes! The terrorists and homosex-shulz is gonna getcha!") that got him elected. That and Diebold.

Of course, the fact that a portion of the American public will vote for someone based on whether they like them rather than whether their policies make any bit of sense what-so-fucking-ever is a contributory issue. I'm curious to see what would happen if a high-profile celebrity founded a a party analogous to the Monster Raving Loony party over there, because you just know they'd do at least as well as Ralph Nader...

I think it's a misnomer to assume that people voted for Bush because they "like him." It may be a worse crime, ultimately, but I think a lot of Americans genuinely liked his policies, misguided as they may be. They liked his track record of putting a bazillion people to death in Texas. It's not so much that they're ignoring his policies, because they like his personality. It's that his personality and policies are akin to the way in which they think the world should be run. It's erroneous and ignorant, but it's more than just "Aw, I like that guy!"

[city-of-dis.livejournal.com]

The religious side of things can't be ignored in terms of getting him votes, certainly. I may be remembering wrong, but I had the impression at the time of the 2000 election that Bush was going for a "good ol' boy" presentation of himself, as an Average Guy that Joe Shmoe Public could relate to (and thus vote for). It wasn't the core reason for him to be voted in, but it was a part of it - hell, I remember there being an upswing in Al Gore's popularity after he kissed his wife at the end of some speech, on the basis that it showed the guy "had passion". Which is just about as horrifying as Tony Blair trying to leverage credibility/support on the basis of having been in a band as a student...

But you have to remember that those upswings in popularity, if they really exist, are based on really suspect polling practices. I think it's true that Americans responded to seeing more personality from Gore, and while I'm sure it's part of what influences the vote, I don't think it's as important as some are making it out to be. Sure, a lot of retardonaut Americans wanted to have a beer with Bush, but I bet that while they had that beer, they'd also want to hear him say "We gon' bomb us some A-rabs and give ya a tax cut!"

As for Bush's policies, you've got me there. The 2004 election was interesting to watch, in a rubbernecking sort of way, in that you had all these people saying they weren't going to vote for Bush for any of many reasons, and then a while later they were admitting that actually they did vote for him, because he was going to bring in tax breaks that would suit them. Which in and of itself is fine, only for the spending the preceding months talking about how awful he was and how they wouldn't vote for him...

Honestly, I still don't know what to make of the 2004 election. Something about it doesn't really add up at all. Well, a lot doesn't add up, truthfully.