A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to it's true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake.
- Thomas Jefferson, 1798
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Lowering the Bar: A Mandate for GWB?
Even as I am writing this there is a talking head (Joe Walkins, Republican Strategist) on CNN demanding that the Bush Administration has a mandate because “they won by three and a half million votes!”
I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.
In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.
So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.
Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.
But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.
Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:
2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford
How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”
I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.
Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.
Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?
I don’t have the time this morning to do the research but I am pretty sure it would take only a few minutes on-line to track down some quotes from 1996 and even 1992 talking about how Bill Clinton’s victories in those years did not constitute a mandate, though both margins in the popular vote far outweigh the margin of victory this year.
In fact, not counting the ugly stepchild of the 2000 election, the popular vote this year was the closest race since Jimmy Carter defeated Ford 28 years ago in the 1976 election by 1,682,790 votes.
So, I believe, according to Republican spin, just winning the popular vote is now a mandate for your platform.
Of course, the case could be made that the mandate comes from not only the Presidential election, but also from the Republican gains made in the House and Senate and in many state and local races too. It was the loss of Democrat seats in Congress that pretty much nixed the idea of Clinton having a mandate in 1996 when he won the popular vote by 8,203,602 votes.
But they are not. They are holding on to their mandate because 3,510,358 more people apparently voted for Bush.
Here are the margins of victory in the Popular Vote going back to 1976:
2004 – 3,510,358 – Bush over Kerry
2000 – 539,947 – Gore over Bush
1996 – 8,203,602 – Clinton over Dole
1992 – 5,805,344 – Clinton over Bush
1988 – 7,077,023 – Bush over Dukakis
1984 – 16,877,890 – Reagan over Mondale
1980 – 7,417,813 – Reagan over Carter
1976 – 1,682,790 – Carter over Ford
How come, every time a pundit starts going off about the Bush Administration’s 3.5 million vote mandate they are not immediately challenged with these numbers? Or have they been and I just haven’t noticed? This morning, the Democrat talking head, responding to Walkins’ near chant of a 3.5 million vote mandate for his team was pretty much left sitting there going, “there is no mandate. No there isn’t... There is not.”
I believe that most Democrats, when challenged with the fuzzy logic of these Republican spin artists, believe that the American public is intelligent enough to see the absurdity of the argument. And they are. But the Republicans base their strategy on Advertising and Marketing principals, which play on people’s psychology and make the facts mostly irrelevant.
Stay on message, repeat the message, and eventually, it will become the truth. And the media follows. A week after the election, a week of having every Republican spin artist in the country drilling the mandate message to the people and to the media, the conversation it turning into what the Bush Administration will do with their mandate, not if there is even one in the first place.
Imagine if the Democrats could get this focused, and if they, on top of this, were basing their arguments on fact and logic. Could the Republicans counter this?
Monday, November 08, 2004
Democracy in Distress Message Boards
I spent some time tonight posting some messages to the boards. Hopefully they will act as seeds to start conversation there. Also, I can see how those boards can be a good way to "blog" topically, if few people ever end up reading these pages.
I haven't really started promoting this site yet, just one e-mail to my contact list. I am not sure how many of those addresses are even current, but I know some are.
Finally, the topics on many of these first message board posts were inspired (read stolen) from topics on the 3WA boards. My apologies, but those are good topics that fascinate me. The reactivation of my account there has not gone through yet, but when it does, I will be posting there, too.
Anyway, if you are reading this, thanks. And if you find any of this interesting or compelling, please help me start a conversation on these topics.
As I say, though, the conversation is just the start. The goal is real political action that makes a Democratic (or viable third-party) revoultion possible at all levels of the government.
democracyindistress.com
I haven't really started promoting this site yet, just one e-mail to my contact list. I am not sure how many of those addresses are even current, but I know some are.
Finally, the topics on many of these first message board posts were inspired (read stolen) from topics on the 3WA boards. My apologies, but those are good topics that fascinate me. The reactivation of my account there has not gone through yet, but when it does, I will be posting there, too.
Anyway, if you are reading this, thanks. And if you find any of this interesting or compelling, please help me start a conversation on these topics.
As I say, though, the conversation is just the start. The goal is real political action that makes a Democratic (or viable third-party) revoultion possible at all levels of the government.
democracyindistress.com
11-02-04: The Election of George W. Bush as President of the United States Of America…
So, it happened... Now what do we do about it? More than that, what do we do with the real threat of losing the Democratic Party as a viable voice of opposition to the Republican controlled Executive and Legislative branches of our Federal Government, and to increasing Republican control of our State and Local Governments, as well?
On November 2, 2004 we lost a battle, but we did not lose the war. However, we must not roll over. We must not lose track of that tremendous store of energy that the Democrats mustered for this election. At the same time, we also must take a hard look at why the Presidency was lost and at why seats in both houses of Congress were lost.
We must look at, explore and understand why the vast majority of the country comes up red in the Presidential Election every four years. We must understand why the Republican Party always seems to control the debate in these elections; why the Democrats are always responding to their attacks on the character of the candidates instead of the Republicans responding to attacks on their stance on the issues.
It is only a few days since the election, but it is not too early to start focusing on the future. Rightfully or wrongly, there will be a bloodbath in the Democratic Party power structure. In the gap created by this, the people need to step in and demand change.
democracyindistress.com has been thrown together quickly. It will improve, and hopefully visitors to this site will take advantage of the message boards and the other tools here to suggest improvements. Until more content is added, please take advantage of the Message Boards and the Blog… Join the conversation. Add ideas.
This is our country. Our voices demand to be heard. We can make it happen.
On November 2, 2004 we lost a battle, but we did not lose the war. However, we must not roll over. We must not lose track of that tremendous store of energy that the Democrats mustered for this election. At the same time, we also must take a hard look at why the Presidency was lost and at why seats in both houses of Congress were lost.
We must look at, explore and understand why the vast majority of the country comes up red in the Presidential Election every four years. We must understand why the Republican Party always seems to control the debate in these elections; why the Democrats are always responding to their attacks on the character of the candidates instead of the Republicans responding to attacks on their stance on the issues.
It is only a few days since the election, but it is not too early to start focusing on the future. Rightfully or wrongly, there will be a bloodbath in the Democratic Party power structure. In the gap created by this, the people need to step in and demand change.
democracyindistress.com has been thrown together quickly. It will improve, and hopefully visitors to this site will take advantage of the message boards and the other tools here to suggest improvements. Until more content is added, please take advantage of the Message Boards and the Blog… Join the conversation. Add ideas.
This is our country. Our voices demand to be heard. We can make it happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)