Tuesday, February 10, 2004
Tautologies
I've been trying to stay away from politics in this blog, but I can't resist it completely. Let's just take a couple things as a given and not up for debate right now: I think Bush is a horrible President, and I want the Democrats to elect whatever candidate has the best chance of beating him. If you don't want to discuss politics, then just skip this entry. I'll try to keep it high-level, though.
So, a Kerry win seems inevitable, and this frustrates me a bit. A lot of people are voting for him because they think he's got the best chance to beat Bush. Why do they think this? I have no idea. Really, none. I'm not going to say that he's not likely to beat Bush, but the actual arguments for why he's the most likely to win are a bit fuzzy. The best argument seems to be that he's winning now, so we want a guy with a lot of support to go against Bush. This is silly. Basically, he won Iowa on his own merits, and then people started voting for him because he won Iowa. Maybe they like rooting for a winner, cuz it feels good. It's a tautology: I'm going to vote for Kerry because he's winning now, so clearly he has the best chance of winning in November. Why does he have the best chance of winning? BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL FRICKIN' VOTING FOR HIM! Unfortunately, that's not true. Just because he has Democratic support does not mean he's going to get swing support or steal votes from Bush. In fact, I think he's the least likely to do so.
I don't buy the argument that it's important to show a strong display of support for one guy, in order to demonstrate strength and conviction. First of all, if Bush brings that up, it's pretty easy to point to the fact that less than 50% of the public wanted him to be elected in the first place. Secondly, I think the debates between the Democratic candidates have actually been productive, forcing the media to report what the Democrats are saying, and finally giving the Bush opposition a forum.
The primaries are where you get a chance to make a decision. When the general election rolls around, the options are much more limited. Choose someone different, someone a bit riskier. I don't like Dean, but I'm almost thinking that he'd be a better choice than Kerry - he's interesting and different, maybe even a bit controversial. A ballsy choice. That's something the Democratic party is really lacking - balls. I think they're loathe to take a risk on an exciting, and possibly controversial candidate. Choosing Kerry is a "safe" bet - if the Democrats think that Bush will continue to screw things up (Iraq, Economy, well, pretty much everything), then Kerry's a good choice - I don't think he'll offend too many people, and he's a pretty bland politician, or at least seems to be acting that way. Dean, Clark, or even Edwards stand a better chance of turning off people. But, I also think they stand a better chance of turning on the voters, and motivating them to go to the polls. I don't see a whole lot of people getting "fired" up by this Senator of 19 years. If they're disgusted by politicking in Washington, then Kerry's not going to appeal to them. It's kind of like placing the ball in the Republicans' court - counting on them to keep screwing up and thus Kerry winning by default. I don't know about you, but I've seen the Republican strategists be particularly cunning, and I'm willing to bet they have a lot of cards to play against Kerry. He's too traditional of a candidate, and I fear Bush will play things just smart enough to win re-election.
In general, the point of this post is not supposed to be politics, but rather the frustration of group thinking. A month ago, Kerry was left for dead. Now, just because he's won Iowa, he's the front runner. This is not how things are supposed to work. Kerry hasn't changed in the past few months. Certainly, if Kerry already had the nomination, it would be nice to see him having such widespread support. I'm glad the Democrats realize how important it is to oust Bush - now think strategically and practically instead of jumping onto the horse that's leading the race. We're not even halfway there.
So, a Kerry win seems inevitable, and this frustrates me a bit. A lot of people are voting for him because they think he's got the best chance to beat Bush. Why do they think this? I have no idea. Really, none. I'm not going to say that he's not likely to beat Bush, but the actual arguments for why he's the most likely to win are a bit fuzzy. The best argument seems to be that he's winning now, so we want a guy with a lot of support to go against Bush. This is silly. Basically, he won Iowa on his own merits, and then people started voting for him because he won Iowa. Maybe they like rooting for a winner, cuz it feels good. It's a tautology: I'm going to vote for Kerry because he's winning now, so clearly he has the best chance of winning in November. Why does he have the best chance of winning? BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL FRICKIN' VOTING FOR HIM! Unfortunately, that's not true. Just because he has Democratic support does not mean he's going to get swing support or steal votes from Bush. In fact, I think he's the least likely to do so.
I don't buy the argument that it's important to show a strong display of support for one guy, in order to demonstrate strength and conviction. First of all, if Bush brings that up, it's pretty easy to point to the fact that less than 50% of the public wanted him to be elected in the first place. Secondly, I think the debates between the Democratic candidates have actually been productive, forcing the media to report what the Democrats are saying, and finally giving the Bush opposition a forum.
The primaries are where you get a chance to make a decision. When the general election rolls around, the options are much more limited. Choose someone different, someone a bit riskier. I don't like Dean, but I'm almost thinking that he'd be a better choice than Kerry - he's interesting and different, maybe even a bit controversial. A ballsy choice. That's something the Democratic party is really lacking - balls. I think they're loathe to take a risk on an exciting, and possibly controversial candidate. Choosing Kerry is a "safe" bet - if the Democrats think that Bush will continue to screw things up (Iraq, Economy, well, pretty much everything), then Kerry's a good choice - I don't think he'll offend too many people, and he's a pretty bland politician, or at least seems to be acting that way. Dean, Clark, or even Edwards stand a better chance of turning off people. But, I also think they stand a better chance of turning on the voters, and motivating them to go to the polls. I don't see a whole lot of people getting "fired" up by this Senator of 19 years. If they're disgusted by politicking in Washington, then Kerry's not going to appeal to them. It's kind of like placing the ball in the Republicans' court - counting on them to keep screwing up and thus Kerry winning by default. I don't know about you, but I've seen the Republican strategists be particularly cunning, and I'm willing to bet they have a lot of cards to play against Kerry. He's too traditional of a candidate, and I fear Bush will play things just smart enough to win re-election.
In general, the point of this post is not supposed to be politics, but rather the frustration of group thinking. A month ago, Kerry was left for dead. Now, just because he's won Iowa, he's the front runner. This is not how things are supposed to work. Kerry hasn't changed in the past few months. Certainly, if Kerry already had the nomination, it would be nice to see him having such widespread support. I'm glad the Democrats realize how important it is to oust Bush - now think strategically and practically instead of jumping onto the horse that's leading the race. We're not even halfway there.
Comments:
Post a Comment
