Anyone but another Clinton or Bush

[Sauwan]

Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton - Los Angeles Times

It's not a long opinion read, but it's a good one. Read it.

However, this is what I'm wondering:

The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.

Is this even possible now-a-days? Can anyone name someone who can come away with 55% of the votes?

Clinton - not a chance. Way too polarizing.
Giuliani - Looks like he has a shot at both the social liberals and the conservative spenders. That said, he will get destroyed because of his authoritarian police state tendencies. Bush has already upset too many people with his lack of concern for our liberties...
McCain - what the hell does he even stand for anymore? He's all over the map trying to satisfy everybody that he's going to satisfy nobody.
Obama - Talk about controversy. He's already being attacked for being a smoker, trying cocaine, being a socialist, his middle name (how desperate), ect. People are desperate to smear this guy already. He can win, but not 55%
Romney - Maybe...But he's just not gaining steam. Mormon? He did get 50% of the vote in a traditional blue state though.
Edwards - My other maybe who's also not gaining steam. Good speaker, charismatic. (But apparently that can't even beat the bore Kerry...) Says some dumb things...but that doesn't appear to stop the (near) majority of the country from voting.
Gingrich - He's got the same problem as Giuliani, except won't have the social liberals interested in him. The fear tactic is starting to lose its ability, and Gingrich still wants to use it.

When can we look forward to a president with approval ratings above 50% again? I don't think anyone can pull that off in '08.

 

[niftydrifty]

The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.

What the nation needs first is a political discourse that doesn't primarily talk crap about other people. what if we lived in a situation where what people mostly said was "this is what I am for. this is what I intend to do."

and what if pundits were honest? what if pundits primarily spoke about issues?

What if we stopped listening to the Limbaughs and the Randi Rhodeses?

The nation would be much less "polarized." I put this term in quotes as the nation is not, in fact, polarized. It just seems that way, as people are passionate, and because many votes tend to be 50/50. But what about the people that don't vote? If our politics were more positive. You'd get more of a turnout. You'd get candidates that would win 55% or more.

It's not up to the nature of our candidates. It's up to us.

 

[Sauwan]

What the nation needs first is a political discourse that doesn't primarily talk crap about other people. what if we lived in a situation where what people mostly said was "this is what I am for. this is what I intend to do."

People would be bored. They would constantly hear the same things over and over.

and what if pundits were honest? what if pundits primarily spoke about issues?

Then they wouldn't be infotaining.

What if we stopped listening to the Limbaughs and the Randi Rhodeses?

Who?

The nation would be much less "polarized." I put this term in quotes as the nation is not, in fact, polarized. It just seems that way, as people are passionate, and because many votes tend to be 50/50. But what about the people that don't vote? If our politics were more positive. You'd get more of a turnout. You'd get candidates that would win 55% or more.

It's not up to the nature of our candidates. It's up to us.

I disagree. I think people are HIGHLY passive when it comes to voting. For instance, note our National Debt. It's a non-issue with an incredible amount of voters. People don't come to the polls because someone says they are going to start getting rid of the debt. They should, but they don't.

People get motivated when things come out that make someone look like a baby-killer, or a big softy on crime. Fear motivates much more than positive talking.

 

[niftydrifty]

People get motivated when things come out that make someone look like a baby-killer, or a big softy on crime. Fear motivates much more than positive talking.

Hmmm. I don't see how this can possibly be true, as a general all-encompassing rule. Every situation is a little different. Still, I believe you're mostly wrong.

I don't see how fear motivates turnout. What we've been getting from candidates is more and more slime as the years go by. Is it a mere coincidence that we've also experienced a general decline in voter turnout in the last 50 years?

I'm interested to hear how you will explain this away.

 

[Sauwan]

I'm interested to hear how you will explain this away.

This forum LOVES to poison the well. It's really quite amazing.

I don't see how fear motivates turnout. What we've been getting from candidates is more and more slime as the years go by. Is it a mere coincidence that we've also experienced a general decline in voter turnout in the last 50 years?

It's not just us...

I, unlike yourself, will not speculate as to what causes this apparently worldwide trend.

What I will note is the policies people CARE about. Watch the news and judge for yourself.

 

[niftydrifty]

Sauwan, you said this:

People get motivated when things come out that make someone look like a baby-killer, or a big softy on crime. Fear motivates much more than positive talking.

Why is it that people, then, are less motivated, generally speaking, with each passing year? That's what I was hoping you would "explain away."

We've had an uptick in turnout in the last few elections. But think of Lee Atwater, and the Willy Horton ad. and all that stuff. This kind of politics has been around for a long time. why did the trend in turnout go down?

 

[Sauwan]

Sauwan, you said this:Why is it that people, then, are less motivated, generally speaking, with each passing year? That's what I was hoping you would "explain away."

We've had an uptick in turnout in the last few elections. But think of Lee Atwater, and the Willy Horton ad. and all that stuff. This kind of politics has been around for a long time. why did the trend in turnout go down?

I think you are trying to oversimplify a very complex question and I will not try to explain why. Anything would be mere speculation and highly over generalized. And I think you need to be careful about distinguishing between causation and correlation. They are very different things and mistaking them can lead to very wrong assumptions.

What I will mention is what people talk about. War, terror, drugs, immigration, abortion, ECT. People are concerned with what is immediately prevalent in their life. People running for office are not stupid people. They know this and that's why you see the attack ads. It is my suspicion that if someone feels their way of life to be threatened, they are more likely to vote.

 

[niftydrifty]

It's not just us...

I do notice that the US is on the bottom of that graph.

Sauwan, these are your words, not mine.

People get motivated when things come out that make someone look like a baby-killer, or a big softy on crime. Fear motivates much more than positive talking.

I don't believe I was trying to oversimplify anything when I asked you why it seems to you that people are motivated by these things in response to what I thought people are motivated by.

I'm well aware of the differences between causation and correlation. I'm a professional researcher and I deal with statistics on a daily basis.

What I'm not aware of is what you are basing your conclusions on. If your statement is simply based on how things seem to you, that's fair enough. I was doing the same thing.

I would like to point out, though, as I stated earlier, that we've been living in a situation that is like the one where you say people get motivated, but, the thing is, turnout for the last 50 years has generally been going down. Furthermore, we have not been living a situation like the one I describe as being more desirable, and yet you think that people would not be motivated by a more positive environment. Why do you think so?

Reagan clobbered Dukakis by ignoring him, and by being positive. Was that not more than a 50-50 result?

 

[Sauwan]

I do notice that the US is on the bottom of that graph.

Keen sense of sight

I don't believe I was trying to oversimplify anything when I asked you why it seems to you that people are motivated by these things in response to what I thought people are motivated by.

Again, all you have to do is watch the news. Those are the things that matter to the vast majority of the country.

I'm well aware of the differences between causation and correlation. I'm a professional researcher and I deal with statistics on a daily basis.

Just saying that you saw a correlation and assumed causation. I'm sorry if I offended you...wasn't the intent.

What I'm not aware of is what you are basing your conclusions on. If your statement is simply based on how things seem to you, that's fair enough. I was doing the same thing.

I would like to point out, though, as I stated earlier, that we've been living in a situation that is like the one where you say people get motivated, but, the thing is, turnout for the last 50 years has generally been going down. Furthermore, we have not been living a situation like the one I describe as being more desirable, and yet you think that people would not be motivated by a more positive environment. Why do you think so?

Because if people cared about what you believe they should care about, news corporations would currently be suffering greatly. Polititions would already be doing that. If you actually believe that no one running for office has considered that...well I'm not sure where to go from here.

Have you considered that maybe it's the case that without this change in tactics those turnout numbers would actually be falling faster?

Reagan clobbered Dukakis by ignoring him, and by being positive. Was that not more than a 50-50 result?

Again, be careful with the oversimplification and assumption of causation.