You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Reply #55: That is the absolute least airtight case I've ever seen. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
pattim Donating Member (169 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-11-05 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
55. That is the absolute least airtight case I've ever seen.
Edited on Tue Oct-11-05 01:21 PM by pattim
It amounts to "It's unlikely he could have a priori, therefore any evidence that he did in fact win it is without doubt fraudulent." It is no better of an argument than "The radiation of space probably would have killed the astronauts, therefore the moon landings were faked."

The argument is as such:

1. Bush gained the presidency with a voter disadvantage.
This outright ignores the massive popularity uptick after 9/11, as well as the red, white, and blue haze that settled over the American populace. The Flag was holy, and he wrapped himself in it so tight that nobody else had a chance to try for two years. It implies that there wasn't the registered-Republican increase that occured from '00 to '04, and artificially splits the nation into "Bush zealots" and "Dem zealots," ignoring that most voters are in fact neither, but vote for who they believe the better candidate to be.

2. Bush's battle was fought in three methods and three methods only:
A terrible oversimplification.

1. Battle of Attrition
The Democrats did not enjoy their historic registration advantage, first of all. Secondly, the Republicans outspent the Democrats and were even more highly motivated, especially with churches. Thirdly, they worked locally more than Democrats did. Fourthly, the Republican operative turnout was the greatest such force in modern political history. That isn't "never fully engaged."
2. Winning Undecideds
This part is in utter ignorance of a principal Republican strategy: while Democrats try to move themselves to the center in an election year, Republicans try every year to move the center towards themselves. Screw the undecideds, there were only a small proportion of them. Rove had to expand the base to win. And he did.
3. Capture Evangelicals
They did.

And so we have "Well, I'm certain we outfought them, because cognitive dissonance prevents us from believing otherwise. And so we must have won."

Look, you provide me with a counterargument in your final point: Half of all Americans do not vote. If you assume only a slight increase in Republicans after 9/11, and increase the number of voters proportionally (as it is ridiculous to assume that only liberals stay home), then tack on the extra evangelicals, Bush wins the election by almost exactly the same amount that he actually did.

The counters are:
They did.
They did.
They were.

And we know they did, because Bush actually did win the majority of polls in the two weeks leading up to the election. You're using entirely "Well, it must have been unlikely" optimism-arguments and then taking them as airtight fact.

And that's the counterarugment. Your case isn't airtight, it's the desperate mass delusions of an echo-chamber that refuses to admit it had a bad strategy and a bad candidate.

I'm not a Republican, though I have a sinking feeling that going against the mass opinion so early in my posting career has put me on a path with a tombstone. But really, guys, don't eat me alive. If you have nobody to check your arguments, you become an echo chamber. And echo chambers can't win elections, because they can't gauge reality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC