What is up with the EU

[Albinonewt]

I think we have discovered the root of the problem -- you can't read. It shows Gore winning 269-263.

Anyway I'd like to see the charts you refer to. Got links?

No, the real problem is I'm using their actual data, 259v258, not their "we like Gore so we're giving him bonus votes" data.

As long as electors are still used, the swings to change the outcome of elections, even for one elector, will still be fairly large. Litigation may increase but it will not be nearly the epidemic you suggest. Results will have to fall within fairly small margins to make re-examination worthwhile.

How many lawsuits delaying the election of President and throwing the national economy into a tailspin does it take to be considered "epidemic"? My number is one, and intentionally trying to increase the number of lawsuits is just stupid. Especially considering that a proportional system has basically no benefit worth the risks, if it has any benefit at all.

I disagree. The closer we get to 100% turnout, the better for everyone. The more people turn out, the more people are invested in the process and policies that become of it. While in the short term an uninformed electorate may make a bad decision, the effect of that bad decision will be to educate said voters. In the end the percentage of the populace that are informed voters increases.

Yeah, well, in the short term the nation is destroyed by a completely uninformed electorate voting for the most attrative or funniest candidate and in the long term we what? Voting isn't just a priveledge, it's a responsibility. And if somoene can't be bothered to learn about the election I don't want anyone working to convince that chucklehead to vote. Whenever my uninformed friends ask me who to vote for I tell them to stay home. While I don't advocate any kind of standards for who can vote (aside from the basic ones already in place) I do have problems with cajoling the uninformed into voting in order to pad one's numbers. 100% voter turnout is nice I suppose, but only if it's the informed voting.

Take Australia. There is mandatory voting in the elections there, and the Australian government is just so proud of their compliance rate. Problem is that they have to have an drawing each year to see what candidate gets to be at the top of the ballot, because such a significant population doesn't care about voting they just choose the first name. That's not progress, that's destroying your system of government in the name of inclusion, and it's just plain stupid.

Discouraging voting is not the solution to voter apathy and general civic ignorance.

I'm not saying to discourage voting, merely to not encourage the ignorant to vote without first becoming informed. And since I don't think any party is going to explain both sides accurately I'd rather they leave the ignorant alone.

First off it is important to note that you can't lump 527 money into the same category as money explicitly spent by parties or candidates. Not all 527s supported one party as much as opposed another. Not all 527s supported any party at all.

Which is why the article was nice enough to group the 527's by who the supported/opposed. Next time pay attention. Here

Furthermore, money spent with 527s does not directly benefit any candidates. By law, it can't. It can benefit them, true, but not directly. It is far more valuable to have direct contributions to the candidate and his or her party. But 527s on the whole are far less effective per dollar due to the restrictions placed on what they can say and do. In the end those restrictions ended up nullifying a lot of those groups' expenditures in 2004.

Ok, let me just say one thing that should put this claim back into the recesses of space where it belongs.

SWIFT BOAT VETERNS FOR TRUTH.

The single most efefctive advertising campaign of the entire season was by an anti-Kerry 527 group. It destroyed Kerry's platform and put him on the defensive when he should have surged, just after his convention. Anyone that thinks the candidates by defintion do a better job with the money then a 527 wasn't watching the election.

[drg]

The single most efefctive advertising campaign of the entire season was by an anti-Kerry 527 group. It destroyed Kerry's platform and put him on the defensive when he should have surged, just after his convention. Anyone that thinks the candidates by defintion do a better job with the money then a 527 wasn't watching the election.

I highly dispute this. It was more effective per dollar than many other 527 groups, true, thanks largely to a compliant media that gave the false accusations leveled by SBV"T" too much credence and therefore, airtime (liberal media my arse), even after they were found to be false. But in the end they preached largely to their own choir, as the truth was readily available and anyone who believed their schtick was pretty much going to vote for Bush anyway.

But nothing, even SBV"T" was as effective as Bush's own campaigning and advertising. The themes now credited with swaying the election were Bush's, not SBV"T"s. "Kerry was a traitor/war protestor" does not figure into any analysis I have seen of what drove people in November. This race was won in the narrow middle, and Bush's successful portrayal of himself as a competent wartime leader and Kerry as a waffler (both false, IMO) was the most important thing, particularly after the free spending period ended for Democrats but persisted for Republicans. SBV"T" was nowhere near this effective.

[Albinonewt]

I highly dispute this. It was more effective per dollar than many other 527 groups, true, thanks largely to a compliant media that gave the false accusations leveled by SBV"T" too much credence and therefore, airtime (liberal media my arse), even after they were found to be false. But in the end they preached largely to their own choir, as the truth was readily available and anyone who believed their schtick was pretty much going to vote for Bush anyway.

Are you insane?

The first time it was covered on network news or in the new york times was two weeks after the SBVFT started airing ads and only the only thing the "news" had to say was that the veterns were lying. And Kerry admited his first purple heart was self inflicted and that he hadn't spent Christmas in Cambodia like he had claimed for decades. The Swiftees ads and best selling book called him out on the lies he had been pedaling and he was destroyed for it. They later managed to dig up some very suspicous evidence that his citations had been changed for him over the years to soften them up, and leave out some things he doesn't want known.

You're so wrapped up in your own nonsense you can't even come close to understanding how important they were to the election, and how they made it impossible for Kerry to tread on his "war hero" status. They rules the airwaves of the battleground states and sunk Kerry there.

But nothing, even SBV"T" was as effective as Bush's own campaigning and advertising. The themes now credited with swaying the election were Bush's, not SBV"T"s. "Kerry was a traitor/war protestor" does not figure into any analysis I have seen of what drove people in November. This race was won in the narrow middle, and Bush's successful portrayal of himself as a competent wartime leader and Kerry as a waffler (both false, IMO) was the most important thing, particularly after the free spending period ended for Democrats but persisted for Republicans. SBV"T" was nowhere near this effective.

yes, Kerry wasn't a waffler, he's a poltical opportunist, a complete liar, and an ultra liberal. And during that "free peeiod" was when kerry should have gotten his bounce, but didn't. Why? Because the swiftees owned him.

Get your head out of the sand and at least try to understand the world around you.

[drg]

Kerry owned himself. It was literally foolish of him to take the tack he did. I mean the anti-Kerry military crowd didn't even need to resort to the fabrications (yes, fabrications) of SBV"T" to counter Kerry's appeal to the military vote. It was really never his to begin with, and basing a whole campaign around it was lunacy. He had SO many better routes he could have taken. That he did as well as he did (2nd most votes in history, note) is more a testament to the legitimacy of his message. He and his campaign practically did all they could to lose.

But this is a digression, the point is that 527s are limited to issue advocacy and by definition they will never appeal to as many people as real campaigning, actual candidate advocacy. Otherwise shouldn't Kerry have had a big advantage? "His" 527s resorted to as many dirty tricks as "Bush's" did, but in the end it was basic campaign strategy that made more difference. That the big "soft money" difference only amounted to about an equalization of the playing field all but proves my point.

[Albinonewt]

I have seen of what drove people in November. This race was won in the narrow middle, and Bush's successful portrayal of himself as a competent wartime leader and Kerry as a waffler

I'm annoyed at myself for missing the obviousness of your ignorance here. Consider for a moment:

a) Kerry's platform was he would be a better commander in chief because he served heriocally

b) The Swiftees in every battleground state convicingly challenged Kerry's wartime record and in a NY Times best seller laid out their case why Kerry was not fit to be CIC. Kerry then had to admit he lied about at least one purple heart and "Christmas in Cambodia".

c) Bush wins a relatively narrow re-election due to, as you say, the voters desire to have him and not Kerry as CIC.


And somehow the Swiftees had nothing to do with the victory?


Whatever dude.

[Albinonewt]

Kerry owned himself. It was literally foolish of him to take the tack he did. I mean the anti-Kerry military crowd didn't even need to resort to the fabrications (yes, fabrications) of SBV"T" to counter Kerry's appeal to the military vote.

Did he admit he lied about Christmas in Cambodia?

Did he admit one of his purple heart winning injuries was self inflicted?

Now shut up.

It was really never his to begin with, and basing a whole campaign around it was lunacy. He had SO many better routes he could have taken. That he did as well as he did (2nd most votes in history, note) is more a testament to the legitimacy of his message. He and his campaign practically did all they could to lose.

Yeah, that's what everyone on the left says, NOW. For an entire year all we heard from the left is how great Kerry was and how he would crush Bush and how his being a vetern was such an asset and blah blah blah. Meanwhile all the righties were saying that Kerry was a terrible candidate, and we knew better (we did afterall suffer through Bob Dole). And now that Kerry lost it's HIS fault, and not that maybe the voters don't prefer the anti-war, Pro-UN, ultra left democratic platform.

But this is a digression, the point is that 527s are limited to issue advocacy and by definition they will never appeal to as many people as real campaigning, actual candidate advocacy.

Yeah, except for the part where Swiftees won the election for Bush the same time Moveon was losing it for kerry you're right. Problem is, you're completely wrong. 527 organizations are MORE effective (one way or the other) because they're not extensions of the candidate. Which means Moveon can call Bush a Nazi while Kerry denies being a part of the ad campagin. This puts out there the anti-Bush rhetoric while shielding Kerry. 527's are unlimited power, and get ready to see more of them.

Otherwise shouldn't Kerry have had a big advantage? "His" 527s resorted to as many dirty tricks as "Bush's" did, but in the end it was basic campaign strategy that made more difference. That the big "soft money" difference only amounted to about an equalization of the playing field all but proves my point.

Problem is Kerry's 527's went overboard and too far to the left and really turned off a lot of Americans. Their power and influence is undeniable, but they're judgement needs work. The no. 1 anti-Kerry 527 didn't try to over extend or go too over the top the way Moveon.org did. That's what makes the Swfitees so much more effective, that they chose their topic, and destroyed Kerry's ability to portray himself as a war hero.

[drg]

Did he admit he lied about Christmas in Cambodia?

Did he admit one of his purple heart winning injuries was self inflicted?

No. He "admitted" neither. The more significant point, however, is that these are two pathetic fall-back positions SBV"T" resorted to after their main claims were debunked rather spectacularly.

Regardless, these points only had traction with people who were leaning Bush anyway (who are known to accept falsehoods as fact in larger numbers than those who leaned away from him), so it makes little difference in the big picture. They could have said Kerry wore women's underwear and these same people would have bought it.

It's laughable how much of a deal you make of that book being a "New York Times Bestseller" when many more anti-Bush books performed better on that list and phantom orders for that book were known to have been placed at booksellers. In the end what happened is just what you'd expect -- New York went to Kerry. I think you forget a little too easily that this election's results were not very far from what was expected.

Now shut up.

Do same.

For an entire year all we heard from the left is how great Kerry was and how he would crush Bush and how his being a vetern was such an asset and blah blah blah.

It was an asset. But it was not THE asset. Trying to make it central was a big mistake. It would have been better used as a trump card, which it was. That the right was able to dig up a Nixon operative to counter the focus is an indicator of how weak a position it was.

I don't think anyone halfway impartial even thought, or let alone claimed, that Kerry would crush Bush. Bush's reelection odds were prohibitive until the campaigns were well underway.

Meanwhile all the righties were saying that Kerry was a terrible candidate, and we knew better (we did afterall suffer through Bob Dole).

They were wrong. Kerry was a fine candidate. He came very close to unseating a wartime president in for the first time in history. He pretty much did what he needed to do, drubbed Bush in the debates, etc. But electoral inertia in wartime is very strong.

And now that Kerry lost it's HIS fault, and not that maybe the voters don't prefer the anti-war, Pro-UN, ultra left democratic platform.

Well, given that that wasn't Kerry's platform, you're probably right. The platform was neither anti-war, nor more pro-UN than any president in history other than Bush, and it was far, far, far right of "ultra left." However more people voted for the Democratic platform than ever in history this cycle, so I'm not so sure how smug anyone can be about the results of this election.

Yeah, except for the part where Swiftees won the election for Bush the same time Moveon was losing it for kerry you're right. Problem is, you're completely wrong. 527 organizations are MORE effective (one way or the other) because they're not extensions of the candidate.

No. They're not. And any political strategist would gladly trade the advantage in 527 money for an advantage in real campaign funds. About the most you can say is that they may be equal. If 527s were indeed more effective Kerry would have won.

Which means Moveon can call Bush a Nazi while Kerry denies being a part of the ad campagin. This puts out there the anti-Bush rhetoric while shielding Kerry. 527's are unlimited power, and get ready to see more of them.

Whoa there's the Hitler refererence again. It's literally pathetic how desperately the right needed something like that to cling onto. It's really too bad the truth isn't cared much for by those same people -- that the so-called "Moveon calling Bush Hitler" incident was a submission in an ad contest which was pulled quickly and repudiated by the organization AND Kerry himself ... a lot more than I can say about Bush and any of "his" 527s.

Problem is Kerry's 527's went overboard and too far to the left and really turned off a lot of Americans.

Actually they turned on more voters to the Democratic platform than ever in history.

The no. 1 anti-Kerry 527 didn't try to over extend or go too over the top the way Moveon.org did.

If you mean SBV"T" you're delusional. Smearing someone's military record is pretty odious. I love how the double standard applies. In the end we've learned nothing -- or nothing good -- from Bush's McCain smear campaign in 2000, or the smearing of Max Cleland in 2002, some of the most sickening moves in US political history.

That's what makes the Swfitees so much more effective, that they chose their topic, and destroyed Kerry's ability to portray himself as a war hero.

Which is really too bad, because he was one. As are most soldiers who fight in wars. In the end what made SVB"T" "effective" was that Kerry himself put his war record front-and-center. If he didn't, they would have been a footnote in this election.

As a right-wing apologist, I'm afraid you're pretty weak. Your embracing of SBV"T" without criticism -- indeed, to the point of celebration -- undercuts your case.

[drg]

In the interest of letting this thread die a much-deserved death I will refrain from responding further to it after this post. We've gotten way off topic anyway.

[Albinonewt]

No. He "admitted" neither. The more significant point, however, is that these are two pathetic fall-back positions SBV"T" resorted to after their main claims were debunked rather spectacularly.

One of a million links

Regardless, these points only had traction with people who were leaning Bush anyway (who are known to accept falsehoods as fact in larger numbers than those who leaned away from him), so it makes little difference in the big picture. They could have said Kerry wore women's underwear and these same people would have bought it.

Then why did Kerry's polling with veterns and families of service men and women plummet 20 points in the month after the Swift ads? They were always leaning to Bush buy lying about it?

It has been clearly demostrated that kerry lied about being in Cambodia. He admitted that one of his purple heart injuries was self inflicted . It is possibly, maybe even likely, that his bronze star was awarded for something he didn't do. And his silver star citation has been changed three times, and in the photo that was on his website was displayed with a combat citation that wasn't awarded.

It's laughable how much of a deal you make of that book being a "New York Times Bestseller" when many more anti-Bush books performed better on that list and phantom orders for that book were known to have been placed at booksellers. In the end what happened is just what you'd expect -- New York went to Kerry. I think you forget a little too easily that this election's results were not very far from what was expected.

Um, I said it was a NY Times best seller. Do you need a link for that too?

What was expected. Just two hours before polls closed every network was clamoring about how Kerry had won. Bush's 3 point margain was expected by some conservatives, but the network media was convinced Kerry had won, and so were a lot of people after the exit polling.

It was an asset. But it was not THE asset. Trying to make it central was a big mistake. It would have been better used as a trump card, which it was. That the right was able to dig up a Nixon operative to counter the focus is an indicator of how weak a position it was.

Name for me please the things that Kerry centralized in the democratic convention besides his service in Vietnam.

Done yet?

I don't think anyone halfway impartial even thought, or let alone claimed, that Kerry would crush Bush. Bush's reelection odds were prohibitive until the campaigns were well underway.

Zogby did.

They were wrong. Kerry was a fine candidate. He came very close to unseating a wartime president in for the first time in history. He pretty much did what he needed to do, drubbed Bush in the debates, etc. But electoral inertia in wartime is very strong.

He did come pretty close to defeating a staggering vulrable president. Bush was in much weaker shape then i thought he would ever be in. But Abu Gharid and a million other things all summer made the election much closer then I had expected. And STILL Kerry couldn't pull it off.

Well, given that that wasn't Kerry's platform, you're probably right. The platform was neither anti-war, nor more pro-UN than any president in history other than Bush, and it was far, far, far right of "ultra left." However more people voted for the Democratic platform than ever in history this cycle, so I'm not so sure how smug anyone can be about the results of this election.

Two words

GLOBAL TEST

Um, they lost right? I mean, they lost four seats in the senate, a half dozen or so in the house, and the presidency. So, i think a little smugness may not be out of the question.

I mean, the bravest frenchman is still french...

No. They're not. And any political strategist would gladly trade the advantage in 527 money for an advantage in real campaign funds. About the most you can say is that they may be equal. If 527s were indeed more effective Kerry would have won.

Except for all the money his 527's spent they sucked, and the Swiftees were awesome. So get over it.



[quote[ Whoa there's the Hitler refererence again. It's literally pathetic how desperately the right needed something like that to cling onto. It's really too bad the truth isn't cared much for by those same people -- that the so-called "Moveon calling Bush Hitler" incident was a submission in an ad contest which was pulled quickly and repudiated by the organization AND Kerry himself ... a lot more than I can say about Bush and any of "his" 527s. [/quote]

THEY DID CALL HIM A NAZI. But that isn't my point. My point was that the 527's have distance from the candidates. So they can get their attacks in without tarnishing the candidate they support.

And Bush did repudiate ALL 527's, Kerry put a little distance between him and Moveon and then tried to get the Swift Boat Veterns off the air

Actually they turned on more voters to the Democratic platform than ever in history.

Who won again?

Shut up.

If you mean SBV"T" you're delusional. Smearing someone's military record is pretty odious. I love how the double standard applies. In the end we've learned nothing -- or nothing good -- from Bush's McCain smear campaign in 2000, or the smearing of Max Cleland in 2002, some of the most sickening moves in US political history.

Too bad that's all lies. Plus, Kerry RAN ON HIS BACKGROUND. He can't complain that someone noticed.

Which is really too bad, because he was one. As are most soldiers who fight in wars. In the end what made SVB"T" "effective" was that Kerry himself put his war record front-and-center. If he didn't, they would have been a footnote in this election.

Maybe Kerry should have released all his military records, like everyone begged him to do and like Bush did. Maybe Kerry had something to hide after all....

As a right-wing apologist, I'm afraid you're pretty weak. Your embracing of SBV"T" without criticism -- indeed, to the point of celebration -- undercuts your case.

I'm only hitting at the points the Vets made that were substaniated by other sources, in some cases the Kerry campaign itself. While the vets did make claims that appear to not have been legit I frankly wasn't writing a term paper on them.

[Albinonewt]

In the interest of letting this thread die a much-deserved death I will refrain from responding further to it after this post. We've gotten way off topic anyway.

We'll see about that.

You keep saying to let it go, but then need to try and get in the last word.

[1stdeadeye]

We'll see about that.

You keep saying to let it go, but then need to try and get in the last word.

You owned him!!!!!

[Albinonewt]

You owned him!!!!!

hehe, there was some ownage :)

[1stdeadeye]

hehe, there was some ownage :)