If Kerry wins...

[August1991]

A friend asked me who I wanted to win in the US election. I said honestly that I didn't care. The United States is much bigger than its president who, after all, doesn't have much power - or rather, is usually prisoner by force of circumstance to defending the US constitution. (Both Kerry and Bush said as much during their debate.)

I continued, the principles of the US will endure whoever is President. Moreover, these two guys - Kerry and Bush - don't seem to be too nefarious or incompetent. History has produced far worse yet the US has survived.

[so the friend asked about my interest in the past Canadian federal election - "It's because it's your country?" No, I answered, it's because Canadian elections actually change things. Canada is unsettled and our federal government decides too much.]

[Neal.F.]

I think it would be a disaster if Kerry won. I really think he is a sock puppet of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

I would not be so concerned about a future under a Democrat president if it was somebody normal like a Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden or Gary Hart.

However,putting Kerry/Edwards into office would be tantamount to electing Jack Layton as president. Kerry is that far out in lala land.

A good indicator is the way Michael Moore and his socialist globalist froiends are rallying around the ticket, something they would not have done, at least not so enthusiatically for Biden, Lieberman, or one of the more middle of the road Democrats.

Jack Layton is a good analogy for how he would pursue domestic policy, and in terms of foreign policy, while a Kerry regime would amount to Jimmy Carter's second term by proxy..

With the Judiciary firmly in the hands of the left, Kerry could pursue a radical agenda on the home front. On the foreign side, while i am not convinced that anything would change in Iraq (to the dismay of the Moorites) I do think he would endanger US sovereignty by joining the Euroliberal International Criminal court (tantamount to abandining Israel) and subjugate the USA to the UN, and move us closer to global government.

I want the Democrats to go down to a major defeat. That is the only way that they will be convinced toi do a total hosecleaning, so that moderates can regain control of the party from the radical left, and it can again become a legitimate choice for an alternative governing party.

While I don't think I could ever vote for a Democrat (unless he/she was pro-life) I do think that any country that drifts toward one-party rule needs to make adjustments before it is too late. That's what it took to shake up the PCs and CA to get their act together here.

The Dems need to purge the radical left to be taken seriously again.

[Shakeyhands]

Is that you George? or is it Dick? or maybe its O'Reilly????

The Sky will fall huh.... yet the world will be saved! Good trade!

[I miss Reagan]

Is that you George? or is it Dick? or maybe its O'Reilly????

The Sky will fall huh.... yet the world will be saved! Good trade!

See you can't have reasonable dialogue with these Bush haters. There is no rationality nor reason to them.

Just as a sidenote, was happy to send off my wife's absentee vote for Bush/Cheney last night.

[Black Dog]

However,putting Kerry/Edwards into office would be tantamount to electing Jack Layton as president. Kerry is that far out in lala land.

"Talking points! Getcha G.O.P talking points heeyah!"

Tell me: what specific parts of Kerry's platform are so "out there"?

A good indicator is the way Michael Moore and his socialist globalist froiends are rallying around the ticket, something they would not have done, at least not so enthusiatically for Biden, Lieberman, or one of the more middle of the road Democrats

(Pssst...Moore initially endosed Wesley Clark for the Democratic nomination.) Progressive support for Kerry boils down to an Anybody But Bush approach. No "leftists" I know like Kerry, as he's seen as solidly estbalishment.

The biggest complaint among leftists is that there's essentially no differnce between the mainstream Democratic party and the core of moderate Republicans. What I find fascinating is the idea that a Yale-educated, wealthy political establishment player like Kerry can be tarred as "extreme", whil on the other side, folks like Rick Santorum are regarded as indicative of the Republican base. Scary.

With the Judiciary firmly in the hands of the left, Kerry could pursue a radical agenda on the home front. On the foreign side, while i am not convinced that anything would change in Iraq (to the dismay of the Moorites) I do think he would endanger US sovereignty by joining the Euroliberal International Criminal court (tantamount to abandining Israel) and subjugate the USA to the UN, and move us closer to global government.

Stand to recieve your barcode tattoo.

It's pretty safe to assume that kerry would govern like Clinton: pay lip service to the Democrat's traditionally liberal approach while still forwarding a conservative agenda. Sure you'd see some minor reforms in areas like health care (assuming they can get past the Republican dominated Houses), but on the majoprity of social, economic and foreign policy matters, a Kerry administration would not stray far from the traditional G.O.P agenda.

I want the Democrats to go down to a major defeat. That is the only way that they will be convinced toi do a total hosecleaning, so that moderates can regain control of the party from the radical left, and it can again become a legitimate choice for an alternative governing party.

How loco does one have to be to believe the Democrats are "radical"? I mean, who the hell would be in the middle of that particular political spectrum? Mussolini?

Progressives have been abandoning the party in droves for the very reason that they Dems have moved so far to the middle. By attempting to stand for everything, they end up standing for nothing. The Republicans have not shown any similar recitence and have given their party over to their radical fringe, the Christian right and the neocons.

[Neal.F.]

I miss Reagan too....

You got it, the Bush haters cannot be reasoned with . I rjoice every time i hear of a bush Cheney ballot being sent out!

Black Dog:

Kerry has the most liberal voting of any Senator.. even more so than Ted Kennedy. The second most Liberal Senator is none other than John Edwards.

Apart from his support for abortion (a la paul Martin) and gay marriage (he signed a letter along with Kenndy and the Mass. Congressman, in support of Equal Marriage, in spite of what he SAYS now) , he would sign the US on to the International Criminal court, and subjugate the US more to the UN than it already is. The Global test (take it here!)

is a very disturbing concept.

Apart from that he doesn't HAVE a policy except that which Terry Mcauliffe tells him to talk about on a prticular day.

However, It would not be anything like the Clintoon admin (which was a far cry from conservative) since kerry is THE most Liberal senator there is.

It seems to me that the moderate Dems have abandoned the party.

So what if Michael Moore supported Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is an ultra feminist pro-abort. Madonna suppored him too. Completely unprincipled.

[Black Dog]

Kerry has the most liberal voting of any Senator.. even more so than Ted Kennedy. The second most Liberal Senator is none other than John Edwards.

Nope.

Following are rankings and liberal scores since 1999.

2003: Kerry - 1st (96.5) Edwards - 4th (94.5)

2002: Kerry - 9th (87.3) Edwards - 31st (63.0) Edwards made the centrist list.

2001: Kerry - 11th (87.7) Edwards - 35th (68.2) Edwards almost tied with Lieberman.

2000: Kerry - 20th (77) Edwards - 19th (80.8) Rankings past 20 are not available nor are composite scores for all Senators, so Kerry is 21st or higher.

1999: Kerry - 16th (80.8) Edwards - 31st (72.2)

Average: Kerry - 12th (85.9) Edwards - 24th (75.7)

Now this paints a different picture. Certainly Kerry is a stalwart liberal (although probably not or barely a top 10 liberal), but he does hail from and represent one of the most liberal states. But Edwards is definitely a moderate Democrat (if you define that as somewhere in the ideological middle of the Democratic platform).

Apart from his support for abortion (a la paul Martin) and gay marriage (he signed a letter along with Kenndy and the Mass. Congressman, in support of Equal Marriage, in spite of what he SAYS now)

I don't find Kerry's stand to be all the principled. It seems he'll go whichever way the wind is blowing. SO in that sense he's not a liberal, but a politician.

he would sign the US on to the International Criminal court, and subjugate the US more to the UN than it already is. The Global test (take it here!)

is a very disturbing concept.

WHoa! Put down the Turner Diaries and back away.

Anyone who thinks the US is subservient to the UN is bonkers. The U.S. has consistently ignored, downplayed and run around the UN on issues such as Israel and the Iraq War. As for the "global test" Kerry mentioned, it's pretty clear that the message was that any decision to go to war should only be made after a global (that is: comprehensive) evaluation of whether or not such a course of action is necessary.

It seems to me that the moderate Dems have abandoned the party. So what if Michael Moore supported Wesley Clark. Wesley Clark is an ultra feminist pro-abort. Madonna suppored him too. Completely unprincipled.

Well, you're suppositions are wrong.Moderate centrists are the beating heart of the Democrats. Unfortunately, moderate centrism is fundamentally unprincipled. Your point about Wesley Clark actually confirms what I'm saying.

[Neal.F.]

That is still avery Liberal voting record. When you are more Liberal than Babara Boxer there's a problem. liberalism is the one consistent of Kerry's career.

And yes he is very unprincipled. I have trouble understanding how anybody would vote for him. Howard Dean may be a left wing extremist, but one thing I can say for him is that he IS the genuine article. ...and fortunately unelectable.

Would somebody please tell me how it is MODERATE to support the slaughter of the unborn...or MODERATE to support the desecration of the institution of marriage to include tose who commit unnatural acts? Since when is it MODERATE to support Euthanasia? or stem cell research or cloning?

If you ask me, Conservatives are the moderates, and if you look at the positions they take, liberal Democrats are the radical extremists.

I could ask the same question about the liberal appropriation of the word "progressive".

[Black Dog]

And yes he is very unprincipled. I have trouble understanding how anybody would vote for him. Howard Dean may be a left wing extremist, but one thing I can say for him is that he IS the genuine article. ...and fortunately unelectable.

You even answered your own question: no one votes for politicians who are principled because principled politicans are deemed "unelectable". So you get stuck with amoral suits like Bush and Kerry.

Would somebody please tell me how it is MODERATE to support the slaughter of the unborn...or MODERATE to support the desecration of the institution of marriage to include tose who commit unnatural acts? Since when is it MODERATE to support Euthanasia? or stem cell research or cloning?

When you frame your inquiries with hysterical hyperbole, you can't expect to be taken seriously.

If you ask me, Conservatives are the moderates, and if you look at the positions they take, liberal Democrats are the radical extremists.

I would posit it's your own personal political spectrum that needs a tune up.

[The Cyber Menace]

What's at stake here is two very different visions of America's place in the world, and the place of all sovereign nations in fact, and American domestic policy - taxation being the most crucial.

To simply say that it doesn't matter who becomes president because America will endure is a bit shallow, isn't it?

Why do you think both sides are slugging it out as hard as they are? Because it doesn't matter which candidate wins?

Two definitions of America are being offered. Only one can survive this election.

[Hirano]

I think it would be a disaster if Kerry won.  I really think he is a  sock puppet of Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter.

You can't actually be serious? Are we talking about the same Jimmy Carter? You mean like the Jimmy Carter who won the Noble Peace Prize? The same Jimmy Carter who was pretty instrumental in the Camp David accord?

I will agree with you however, that the president, while appearing to run the actual show is actually influenced quite heavily by his cabinet and staff of advisors.

Personally, I would be pretty happy to see a president take advice from a man whose foriegn policy is based on other ideas then ensuring contracts for large businesses.

Not to mention, I think it would be dandy to have a president who actually had been to another country at least once before he took office.

No wonder the world is mad at Americans...

[August1991]

Kerry 291, Bush 247

US electoral votes based on State polls

IMV, the site above is the best way to know. With an election so close, Electoral College votes and state polling is the only way to go. It's close.

Apparently, Kerry is no McGovern. He's not even a Gore. So, let's see what happens! This is true democracy.

[Guest eureka]

August!

The count is intresting. I wonder, thouhj, whether your figures are typos or something I do not see on the map. I hope whichever it is the correct figure holds up.

I also would be curious about the date of the polling - I don't seem to find it in the link. A week or so ago, I saw, in some paper, that Bush was a few votes ahead in the electoral college count.

Your source seems to be a little later and may indicate some movement.

[August1991]

Now it's Kerry 271, Bush 257, Tied 10.

Minnesota (?) is tied.

I think Pennsylvania and Michigan will go Kerry. New Mexico doesn't matter (only 5 votes).

The big unknown is Florida with its 27 votes. (The tally above gives it to Kerry.)

So, it looks like we'll have 2000 all over again.

[Newfie Canadian]

That's strange considering the latest polls I saw today had Bush ahead. But I guess that's the Electoral College for you.

Florida sure is going to be interesting.

[August1991]

Excellent quote.

"You get the feeling that if George Bush had been president during other periods in American history," Kerry said, "he would have sided with the candle lobby against electricity, the buggy-makers against cars, and typewriter companies against computers."

Toronto Star

[August1991]

This site comes from Paul Wells and it shows Bush ahead of Kerry. Note that there's no arbitrage available between the overall winner and the winner in Florida. With 27 ECV, Florida will be the decider.

Election Market

This market is now giving a 60% chance to Bush and a 40% chance to Kerry.

[kimmy]

Excellent quote.

Toronto Star

Not exactly on topic, but from that same article,

The National Rifle Association also took aim at Kerry, saying he is no friend of sport shooters in the United States, pointing to his strong push for a renewed ban on assault weapons.

... what kind of sports-shooting requires assault weapons?

-kimmy

[August1991]

Not exactly on topic, but from that same article,

True, but I liked the quote, it's from Kerry and I figured this thread is the dumping ground for US election comments.

... what kind of sports-shooting requires assault weapons?

The same thought ran through my mind when I read that. Then I figured guys in 'camo' go out with AK-47s and essentially make big pumpkins disappear. I dunno.