Wednesday, September 22, 2004

What If Kerry Wins?

I'm not predicting that he will, but what if he does? If Bush wins, Kerry supporters will be mightily ticked off, but I think that most of them are mentally prepared for that possibility, maybe even probability. But if Kerry wins, however, I have no idea how the Bush supporters will take it. My sense from comments to this blog along with other reads of the current state of politics is that many Bush people can't fathom the possibility of him losing and will have a very hard time making the necessary psychological adjustment if he does. In fact, some won't and will do everything they can to delegitimize Kerry's victory. Yes, some on the left will be in the same state if Bush wins, but I'd guess that this will be more widespread on the right. Again, I have no idea if Kerry will win and I'm not even sure if I want him to, but if he does, get ready for a meltdown on the right.

19 comments:

Palooka said...

Kerry sure is a pathetic character. Beyond that, however, is the realization that someone without conviction, without principle, who equivocates every other day, is not the right person to lead us in this time of terrorism.

I think Bush supporters are prepared with the possibility of Kerry winning, but less so than Kerry voters prepared for a Bush win. Your point on this is well taken.

I am not sure how one "delegitimizes" a president. One can argue that is what the Dems did to Bush, but they had a different hand than is likely in this election. If Kerry wins the electoral college but not the popular vote, it will be difficult for Republicans to make too much of a point of it. Other than such a scenario, I do not see any chance to delegitimize Kerry. I do suspect, however, that the American people will be sorely disappointed quite soon after the election if Kerry wins. That will be more of a sober realization than any nefarious politicking.

Anonymous said...

If Kerry wins, we will see a repeat of FL 2000 in every state that is even close. The Repubs and their talking machine will have Bush supporters in the street, and convinced the election was "stolen" if Kerry doesn't take it in a landslide. We'll be lucky to have the recounts and legal battles over by Inaguration Day.

And the election fights will pale in comparison to the hissy fits they will be throwing once Kerry's actually in office. Think the 8 year smear and fight that was the Clinton presidency, with the volume turned all the way up, 24/7 for the whole 4 years. Everything, small or large, is going to be a yard by yard, house to house fight. I desperately want Kerry to win, for judicial appointments if nothing else, but unless some Congressional and Senate Republicans manage to develop some backbones and intellectual integrity, it's just going to be Swift Boats, Swift Boats, Swift Boats, all over again.

Anonymous said...

"I have no idea if Kerry will win and I'm not even sure if I want him to..."

OK, I'm new here and don't really know what this blog is about. But is this a political scientist who is an undecided voter? How can that be possible? You're one of "those" people?

Armed Liberal said...

You mean conservatives might accuse him of being "selected, not elected"??

I'm starting a blog-drive to get bloggers on both sides to announce that "I'll support the winner" and forbear from attacks on legitimacy (as opposed to disagreements on policy)...have to get that going soon.


A.L.

Palooka said...

"I desperately want Kerry to win, for judicial appointments if nothing else, but unless some Congressional and Senate Republicans manage to develop some backbones and intellectual integrity, it's just going to be Swift Boats, Swift Boats, Swift Boats, all over again."

Yeah, can't have judges actually following the Constitution, can we? I'm sure you're terrified of that possibility. Killing the unborn not a constitutional right? Gay marriage not a constitutional right? Raced-based affirmative action unconstitutional? Pretty scary stuff, this notion of following the Constitution.

Hey, stop the whinning about the SwiftVets. I took on Klinker here and he pretty much conceded the validity of a lot of their charges. All of those who bitch about them don't know the first thing about Kerry's service or their accusations.

Anonymous said...

If Kerry wins, there likely will be evidence of that possibility before the event. I mean, I'm relatively confident of a Bush win, but if you'd asked me in May whether that was likely I wouldn't have been nearly so confident. Similarly, if the polls show that Kerry is leading before the election, that'll prepare me for the possibility.

What that has to do with whether there would be efforts to delegitimize Kerry's victory isn't readily apparent. Of course there would be efforts. That's what's done these days.

Palooka said...

This sleaze about Bush instituting a draft is absolutely disgusting. Kerry's saying it himself. MTV is parroting this baseless charge in one of their "rock the vote" commercials.

This is absolutely disgusting. And Kerry has not only refused to distance himself from this lie, he has actively embraced it.

So, I take it back. If this is how Kerry campaigns and he wins, he will be already delegitimate, having won the presidency by playing to baseless fear and by broadcasting blatant lies. I'm not one to hold a candidate responsible for every bit of of sleaze done in their name, but this is absolutely disgusting and Kerry is actively and personally advancing it himself.

Anonymous said...

re: draft

bush has already made wide use of a backdoor draft, calling up (and back) former military people who would have never thought they would see action. why is it so outrageous to suspect that the Bush Doctrine won't require more soldiers than the armed forces can currently supply? and what happens then? god knows we don't ask the french for help...

Philip Klinkner said...

In re: Palooka's claim that I concede many of his points about the Swift Boat vets, I concede him nothing.

Rothko said...

Palooka, just keep telling yourself that it's Kerry who is the liar and the fear monger and you can plausibly deny that Dick "a Kerry Presidency will lead to more terrorist attacks" Cheney and George W. "I served honorably, I've always supported the 9/11 commision, I've always wanted a Department of Homeland Security, I've adequately funded No-Child Left Behind, Sadaam had WMD's, ummm wait..." Bush are the honest, good-hearted christian warriors who suffering at the hands of the left-wing hate machine.

Yup a Republican...and more importantly a Bush...would never play politics cheap and dirty...I mean hell they wouldn't be allowed back to Kennebunk if they did such a thing.

PS. Palooka, I love the rants. I love the self-delusion. Keep it up man...you give me the inspiration to keep growing organic vegetables and sowing hemp necklaces...

Anonymous said...

Nor should you conceded "Palooka" anything, Phil. Anyone who believes that W might win NY has parted ways with rational thought.

Pusillanimous Wanker said...

"In fact, some won't and will do everything they can to delegitimize Kerry's victory"

Sounds familiar . . .

Palooka said...

Phil, in an email exchange about the SwiftVet allegations didn't respond to my factual rebuttal. He said "Tell you what, let's call it a Bronze Star and 1 1/2 Purple Hearts,and move on the real issues in the campaign."

Now, I understand he doesn't want to invest the time and energy into understanding their allegations and ojbectively dissecting them, but he doesn't know the first thing about their accusations.

He should plead ignorance, rather than calling them liars.

Palooka said...

Cheney's comment was fine. This election is going to center around safety.

Kedwards and many Dems think Bush has made us less safe, and will continue to do so. That's a legitimate point of view.

Bush and his supporters think Kerry would make us less safe. That's a legitimate point of view.

I don't think Cheney should have framed it like that. It's better to keep things in the positive--we will keep America safe. The conclusion, of course, is the same, that America would be less safe with Kerry. I do think, however, his framing of the point was wrong, but the issue is alive on both sides. Cheney was just blunt, and hurt some feelings. His point is no different than the Kerry and the Dems make every day.

In an age of terrrorism, one of the most pertinent questions is if Kerry can fight terror and protect the homeland. If he's better than Bush, then the chances decrease. If he's worse, then the chance increase. That's just the inevitable calculus of the situation.

Contrast that with the baseless assertion that Bush is going to start the draft. Note that the only acts in Congress are sponsored by Dems, and have zero support from either party.

The term "backdoor draft" is laughable. Those are people in the RESERVES. It totally defies logic to relate it to the draft in any way.

Regarding the NY poll. Do I "believe" NY is going for Bush? Nope. But to pick and choose which polls fit your preconceived notions, and only accept those, is a classic cocooning scenario.

Palooka said...

Rothko,

Nice non-sequitor talking points. Really original criticism. LOL

Rothko said...

Palooka,

Kisses! Anything to keep you amused...you keep me in stiches all day.

Anonymous said...

The Guard was never intended to be a major source of front-line troops. The IRR's were envisaged as occasional fillers, not mass substitutes. They know it: look at the response in those South Carolina units. There is real trouble in Bushworld.

Palooka said...

The reserves and National Guard can be activated. End of story. Equating it to the draft is patently absurd.

Palooka said...

"There are ample grounds for thinking there is, in fact, a surge toward the Democrats and their positions and away from the Republicans and their positions among the broad electorate. A growing Democratic party ID advantage is a logical consequence of that surge, since party ID does not remain stable as political conditions change....Conclusion: there is no good reason to ignore the results of this poll (unless you're Matthew Dowd, of course, who has his own reasons for doing so)."

Who was the author of the above? No other than Ruy Texiera who now argues quite the opposite. He was defending a 38-25 Party ID just three months ago. Except then it was the Dems which enjoyed the advantage. Coincidence? Cocoon anyone?

Thanks to Myster Pollster for the tip.

http://mysterypollster.typepad.com/main/2004/09/weighting_by_pa.html