tongodeon's Election Screed

[tongodeon]

ronebofh I think the Democrats lost the election way back in 2002, when they were rolling over for the president in both the House and the Senate. How could they run against him in 2004 after doing exactly what he wanted them to do?

wilwheaton I'm stunned, and at a total loss for words this morning ... Apparently, my country holds a fundamentally different set of

Comments

[silmaril]

Making collection of posts on election. Mind if this goes on there?

[tongodeon]

If I minded, I wouldn't have posted it publically in the first place.

I may have goatsed Ron Jeremy and lost a job for it, but at least I learned SOMETHING.

[sambushell]

In other words, this is sufficiently in-con-se-quent-ial? Mmm.

[palecur]

The closest I ever got to actually engaging any Bush supporters in rational conversation this election was discussing whether Supreme Court judgements against Bush can be considered legitimate evidence that Bush is acting unconstitutionally.

...I thought we had a pretty productive discussion on your resume drafts :(

Was I irrational?

The resume had a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which I don't consider a deal-killer for political communication (it's not a white paper). There were a lot of things that were included as if they were damning without a lot of explanation as to why they were damning (low press conferences are assumed to be a Mark of Evil for some reason), and there was a lot of stuff that the Administration just plain wasn't responsible for or was only tenuously associated with (dollar drops 30

[tongodeon]

The resume had a lot of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which I don't consider a deal-killer for political communication (it's not a white paper). There were a lot of things that were included as if they were damning without a lot of explanation as to why they were damning

I admit that "almost every major economic indicator deteriorated during Bush's term" is fallacious "correlation not causality", but you're throwing a very large baby out along with a very small amount of bathwater. There are 26 major bullet points in the Bush Resume (not counting sub-points). By my reckoning only two of them are post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacies: "30% dollar collapse" and "every major economic indicator". I'll allow that you're free to reject 7% of the resume for this reason, but you still have 93% to contend with.

The main foreign policy attack -- 'the war has been run poorly' -- isn't a good enough attack, even though it's true, when the opposition seems reluctant to admit there's a war on at all. I'd rather have my war run poorly than

minor retraction

[tongodeon]

Upon further reflection in the shower, "disconfirmation bias" doesn't strictly apply. Disconfirmation bias provides increased criticism to theories which contradict his beliefs (which is a common reaction to the resume) but that's a separate issue from what's going on when bias exaggerates the percentage of conflicting data the subject thinks he's discounted.

[wisn]

I'd take issue with "Liberals lack pragmatism..." I don't think the populist pundits on the left cleave to left-liberal stereotypes, by and large. The owner of DailyKos is avidly pro-gun rights, and and Michael Moore is, controversially, pro-gun as well, perhaps less avidly. I can think of other examples among my circle of friends but no need to hammer on that. We've got our recycling system down pat hereabouts and the advocates have gone on to other eco issues. And we like PETA mostly because the idea of trying to stop hunters by jumping up in front of their loaded guns is really funny

[tongodeon]

I don't think the populist pundits on the left cleave to left-liberal stereotypes, by and large. The owner of DailyKos is avidly pro-gun rights

Exceptions, even high-profile exceptions, do not disprove the trend. You get a lot more raised eyebrows if you show up to a Kerry fundraiser with an NRA hat than you do showing up to a Bush fundraiser with a pro-choice Tshirt.

and and Michael Moore is, controversially, pro-gun as well, perhaps less avidly.

I'm not even going to attempt to discuss Michael Moore, or the implication that he represents anyone other than himself on either side. I've already written about Michael Moore, and usually spend a lot more time agreeing with his detractors than defending his positions.

[wisn]

I'm no fan of Moore either. He's a twat, but he's a successful twat, I don't mean financially. He's got the audience the Dems have been trying to get engaged in politics for over a decade. Moore is doing something nobody else on the left is doing, which is framing the positions of the left from his audience's point of view. Instead of establishing a proposal for universal health care and why it would be better than the current system, Moore says, "Hey, have you had to go see your doctor lately? Got treated like a piece of meat, didn't you? Did you think that when this, and this, and this happened, it was purely a bad day there? And those bills, whoa, you can't even tell if you've paid up or not. I've got something here that says this is standard procedure for them..." and delivers it like a stand-up routine without attempting humor

[gauntleteer]

With luck, the Democrats have learned that gun rights is an issue you can and will lose the entire election on (senate and house races in 1996 and beyond tend to show this) ... if the party comes around and embraces the Libertarian NRA members, and there are a lot of us, by basically endorsing the following, I could switch my alliegiance in a heartbeat

[tongodeon]

With luck, the Democrats have learned that gun rights is an issue you can and will lose the entire election on

The thing is: I haven't seen ANY indication that gun rights contributed to the vote in any meaningful way. Concensus seems to be that the big election play seems to be religion and "values". George's biblical references and "may God continue to bless our country" messages turned out Christians all over the US, particularly in Florida where 6 million more voted than did in 2000. George's simple 'we are right' message rather than Kerry's complicated message played well also. Gay marriage propositions in counties all over the US also gave otherwise apathetic voters something to turn out in opposition to.

I mean, I'd *like* to see Democrats have a good reason to start supporting gun rights, but it doesn't seem like a huge factor this time around.

[gauntleteer]

I was more referring to how gun rights has played out since the '94 AWB was passed. It's been credited with unseating a number of senators and reps, perhaps not so obviously this year but for about 10 years it has been a factor.

My main point was that the Democrats, in re-inventing themselves which I believe needs to occur, could take a more libertarian position on gun control to attract people like me: socially liberal, fiscally conservative, and vehemently opposed to anything that can be seen as restricting liberties. Bush loses on two of those factors, Kerry loses on two as well.

The Libertarian Party pulled about 0.3% of the vote which really illustrates that people are unwilling to vote their conscience when it comes to president. It will take one of the two duocracy parties to radically change their position on personal liberties (and I mean across the board, not just pot or abortion) to significantly attract true libertarians that won't vote Libertarian for president.

[tongodeon]

The Libertarian Party pulled about 0.3% of the vote which really illustrates that people are unwilling to vote their conscience when it comes to president. It will take one of the two duocracy parties to radically change their position on personal liberties (and I mean across the board, not just pot or abortion) to significantly attract true libertarians that won't vote Libertarian for president.

This year San Francisco implemented Ranked Choice Voting, which seems to have been a big success. You might try to promote this in your city: if people know they can vote Libertarian, then Republican, then Democrat and their Libertarian vote won't be "wasted" you'll see third party votes skyrocket.

[caitlinburke]

There's one positive side to the election, I suppose. I don't have to hear anyone snark "technically Bush isn't the president since he didn't win the election" anymore.

You're not out of the woods yet!