Bush strength going into convention- Page 2

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/13/04 at 6:56pm

thibodeaux - it is certainly understandable that we as gay people can have such a hugely violent reaction to Bush based on his actions of the last few months. However, I for one am not convinced that his actions are actually born of his personal convictions, but rather a callous and calculated political maneuver. His beating of the ammendment drum was a play to his base, but one that he also knew (and everyone else did, as well) would never pass through congress. In other words, it could be a way to have it both ways for him. There is some evidence that he doesn't deplore gays in his personal life - Laura admitted as much in interviews. I say all this not as an excusal - for in my Utopian vision there really isn't one - but as a way not to lose all hope if he is indeed re-elected. For if Papa has a valid point, this 'push' against us may subside after the election.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/14/04 at 2:28pm

D--and THAT makes it all better? Oh, well now that I know that Bush loves fags, I can forgive him for the hell he has caused us. Oh, I feel much better. "4 more years!"

He is a bigot and anyone who supports anti-gay laws is a bigot. Plain and simple.

I have "friends" from college who do not support gay marriage. Others from my college have "lots of gay friends", but do not support gay marriage. When I found this out, I told them flat out that you can NOT be my "friend" if you do not support my life and my rights. I am not put on this earth to make you laugh. To help you pick out clothes. Or to listen to you whine about your boyfriend.

These same people that were sluts, drug users, goth/pagan, etc. in college theatre with me are now married with kids and go to church--and have the audacity to hide behind their religion to tell me why I shouldn't have the right to get married. Knowing better about gays and lesbians (or so I thought), they didn't have to choose a church that was anti-gay, nor did they have to choose to accept anti-gay preaching. But they did. They are not my friends.

And neither is Dubya.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/14/04 at 7:46pm

jrb - not to imply that you didn't, but I was wondering if you read through to the end of my post? I tried to make it clear that I am in no way implying an excusal. I am simply trying to avoid the feeling of hopelessness that some seem to feel will be inevitable should he win. And make no mistake, it's entirely possible that he will - and choices will have to be made as to how to move forward from there.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/14/04 at 7:54pm

DGrant, here is another good electoral college estimate site. New polls are factored in weekly, and it shows percentages, which states are strongly, weakly or barely for each candidate, and what the latest poll is for each state.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

right now it has Kerry 327 to Bush 211

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/14/04 at 11:49pm

as papa basically stated, there will be hell to pay. Because if Bush does take us to the next level of anti-gay America, you better believe it is going to get "loud up in here".

Teresa was right: "...4 more years of hell".

But, I do not believe in my gut that Kerry will lose. That's MY opinion.

[LongIsland Grl]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:03am

Exactly who do they poll when they come up with these numbers? Random people? I don't trust these polls. I just can't believe that Americans like to be lied too... Updated On: 8/15/04 at 12:03 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:06am

I find it beautifully ironic that the same electoral college that gives any justification to Bush's being elected is the same one currently showing a clear win for Kerry despite neck in neck polls!

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:10am

jrb - the 'clear win' electorally is simply projection. And, LongIslandGirl - there are many Americans who were sick of being lied to by Mr. Clinton. Simply because we view the situation differently doesn't mean they do.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:12am

then, in that case, why are the GOPs crybabying that Dems are trying to crucify Bush when they tried to do the same thing to Clinton? Let alone the HUGE DIFFERENCE in what each President has lied about?

[LongIsland Grl]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:17am

I can respect that people had a BIG problem with Clinton (I personally LOVED him). The thing that bothers me about Bush is the great loss of young life that this country has had to suffer because of his decision to invade Iraq. I was in the World Trade Center on 9/11 and the fact that Mr. Bush is using the lives of people that I knew PERSONALLY as a war cry really pisses me off. Updated On: 8/15/04 at 12:17 AM

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:19am

Well, the thing is, it's that very thing that many feel Bush is actually addressing. And jrb - the world of politics really hasn't changed at all - it's still just a game to those who choose to play it. Which is why it's difficult for people like IslandGirl and the rest of us who look at life in human terms.

[LongIsland Grl]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 12:23am

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 9:44am

jrb actor, did you look at the electoral vote predictor site I posted? Remember, it's winner take all, by state. So nationally the polls may be neck and neck, but when broken down by state, if a candidate is ahead by a few percentage points those electoral votes are put into his column, until a new poll changes the percentage. And the map clearly shows which states are strongly for each candidate and which are less certain. For example, Kerry has NY 53% to 35%, and Bush has Texas 55%-37%. Neither of those are likely to shift enough to switch. On the other hand, Pennsylvania is listed as weak Kerry, at 51%-43%, and Colorado is weak Bush 48%-43%. And the "barely" states are those who have a less than 5% difference between the candidates. There are 6 "barely" Bush states, and 8 "barely" Kerry states.

It is a really fascinating site, if you are interested in the election at all. The graph link at the bottom of the page is worth checking too.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 10:11am

Sunfish - this is the prediction site that Papa referenced as well. I am intrigued by the 'votemaster' that runs the site. He claims to work diligently to only deal with established and reputable polls to formulate his maps and predictions (even though an admitted Kerry supporter.) I also noted that the election site he referenced for strong Bush supporters links HIS site for electoral prediction - that's a good sign. It's certainly a comprehensive presentation. The Rasmussen I look at only deals with non-swing states, so this will be good to see the fluctuations of those battlegrounds.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 10:23am

No, I actually posted it twice...I know sometimes people don't bother to scroll back to look for a link. And I had it up in another window so I could pull my example %'s, so it wasn't any trouble. It does seem very comprehensive, and he is using legitimate polls, as far as I can tell.

The thing about polls, though, is that they survey the same pie all the time. I'd like to know how many first-time voters there will be and how they will vote. Since 50% of the people eligible to vote, don't, it could really throw all politicians in turmoil if all the eligible voters showed up. I'd love to see it. What chaos! Suddenly beyond the 25% of the population that is each party's comfortable base, they would suddenly have to court 2 times more that number. Not to mention the possibilities of 3 party candidates. My head is reeling.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 10:34am

There has been a great deal of discussion about the voter turnout. I haven't seen anything yet that leads one to think that the trend of American apathy will be changed. I do have some interest in what might happen in Florida because of the 200 election.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 1:46pm

Sunfish: Yes, I looked at the site. I have even bookmarked it. I don't understand what you think I missed. I quite clearly understand the site and the electoral college. I just dislike the electoral college--even if it is what is (and has been) giving Kerry the edge.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 1:50pm

Well, as in so many things, we misunderstand the real foundation of our country. We're not really democratic, we really follow the old Roman model of a Republic; electing officials (that's a democratic method) who then make decisions for us.
I mean, pure democracy is one of those things that works so well on paper...but imagine if every single thing our country did had to be voted on by the entire population. We'd never get anything done.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 2:03pm

Not in this case do I agree with you. I think the President should be elected by popular vote. I have always been disgusted that my votes in Texas did not count towards Clinton and Gore. And, it even disgusts me that Papa's vote will not count towards Bush here in New York. They don't with an all or nothing system.

I might be willing to accept the Electoral College if a state's electoral votes could be broken down so that, for example, Texas were 18 electoral votes for Bush, 14 for Kerry and 2 for Nader.

I feel that THAT would be a better way to represent the people. And, then, even Nader would be given credit for any electorates he wins.

Updated On: 8/15/04 at 02:03 PM

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 2:04pm

The only problem with that, JRB, is that it would be simpler to just throw out the college and have a massive popular election. Much simpler, anyway.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/15/04 at 2:08pm

I would accept either. But, I do not think the current system is fair.

I realize that usually it is a moot point. The President usually clearly wins both the electoral college and the popular vote. But 2000 and this year puts a spotlight on how the current system does not truly reflect the country.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 1:55am

jrb, sorry I misunderstood you. I don't know what I thought you were saying! Perhaps confusing the electoral college itself with the predictor. Who knows. Those brains cells are dead.

I agree, I think the electoral college is an idea well past it's prime. Back in the days when a village voted and a guy got on his horse and rode 5 days to vote for President, it made sense, but in this day of instant communication it is not only moot but definitely devisive. When people see their state will go for one candidate or another, they just don't want to bother to vote, and when the popular vote and the electoral vote are different it definitely breeds distrust and again, eventual apathy.

Updated On: 8/18/04 at 01:55 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 2:08am

Thank you! MUCH has changed since those days when it was created. MUCH.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 2:10am

again, though, I have to point to the fact that our country is really a republic of states, hence the reason that states cast their own separate votes for President.
It's really just one of the separations of power, along with an equal Senate and an unbalanced House that is designed to give the actual STATE itself collective power.
Of course, as our national government has continued to centralize power and steal state power little by little over time, it really does seem to be a natural progression to eliminate the electoral college.

[Sunfish]

Posted: 8/18/04 at 4:50am

I just can't buy the states power argument when the the percentages within not just one but several, even numerous, states can be only 1% apart. What it does is disenfranchise half the state. That doesn't give the states power. It just opens it up to corruption.