Friday, October 29, 2004

Oh, Well

Just when I was ready to call the election for Kerry (high turnout, low Nader vote, Bush's inability to crack 50%), along comes Osama. I think no matter what Kerry says, this has to help Bush, if only by placing terrorism first in voters' minds.


Palooka said...

I think it's too close to confidently call, but the polls and subjective factors seem to all be in favor of Bush. It depends on turn out. If you lying Dems were successful in scaring the young about the draft and the old about social security, then you stand a shot. Of course, all the barking moonbats must run out to the polls, too. If the loons, felons, illegals, and bamboozled voters all show up to the polls, your man's got a good shot.

Of course, OBL parroting the official Dem Party line doesn't exactly help. Question: What's OBL's favorite documentary? You know, that guy who was sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the DNC?

In the transcript up at Drudge, OBL's bitching about the Florida election, the PATRIOT Act, the "my pet goat" incident, and of course blaming the entire Iraq war as a plot to steal Iraqi oil. Sound familiar? Proud to be a Democrat or what, Klinkner?

Rothko said...

I'm not convinced that Osama showing up alive and as insane as ever really helps Bush's case. It simply highlights Bush's failure to capture or kill him AND destroy his terrorist network. Beyond that the election is on Tuesday. It's Friday. Real people (unlike us nerds...though I am drinking right now) don't really pay much attention to the news until the start of the next week. Essentially Osama just got buried in the news cycle.

Palooka you should check out the polling data at Slate...they actually keep a nice list of a number of polls and crete an agregate that as of today had Kerry ahead. I know they are lying Dems too. So am I. See I'm lying right now. Or am I...hmmm..It's so hard to tell as lying is an inherent part of being a Dem.

Moosa Man said...

My initial reaction was the same. Terrorism more salient = bad for Kerry. On further reflection (and blogging), I am not so sure. Bush can't be happy about everybody being reminded that OBL is still out there.

It is not like this is new information, but it does put it back in the headlines. Why are Kerry supporters so worried? I suppose they think this will raise terrorism in the hierarchy of voter concerns, and it is "Bush's issue," therefore more votes for Bush. QED.

But isn't it just as plausible that this will lead undecided voters to lower their assessment of how strong Bush is on his supposedly best issue?

Thomas said...

I don't know what to make of this election. A good number of us have already voted. Most of us made up our mind months ago. Who's left to be influenced by OBL?
But I would caution you that high turnout isn't necessarily a good thing for your candidate. Remember, there's a reason people are turning out in GA, and I don't think it's to vote for John F. Kerry.
The last three election haven't given us a victor with 50%. I think we'll get there this year, but the fact that Bush is polling only a couple points better than he performed 4 years ago doesn't concern me much.
I don't know if you saw Broder's article in yesterday's WaPost. Here's what I mean about turnout:

Still, polls published last week showed the amendments passing by 67 to 24 percent in Michigan and 57 to 40 percent in Ohio. The big question for both political parties is how many voters there are like Tim and Lori Harrington, who worship at the Shrine of the Little Flower and plan to go to the polls Tuesday mainly to cast their ballots to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

"I'm kind of indifferent about Bush, because he's the worst Republican president of my lifetime," Tim Harrington, 44, said as his wife cradled their 10-week-old daughter and protesters walked by carrying signs. "But while I'm there, I'll probably vote for him."

That's John Kerry's worst nightmare. Other than, perhaps, OBL showing up on the Friday before the election, ending the argument (because what can anyone say?) and leaving it all out of the control of the candidates.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the bin Laden tape is going to push things too much one way or another. Most "likely" voters and new registrants have already made up their minds about who to vote for and nothing short of a major attack is going to change minds at this stage of the election.

By the way, all those polling numbers and their "likely" voter models are about as good as the Magic 8 Ball sitting on my desk. If nothing else this last month has been absolutely hilarious for all the obsessing about temples of numbers built upon foundations of faulty methodology.

ObL could break either way but only marginally; on one hand he could re-focus a few undecided minds away from their lack of health insurance at either of their two low-paying jobs back on al-Qaeda or it could drive home the unspinnable fact that three years after 9/11, Osama is still video-quality healthy, i.e. not "brought to justice."

For you Republicans hanging around, if Bush gets elected or otherwise re-appointed, enjoy your last four years in the White House for a long time. If I were you, I'd be praying for a Kerry victory because there's going to be some serious bills come due during this next four years and whomever is in power, personal and party, is going to pay for it with their electoral margins in 2008.


Anonymous said...

Just to put a different spin on the ObL tape-- It might just be that The Evil One WANTS Bush to win the election. He might need Bush as a strong American Icon to mobilize his Jihadists. Having Kerry win the election might be a "non-starter" for ObL's minions. If bin Laden thinks that this tape will actually hurt Bush, then he isn't too smart!!

Anonymous said...

My initial reaction was that this plays badly for Bush. Think about the two major news stories right now. We failed to lock down 380 tons of powerful explosives (and the new video evidence of it) and Osama's still out there. I don't think this makes Bush very good.

If Kerry wins, I think the analysis will point to this last week as a major reason why. In a race this tight, neither side can afford to make a single mistake, especially not this late. Bush/Rove mishandled the news of the explosives from the start, and they've continued to do so. Ignoring the video of the explosives for a moment, there's no reason why that should have been such a major story on Wednesday, with Bush not even commenting on it until then. Neither side can afford that kind of mishandling right now. It might be enough to make the difference. Or I might be wrong. Tuesday (hopefully) will tell.

Palooka said...

Belmont Club has an excellent analysis, briefly discussed on my blog.

OBL's latest tape shows a marked change in tone and strategy. Wretchard from the Belmont Club writes:

"It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out."

"The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender."

Now, I'll leave it to each individual to decide whether such a reversal is sign that OBL secretly wants Bush re-elected or not. Usually a call for truce or a "time out" is a sign of weakness and imminent defeat. Could it be that budding democracy in Afganistan and Iraq really is the nail in the Islamofascist coffin? It would appear OBL thinks so.

Anonymous said...

Why does this have to be a plus for Bush? The way I see it is that this reminds everyone that he failed to get bin Laden. Remember Tora Bora.

Anonymous said...

Budding democracy in Iraq? Palooka, you are such a touching example of the "quiet American." Living on your pathetic illusions , along with that pseudo-philosopher, Belmont Club. Both of you would have been telling us about "budding democracy" in Saigon under General Theiu in 1970. Eight marines were killed today for Bush's illusion and yours. Thousands of soldiers are recorded for memory on the Vietnam Memorial. Did democracy in Vietnam "bud" for them? Do not try to change the world until you understand a little of it beyond Dubuque.

Anonymous said...

The previous poster is a touching example of the Limousine Liberal who implicitly argues that Arabs, Muslims, Turks, Afghans, etc. are so ignorant and uncivilized that they are not capable of democratic governments.

And I find it amazing that he/she uses Vietnam as an example of a failed American effort to spread Democracy when the same guy who is now demoralizing our troops and encouraging the enemy in Iraq for political gain helped lose the Vietnam war by demoralizing our troops and encouraging the enemy for political gain.

To quote John Kerry, “Wake up America!”

Solomon Wolfson

MyPoint said...

He/She is absolutely right. but for the wrong reason. there will not be a lasting democracy in any of these countries when you have an intolerant religion. the dictators who run all these places know it best. the punishment for crimes are harsh,swift and severe. the US will win the war in Iraq when they stop worying about the sensibilties of every ethnic group and start acting like an army. when the enemy understands that the punishmnet is harsh , swift and severe than there will be a peace.

think Hiroshima, Nagasaki. only then did the bloodshed stop.

Rothko said...

"there will not be a lasting democracy in any of these countries when you have an intolerant religion".

So does that mean we should nuke the south for fostering evangelical christinaity? If you want to look for intolerant religions you need look no further than you're own town. That's why I'm an Episcopalian. No rules mean = exra tolerant...sort of.

And Solomon don't forget the Russian's, the limo libs think they can't handle democracy either. Oh wait...they can't.

R.W. Apple has an article in the Times today suggesting that in fact, as many of us have posted in this thread, Osama showing up on Friday hasn't moved the needle in the election.

Man, his endorsement is worth about as much as Al Gore's these days.

Anonymous said...

Solomon and My point: "Quiet Americans" all, heads filled with murderous fantasies in pursuit of ideals, eager to proclaim middle-class democracies emerging in societies dominated for millenia by tribes, sects, and clans. John Updike captured you perfectly in the interior monologue of his character, Harry Angstrom: "Beneath her(America's) patient bombers paradise was possible." Happy Reading in Greene and Updike!

not a limo liberal,but a conservative isolationist.

Anonymous said...

I thought there might be a chance you were a Buchanan conservative. In that case, I respect your opinion.

You actually have one.

The same cannot be said for the Democrats who supported Clinton's unilateral dictator-toppling and nation-building in the 1990s and have now suddenly become isolationists when a Republican occupies the White House.

If Clinton was in office now, removed Saddam, and was trying to help the Iraqis create a democratic government, there would be 90% bipartisan support. And the terrorists wouldn't have a candidate to endorse in the US presidential election.