blevkog

All Bush needs to do now is admit that his invisible friend "Bobo the Clown" helped him win the election too (and maybe helped him learn to tie his shoes too). Bush is the president. Why? is it because he is smart or is it because Umericans are very stupid. Considering what comes out of that mouth of his (besides semidigested pablum (sp?)), I am leaning or rather falling heavily toward stupid Umericans who fall for this kind of drivel. My two cents - 1.66 cents US.

Hey Paul,

I don't think it's fair to blame the electoral victories of the Republicans on "stupid voters" because many smart people, my late father-in-law being one of them, voted for Bush. I can't say that I agree with that, but I did predict anticipate a Republican victory.

In retrospect, here is what I think happened and why I think it's going to happen again in 2008.

First, tactically the Republicans are very good at splitting the voting population up into distinct groups using wedge issues. Contentious issues like abortion rights are really good for mobilizing large groups of voters, apparently on one side of the argument only. For instance, young voters (18 - 29) only turned out at 50%, many of whom would likely have been pro-choice on the abortion issue, but a far higher percentage of Christian voters turned out to essentially vote against abortion on demand.

That is the Republicans skill at winning - it's more or less social redistricting.

They also realized that the way to win the election was not to go for the centre-block voters, rather to polarize the argument, get everyone riled, and grab the right.

What about the Democrats uncanny skill at losing? What did they do in 2004? I'm sure they wanted to win over the soft Republicans in the centre, but just like previous elections, instead of clearly defining themselves and what they believed in, they tried to win voters on piecemeal issues. They tried to be like the Republicans on defense (what the fuck does "right war, wrong time" mean?) and then did not clearly lay out what they wanted to do on other issues because they were afraid to use words like "public health care" that might offend Fox News and the NASCAR set.

The result was predictable - the choice for the electorate was Bush or flat Bush Lite, and Bush won. No biggie.

And they are going to do the same damn thing again in 2008, because every day I see Hillary Clinton out there trying to be a bit of a Democrat and Bush with a bush at the same time. She is pro-Iraq war because that makes her look strong on defense and then she's telling an African-American group that the House of Representatives is "run like a plantation" to make her look sympathetic and tough to the Left.

The result will naturally be an electorate confused by who she is and she will lose to whoever the Republicans run.

That's just assuming she's going to be the nominee, which is not an entirely safe assumption. She is certainly going to be a front-runner in any case and the ultimate winner, DLC-stamped for shipping to Defeat, DC, will be just like her.

Hey Kev,
I should clarify of what I had said. I offered two questions with no apparent middle ground when I should have. I know that there are smart Americans out there (I have some family down there, too!)and by the points you clearly made about why the repubs won (and will win again) will manipulate the voters (smart Bush and entourage/spin doctors). You also reminded us about the Umerican voter turnout for the last election ... 50%. Anyone who does not vote, in my opinion, is a Stupid Umerican. So after seeing your arguments, I stand by what I said except for the last statement where I should have said something in the line of Americans get what they deserve, a manipulative con artist during elections and a pablum spewing moron after the elections (common dual personality for most politicians don't you think?)

But even that is still an oversimplification, Paul - saying 50% of Americans are stupid because they didn't vote really isn't fair - if all I'm given is a choice between 2 equally unpalatable candidates, why should I bother to go through the trouble of first registering, and then actually voting? 50% turnout actually isn't bad - I don't think the turnout in the last Federal election was much better, and we had a. a much bigger choice of parties, and b. an extremely politizing issue (the Gomery Inquiry)
I think Kevin's summed up the Democrat's problems precisely - rather than give a coherent message, the Dems are trying to be 'The Party of All Things' in a pathetic attempt to piece together enough disparate entities to win an election. I commend to you Thomas Frank's 'What's the Problem with Kansas?' for a cogent breakdown on how the Republicans have managed to win the Heartlands, once a Democratic stronghold, with a message that speaks to the cultural fears of the powerless.

Dan, Paul,

Interesting discussion we have going here - I live for this stuff - keep it up!

Just three things to add to the argument.
1) The overall American turnout in 2004 was actually 60%; the 50% that I cited was for one specific demographic.
2) Compare this to our previous two elections - 62% (2004) and 65% (2006) - we don't stack up any better.
3) Michael Moore talks about the problems with voter turnout as being a sympton of a disease of the system. That there is no real choice offered essentially pushes people away from the ballot box. His likens voting to going o a restaurant. If you go into a restaurant and find only two things on the menu - burger and burger, neither with options, you eventually get sick of burger and stop going.

I would modify the analogy slightly and say that we have burger and mystery-burger-like-patty-formed-thing on the menu today.

Which do you prefer?

This is a good thread.
1) I sit corrected on the Voter Turnout depending on which numbers you research it ranges between 50-60% (60% appears to be the more accurate because it takes into account that convicts in jail are ineligible to vote in the US ... I am not sure what the law is in Can.) Regardless, people who do not vote still have no right to complain about anything political. Now I would like to throw this out to you who are more savvy on the American electorial system. I checked out the "primaries" (I am not sure how that works) and looking at their voter turnout and found that the highest turnout was around 44% and the average was less than 20%. Please let me know if I am assuming correctly but don't the primaries help select who will be able to run for president in the final election? If I am correct, this would mean the restaurant (using Michael Moore's analogy) offered many other choices (better? I don't know) but the voting population just didn't bother checking them out, which revalidates my earlier point. If I am incorrect, please enlighten me.
2) Yes, we, Canada, are not much better in the voting department and yes, Canada has stupid people too and they may not complain about anything political either!

3)Dan, is this an oversimplification? maybe. However, with the system riddled with problems, many of which are very difficult for you or I to solve. However, one of these problems in voter turnout. We can do something about that. We can simply go to the poll station and spend a few minutes of your day to pick the lesser of two(three or more) evils.

But, Paul, you or I or Kev going to the polling station and voting does nothing to address the problem of low voter turnout because we aren't part of the problem - I have always voted in any and all elections held since I was 18, whether federal, provincial, municipal or even the Referendum Newfoundland held on Denominational Education. And I've always made an effort to at least get a basic understanding of the issues involved. And I suspect, that you guys are the same.

What I meant by 'oversimplification' and I stand by it, was your statement 'anyone who does not vote, in my opinion is a stupid Umerican'. Maybe 'oversimplification' isn't the best word - 'overgeneralization' might be more appropriate.

What's the solution? I don't know - I'm not overly enamoured of mandatory voting, since I don't think you can legislate civic responsibility.

BTW, convicts can vote in Canada - it was a Supreme Court decision a few years back. I won't comment on that - that might be a topic for a future post

Very interesting responses, gentlemen!

Paul, on the primaries in the US; yes, they are the elections in which all registered voters for a particular party can go and choose who they want as their party's nominee for president. I have never seen numbers for turnout in these, because I've never looked for them, but those that you site don't surprise me at all.

The whole primary system is weird to begin with. Holding a vote to pick your nominee is all well and good, but why they don't just do it all across the country at the same time rather than this travelling roadshow is beyond me. Makes for more CNN coverage, I assume.

Something germaine to this discussion that I didn't mention is the role of the media. The mass media is how you get your message to market, and that's really what an election is - an auction for a set of ideas. If you have more dollars to get more time and better advertisers, you have a way better chance of spinning your ideas more frequently and in better light than if you don't. Only entrenched powers-that-be have the kind of money to establish this kind of media presence. Thus, the media itself makes it harder to produce change in an election.

I have alluded to this in previous posts on the NCC and what they really mean by "more freedom".

In my eyes, it should be illegal to give money to political parties. Instead, develop some mechanism for providing media time and an allowance for advertising to all registered parties. I know it wouldn't be simple, but it is the only way to level the playing field.

Kev,

Re: the primary timings - I think it's a holdover from the old days before Mass Media, when Politicians would have to travel the country by rail or horse.

Dan,
Sounds about right. However, they don't run elections that way, and I'm not so sure that they ever did.