Stolen from theferrett
Bush didn't win, Kerry lost
The first time, I raised my eyebrows and said, "Well, apparently they just didn't get it."
The second time, I left a comment.
But the fourth time someone I knew made a post on Bush's sinking approval ratings, I knew I had to say something. They were all saying the same thing, yet didn't seem to understand the causes. And so I must mention it.
The post these lovely people have made goes something like this:
"Bush is down to 37% approval, hanh? Well, maybe all the 53% of assholes who voted him in are thinking twice about their vote! That's 16% of people who were too stupid to see how lousy Bush was right off the bat!"
Except that point makes a major error: it assumes that people were thrilled with Bush's performance going into the voting booth. But they weren't voting out of an incredible love for their current Prez; Bush got elected with one of the lowest approval ratings for a reelected President ever. He wasn't above 50%, even when he won.
That's right; people all over America were shrugging and going, "All right, I guess it's Bush."
The assumption that every last man who voted for Bush ran into the voting booth screaming, "Ah wants teh bash me some more faggits and burn the non-Jesus lovers, so ah'm voting Bush all the way!" is just fucking wrong. There were a lot of people who were fence-sitters, and ultimately broke for Bush.
The next wave of frothing spittle immediately surges forth: How could they? OMG THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT BUSH HE SO SUCKED EVERYTHING GAH!
Here's your problem: when you have a bad choice, a bad alternative is even worse. If you're having problems with a cockroach infestation and some guy says, "I can fix your problem! By filling your house with chemicals so toxic that even the insects can't survive it, I'll drive the bugs right out!"
"But won't that poison me?"
"What, are you some kind of cockroach lover?"
Truth is, Kerry was a terrible candidate. He had a President with horrid ratings, and he couldn't close the deal. There's any number of reasons for that - he did flip-flop. He was stiff and inhuman-looking, and kept trying to be buddy-buddy when he clearly wasn't an average guy. He was too slow to react to the charges against him - and when he did he did it with the Vulcanlike caution of the pollster, instead of the natural reaction of a man who's just been attacked. Yeah, Bush smeared him, but Kerry was so fundamentally unlikable and clueless as to how to react that it stuck.
Kerry failed because he didn't get across his central message, mainly because he didn't have one. He had a kind of warehouse of ideas that he handed out depending on what was important, but I think it's critical to note that he didn't even come out as the anti-war candidate until September.
People sensed that caution. They were worried about him pulling out of Iraq. That was a big deal, because even as people were becoming less thrilled about being there, they realized that just cutting and running would leave a huge mess that would bite us in the ass. They knew Bush would stay, even if he fucked it up, which was slightly better on the whole than just leaving.
And yes, Kerry said that he wouldn't leave, but people didn't believe him. They weren't wrong to believe that. You know why? Because every day, Bush says that he's pro democracy and for individual rights, and you don't believe him, either.
Kerry's character failed the test. And he lost the election.
Because he failed to provide what looked like a better alternative, people voted for Bush. I bet a lot of them weren't thrilled about it, any more than you lot were happy about Kerry.
Don't fucking lie. I was there. I watched you guys bitch about Bush, but most of you didn't know Thing One about Kerry aside from "He's not Bush." Kerry campaigners actually had to be warned that their main platform was not "He's not Bush," because a lot of them didn't actually know what Kerry stood for. They knew what Bush stood for, and they hated it, but they couldn't actually articulate how Kerry would make it better. (I actually had to start a series of posts for Kerry's positions because of that, because I liked some of his his policies if not the man.)
So let's posit an alternative timeline. Let's say that Kerry got voted in by, say, 3%... and right now, he's doing everything that his opponents accused him of. He's waffling on his priorities, he's looking at the polls and has promised a quick pullout from Iraq, and has no real plan to exit Iraq safely except for "Keep my approval ratings high."
The Bush supporters are sneering at you, saying, "Hey, you don't like Kerry now, huh? Remember, you were suckin' his dick in November! How dumb are you to have supported him?"
Your response would be twofold:
1) Hey, I wasn't thrilled about the guy. If I'd had a better alternative, I would have voted, but it's not like I thought he'd save us from all evil.
2) He's still doing a better job than Bush would have.
Remember that. The fault is not with the voter, but with the candidate - and this was Kerry's race to lose. He didn't connect with them, and he lost an election that should have been his. And there's no guarantee that things would be better had Super-Kerry been voted in.
Those 16% of people? I bet they were standing in the voting booth, muttering, "Jesus. Three hundred million people to choose from, and this is the best they could come up with?"
I know I was.
The first time, I raised my eyebrows and said, "Well, apparently they just didn't get it."
The second time, I left a comment.
But the fourth time someone I knew made a post on Bush's sinking approval ratings, I knew I had to say something. They were all saying the same thing, yet didn't seem to understand the causes. And so I must mention it.
The post these lovely people have made goes something like this:
"Bush is down to 37% approval, hanh? Well, maybe all the 53% of assholes who voted him in are thinking twice about their vote! That's 16% of people who were too stupid to see how lousy Bush was right off the bat!"
Except that point makes a major error: it assumes that people were thrilled with Bush's performance going into the voting booth. But they weren't voting out of an incredible love for their current Prez; Bush got elected with one of the lowest approval ratings for a reelected President ever. He wasn't above 50%, even when he won.
That's right; people all over America were shrugging and going, "All right, I guess it's Bush."
The assumption that every last man who voted for Bush ran into the voting booth screaming, "Ah wants teh bash me some more faggits and burn the non-Jesus lovers, so ah'm voting Bush all the way!" is just fucking wrong. There were a lot of people who were fence-sitters, and ultimately broke for Bush.
The next wave of frothing spittle immediately surges forth: How could they? OMG THERE WAS NOTHING GOOD ABOUT BUSH HE SO SUCKED EVERYTHING GAH!
Here's your problem: when you have a bad choice, a bad alternative is even worse. If you're having problems with a cockroach infestation and some guy says, "I can fix your problem! By filling your house with chemicals so toxic that even the insects can't survive it, I'll drive the bugs right out!"
"But won't that poison me?"
"What, are you some kind of cockroach lover?"
Truth is, Kerry was a terrible candidate. He had a President with horrid ratings, and he couldn't close the deal. There's any number of reasons for that - he did flip-flop. He was stiff and inhuman-looking, and kept trying to be buddy-buddy when he clearly wasn't an average guy. He was too slow to react to the charges against him - and when he did he did it with the Vulcanlike caution of the pollster, instead of the natural reaction of a man who's just been attacked. Yeah, Bush smeared him, but Kerry was so fundamentally unlikable and clueless as to how to react that it stuck.
Kerry failed because he didn't get across his central message, mainly because he didn't have one. He had a kind of warehouse of ideas that he handed out depending on what was important, but I think it's critical to note that he didn't even come out as the anti-war candidate until September.
People sensed that caution. They were worried about him pulling out of Iraq. That was a big deal, because even as people were becoming less thrilled about being there, they realized that just cutting and running would leave a huge mess that would bite us in the ass. They knew Bush would stay, even if he fucked it up, which was slightly better on the whole than just leaving.
And yes, Kerry said that he wouldn't leave, but people didn't believe him. They weren't wrong to believe that. You know why? Because every day, Bush says that he's pro democracy and for individual rights, and you don't believe him, either.
Kerry's character failed the test. And he lost the election.
Because he failed to provide what looked like a better alternative, people voted for Bush. I bet a lot of them weren't thrilled about it, any more than you lot were happy about Kerry.
Don't fucking lie. I was there. I watched you guys bitch about Bush, but most of you didn't know Thing One about Kerry aside from "He's not Bush." Kerry campaigners actually had to be warned that their main platform was not "He's not Bush," because a lot of them didn't actually know what Kerry stood for. They knew what Bush stood for, and they hated it, but they couldn't actually articulate how Kerry would make it better. (I actually had to start a series of posts for Kerry's positions because of that, because I liked some of his his policies if not the man.)
So let's posit an alternative timeline. Let's say that Kerry got voted in by, say, 3%... and right now, he's doing everything that his opponents accused him of. He's waffling on his priorities, he's looking at the polls and has promised a quick pullout from Iraq, and has no real plan to exit Iraq safely except for "Keep my approval ratings high."
The Bush supporters are sneering at you, saying, "Hey, you don't like Kerry now, huh? Remember, you were suckin' his dick in November! How dumb are you to have supported him?"
Your response would be twofold:
1) Hey, I wasn't thrilled about the guy. If I'd had a better alternative, I would have voted, but it's not like I thought he'd save us from all evil.
2) He's still doing a better job than Bush would have.
Remember that. The fault is not with the voter, but with the candidate - and this was Kerry's race to lose. He didn't connect with them, and he lost an election that should have been his. And there's no guarantee that things would be better had Super-Kerry been voted in.
Those 16% of people? I bet they were standing in the voting booth, muttering, "Jesus. Three hundred million people to choose from, and this is the best they could come up with?"
I know I was.