NationStates Jolt Archive

This just feeds into my theory from another thread that most Bush supporters don't really know 1) what the real situation is in the world and 2) what their guy stands for.

PIPA (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_9_29_04.html) just did a study where Bush supporters and Kerry supporters were asked about the policy positions of their respective candidates, and guess what?
PIPA-Knowledge Networks poll finds that Americans who plan to vote for President Bush have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, on the other hand, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush’s positions, though to a smaller extent than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry’s positions correctly. Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments: “What is striking is that even after nearly four years President Bush’s foreign policy positions are so widely misread, while Senator Kerry, who is relatively new to the public and reputed to be unclear about his positions, is read correctly.”

It's a fascinating piece.

Well, hell, since I had to bump my other thread to get any attention for it, I'll do the same here, by adding in the next paragraph in the report.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).

Now why do you suppose that these Bush supporters have gotten it so horribly wrong on everything but increases in defense spending (and only 57% at that) and the UN? Maybe it's because he's not exactly the clearest on his agenda for the country.

For the record, I'd have nailed this quiz, and I don't come anywhere near to supporting him.

All I know is that Bush is isolating the US from it's allies, starting pointless wars and that Bush pretty much said "F*ck it" to the Kyoto Accord (I did a very long, pointless report on the accord two years ago).

Well duh-why do you think they support him? :p

Ya, when he was Governor of Texas, the state water quality dropped and the pollution levels rose. Why should anyone expect he do anything different as President?

How could you be anything but ignorant if you think Bush is doing a good job as president and think that Kerry is a huge flipflopper and runs on his record as a vietnam vet and nothign more?

This study just shows what we have already seen over and over again from Bush supporters on NS.

How could you be anything but ignorant if you think Bush is doing a good job as president and think that Kerry is a huge flipflopper and runs on his record as a vietnam vet and nothign more?

This study just shows what we have already seen over and over again from Bush supporters on NS.
I know. I'm just trying to see how they explain this.

So our suspicions that Bush supporters were either stupid or ignorant were true...hmmm.

Liberals did the study on handpicked republicans which they already knew were ignorant of Bush's policies, so they could discredit them!!!!111!1 um... yeah!

So our suspicions that Bush supporters were either stupid or ignorant were true...hmmm.



It would appear so, or at least they don't know why they vote for Bush, he's just another Republican who will surely stop the pinko-commie Democrats with all their gay love.

I think most progressives knew this but it’s always good to see it in real print: D
I love how bush touts his education reform and how it’s based on Texas schools, when you know what they do. Well if you are not doing well say in one class as a freshman you take that class as a freshman and all other classes as a sophomore, but technically you are still a freshman (Texas does tests in sophomore year to measure how well a school is doing) then when you finish that year you are automatically moved up to a Junior skipping over 10th grade all together, got to love it (pardon all spelling I haven’t found a spell check if there is one)
I love it when Blaire said that the UK was wrong in going in when there was no evidence of WMD's I hope the moderators ask that question in the debates
-John aka Edward Sevaro minister of political affairs

All I know is that Bush is isolating the US from it's allies, starting pointless wars and that Bush pretty much said "F*ck it" to the Kyoto Accord (I did a very long, pointless report on the accord two years ago).

Romania's the only country that didn't say that under its breath.

That is your opinion
not the opinion of Bush supporters
in the USA we both have a right
to our opinions.

Romania's the only country that didn't say that under its breath.



Well as far as economics go, many countries with decent economies wouldn't see this as something that would help the economy, but at least other countries said it under their breath.

I'd say that the reason behind this is that when guessing Kerry's policies it doesn't matter what you say, John Kerry probably believed it at one time:

In example Iraq (a war that John Kerry voted to allow) was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." However, he, John Kerry, still would "have voted for Iraq war" "even knowing what we now know" ("what we now know" being that this was "the wrong war" because it is fun to screw people over, I guess).

This is the reason why the Statburg Voting and Pancake Breakfast Commission doesn't let anyone vote until they pass an intelligence test.

Yet in the "rest of the world", the idea seems to be to get as many people voting as possible. I read an article a few years ago about some politicians in Scotland that wanted to make sure people in mental institutions had the right to vote!

I don't live in the states (I live in Canada) but I gotta say, Bush is screwing up a lot of things for you guys, making enemies and alienating people. Not that I particularly like Kerry either, but I do believe he would make a better president than Bush, lesser of two evils kind of thing.

Okay, to say one side has more idiotic voters than another is by far one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in my life. Here's what happened to the concept of the 'intelligent voter':

Many years ago there was a president named George Washington. Now if you ever cracked open a text book about American history you probably know how he was well, a semi-voluntary first president. It was of his opinion that if anything was to keep democracy pure then there could not be political parties. However his ideology falls to the fatal flaw that if there are about eight candidates throwing their hats into the election arena then a lot of votes are going to be split and if one of the already existing 'parties' did not have so many candidates they would waffle stomp the opposition.

The two party system was invented as a measure to make elections "fair". Fair? Hardly. What happened was the spawning of some of the most idiotic voters in existance. Party line voters. Democrat or Republican in this era, being a party voter means you will blindly follow the whims of your chosen political party and vote libral or conservative right on down the line! These party elitests are far too many and often consist of the majority of the actual voting public. Considering the opinionated public is either running off the idiotic assumption that their vote does not matter in a sea of already ignorant votes, or simply they're too lazy to get up off their McDonalds eating butt to get out there and take a stand on something. It's hard to call the majority of the voters educated on the issues.

So what does this mean? Your claim is true most likely, does anyone care? Nope. Why? Simple, the other side draws as much blind allegience as the republicans do, if not more. The slogan of this year is that if you think Bush is a big stupid head then vote for the other guy, whoever he is.

Go vomit your statistics on some autistic children. I'm sure they can process it to the degree that it's significant.

Bush supporters could say the same thing about Kerry

Bush supporters could say the same thing about Kerry
You know, if you actually took the time to read the actual article the thread refers to, you would realize just how moronic that statement is.

Has anyone else noticed that there's been 20 replies now and the only defence of the article has been: 'Kerry supporters would be the same' - which shows the writer didn't read the article at all; and (yet again) 'At least Bush isn't a flip-flop'. <yawn>.
Rather interesting.
BTW it shows what Bush focuses on in his speeches - war and not the economy.
It also tells you what he'll do in the debates - no matter what the question, he'll just repeat the phrase "The world is better off without Saddam and Osama", and "You voted for, then against. America needs a strong leader, (who will make one decision, never back down no matter how bad and never admit he was wrong)" OK I put the last bit in. But that's pretty much how the debates will go.
And everyone will say how great Bush did, ignoring the fact he never answered one question about the WMDs, job losses, expanding deficit, increasing levels of terrorism, failure to catch Osama, ....

And the funniest thing--funny in a sardonic way, not a ha ha way--is that on the issues, whether it's Iraq or the "war on terra" or the 9/11 commission, or anything but tax cuts for the wealthy, Bush is the biggest flip-flopper in the world.

Another study was done sevral months ago on the most informed segment of the population. It showed that Republicans using Fox as their primary source were the leasr informed and in fact extremly misinformed (40+% believed that WMD's had been found, etc). Democrats listening to NPR as their primary source were the best informed. I can't remember the name of this study, but I'm sure someone with some internet savvy and freetime could find it. If you do please let me know.

Another study was done sevral months ago on the most informed segment of the population. It showed that Republicans using Fox as their primary source were the leasr informed and in fact extremly misinformed (40+% believed that WMD's had been found, etc). Democrats listening to NPR as their primary source were the best informed. I can't remember the name of this study, but I'm sure someone with some internet savvy and freetime could find it. If you do please let me know.
Oddly enough, it was a study done by the same group--PIPA. It's available somewhere on their website.

Okay, to say one side has more idiotic voters than another is by far one of the stupidest things I have ever seen in my life. Here's what happened to the concept of the 'intelligent voter':

Many years ago there was a president named George Washington. Now if you ever cracked open a text book about American history you probably know how he was well, a semi-voluntary first president. It was of his opinion that if anything was to keep democracy pure then there could not be political parties. However his ideology falls to the fatal flaw that if there are about eight candidates throwing their hats into the election arena then a lot of votes are going to be split and if one of the already existing 'parties' did not have so many candidates they would waffle stomp the opposition.

The two party system was invented as a measure to make elections "fair". Fair? Hardly. What happened was the spawning of some of the most idiotic voters in existance. Party line voters. Democrat or Republican in this era, being a party voter means you will blindly follow the whims of your chosen political party and vote libral or conservative right on down the line! These party elitests are far too many and often consist of the majority of the actual voting public. Considering the opinionated public is either running off the idiotic assumption that their vote does not matter in a sea of already ignorant votes, or simply they're too lazy to get up off their McDonalds eating butt to get out there and take a stand on something. It's hard to call the majority of the voters educated on the issues.

So what does this mean? Your claim is true most likely, does anyone care? Nope. Why? Simple, the other side draws as much blind allegience as the republicans do, if not more. The slogan of this year is that if you think Bush is a big stupid head then vote for the other guy, whoever he is.

Go vomit your statistics on some autistic children. I'm sure they can process it to the degree that it's significant.

To some extent you are correct. However, the poll wasn't about whether both Democrat and Republican parties have members who vote a party line strictly because it's the party line (clearly they do). What the poll's results suggest, however, is that that problem is far more prevalent among the Republican Party than the Democratic party, considering that one group is clearly less ignorant of Bush's intentions than the other.

As a personal note, what I've seen seems to support this conclusion. There've been people on campus recently asking people their party affiliation and who they were planning to vote for. I've also heard at least one person say that to split-ticket vote was illegal. She was a Bush supporter.

I am glad I have the right to vote
I am glad we all have the right to vote
If bush looses I will accept that
If bush wins I hope you will accept that
that is a true democracy
where all our opinions count.

To follow up on your post, Xenophobialand, the study goes on to show that Kerry supporters--not necessarily Democrats--were far more knowledgeable about their candidate's positions than Bush supporters--not necessarily Republicans--were about his positions. That's the key to me. For all the talk that Kerry sends mixed messages, his supporters seem to know what he stands for, while for all the talk that Bush is a straightforward guy, his people sure don't seem to know what he stands for.

I find this article hard to believe.

I'd like to see George Bush out of office. For what reasons I'm not going to name.

However, I know where George Bush stands, or at least relatively compared to John Kerry.

I have no clue where John Kerry stands on virtually ANYTHING. I haven't seen him ever explain himself. Only Bush-bashing is all I've seen. It's truly sad that he is encouraged to do this, because this election has come down to bashing and proving that your Vietnam record was credible. Frankly I don't care much about what was done years ago, I care about the present, which is sadly lacking in Kerry's campaign. I'd like to see John Kerry win, but the sad truth is, I have no idea what he stands for. And that makes me very hesitant to voice any support to him. I just turned 18 earlier this year and have an opportunity to vote. I'm not going to because there is no one worth wasting my time on. I'm certainly not going to give my support to a 2 party system I view as failing.

I find this article hard to believe.

I'd like to see George Bush out of office. For what reasons I'm not going to name.

However, I know where George Bush stands, or at least relatively compared to John Kerry.

I have no clue where John Kerry stands on virtually ANYTHING. I haven't seen him ever explain himself. Only Bush-bashing is all I've seen. It's truly sad that he is encouraged to do this, because this election has come down to bashing and proving that your Vietnam record was credible. Frankly I don't care much about what was done years ago, I care about the present, which is sadly lacking in Kerry's campaign. I'd like to see John Kerry win, but the sad truth is, I have no idea what he stands for. And that makes me very hesitant to voice any support to him. I just turned 18 earlier this year and have an opportunity to vote. I'm not going to because there is no one worth wasting my time on. I'm certainly not going to give my support to a 2 party system I view as failing.
Nothing personal, but you've fallen for the right-wing spin. You want to find out where Kerry stands on virtually any issue? Go to the Kerry website and prepare to read for days. You'll find tons of stuff that has nothing to do with Vietnam.

There's a part of me, I must admit, that says if you have the slightest inkling that you'll vote for Bush, then go ahead and stay home, but I can't tell you to do that. Vote. It is your solemn responsibility as a citizen. It is the lifeblood of any democratic society. So while I care who you vote for, it's more important that you vote, even if you cast a "fuck you" vote against someone rather than for someone.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%). However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).

Well, here's one who supports these positions as stated. Especially regarding the International Criminal Court and Kyoto.

It would appear so, or at least they don't know why they vote for Bush, he's just another Republican who will surely stop the pinko-commie Democrats with all their gay love.

Yes, that's about right.

Nothing personal, but you've fallen for the right-wing spin. You want to find out where Kerry stands on virtually any issue? Go to the Kerry website and prepare to read for days.And that's just about all his opinions on any one theme. It's documented, the man changes opinions at the drop of a hat.
You'll find tons of stuff that has nothing to do with Vietnam.It's hidden between all the references to Vietnam, but by golly, it is there.

There's a part of me, I must admit, that says if you have the slightest inkling that you'll vote for Bush, then go ahead and stay home, but I can't tell you to do that. Vote. It is your solemn responsibility as a citizen. It is the lifeblood of any democratic society. So while I care who you vote for, it's more important that you vote, even if you cast a "fuck you" vote against someone rather than for someone.On the overall, we agree, even when we disagree. I'd much rather see you vote than waste the privilege so many have died to give you. Just remember "Vote for me because I am not (NAME)" is not necessarily a winning argument.

Nothing personal, but you've fallen for the right-wing spin. You want to find out where Kerry stands on virtually any issue? Go to the Kerry website and prepare to read for days. You'll find tons of stuff that has nothing to do with Vietnam.

There's a part of me, I must admit, that says if you have the slightest inkling that you'll vote for Bush, then go ahead and stay home, but I can't tell you to do that. Vote. It is your solemn responsibility as a citizen. It is the lifeblood of any democratic society. So while I care who you vote for, it's more important that you vote, even if you cast a "fuck you" vote against someone rather than for someone.

I'm referring to what you see on the news. You never see Kerry standing up and saying "I believe in this..this..this..and this.." It's "We're in the predicament we're in because we need better leadership" But that doesn't really help much, even if he is right.
And frankly I think John Kerry shouldn't be trying to convey that will be a stronger leader. Personally I feel GWB is a very strong leader, just not a good one. To me John Kerry would fair better to not run off the slogan "A Stronger America" but rather one that draws to mind the higher compassion for lower and middle class that democrats typically have. I don't want an incredibly strong leader. I want one that is reasonable and will listen to others. Bush wins when it comes to leadership in all the polls. Kerry needs to win in issues like the economy and at-home crises like medicare and medicaid.

And besides, isn't the media more liberal, save Fox News?

As far as voting goes, I wouldn't want to protest vote in this election. Many of my friends are going to, but I don't like that idea. I don't want to help elect someone I may not like and may end up having to protest vote against in the next election.

That's because the news of any sort only puts out a few little blurbs of any speech, and those blurbs rarely have anything substantive to say on anything. Having seen Kerry speak myself, I found him quite articulate on a number of different positions (and no, they weren't self-contradictory or a change from where he was before, Panhandlia).

Secondly, yes, in a time of war is very much a time when we need a strong leader. The question therefore is what constitutes a strong leader? To George W. Bush and his supporters, it means acting disturbingly like a 6 year-old: never admitting you're wrong, refusing to change your position even in the face of overwhelming evidence you're wrong, refusing to admit you've changed your position when you do change your position, bullying other nations, ramroding through legislation at home, etc. To John Kerry, it means acting like a grown-up, with all the complexities that such a view entails.

Thirdly, I have to ask how you figure that the media is biased? Is it because FOX News, AM Radio, the books atop the New York Times Bestseller list for the last 10 years (excepting maybe the last year or two), or any of 3 or 4 dozen different pundits have been telling you that? If that's the case, then perhaps you ought to consider whether such an oppressed minority would really be able to get out their message as effectively as they have.

The truth is that reporters tend to be, on average, more socially liberal than most people (which is the sole factual basis for the claim), but more fiscally conservative (which is the factual evidence conveniently left out of the conservative analysis). In effect, they're a bunch of soft Libertarians. But this is counterbalanced by the fact that their editors and owners are overwhelmingly conservative in their view. As a result, most news organizations tend to be overwhelmingly biased not towards Democrats, but towards the status quo and pro-corporation. They also tend to skew their news to whichever side seems more popular (thus the various cable networks attempting to out-Patriot the others in the runup to the Iraq war, for instance).

will vote for Michael Badnarik Libertarian
some persons will vote for Ralph Nader
some persons will vote for others on the ballot
because they dont like Bush or Kerrey
are they ignorant too.

will vote for Michael Badnarik Libertarian
some persons will vote for Ralph Nader
some persons will vote for others on the ballot
because they dont like Bush or Kerrey
are they ignorant too.
Nope--your post was ignorant because it completely missed the point of the study done by PIPA. The study showed that Bush supporters didn't know what their candidate stood for, while Kerry's supporters did know what their candidate stood for. Who they vote for in the end is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Has anyone else noticed that there's been 20 replies now and the only defence of the article has been: 'Kerry supporters would be the same' - which shows the writer didn't read the article at all; and (yet again) 'At least Bush isn't a flip-flop'. <yawn>.
Rather interesting.
BTW it shows what Bush focuses on in his speeches - war and not the economy.
It also tells you what he'll do in the debates - no matter what the question, he'll just repeat the phrase "The world is better off without Saddam and Osama", and "You voted for, then against. America needs a strong leader, (who will make one decision, never back down no matter how bad and never admit he was wrong)" OK I put the last bit in. But that's pretty much how the debates will go.
And everyone will say how great Bush did, ignoring the fact he never answered one question about the WMDs, job losses, expanding deficit, increasing levels of terrorism, failure to catch Osama, ....
Well you see, it is like this.....Bush and Company got tired of exploring caves so they thought they would lay a little "Shock and Awe" on those nasty Iraqis.

Now you have two countries in a terrible mess and it only cost the US taxpayers a couple of hundred Billion.

but isn't Kerry a flipflopper? :rolleyes:

I don't think they will ever get it. Since they cant even bother to find out what their own candidates platform is... they certainly are never going to find out what Kerrys platform is and will just go the easy route and spew the same verbal diarreah over and over again ad naseum.

Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that:

Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%)

Against. Most labour and "environmental" standards as put forth in international forums are just dodges to hamstring US industry. For this reason our once thriving steel industry is all but dead.

...(the) US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%)

Against, as other countries violate it. And as I'm against a dud-strewn nuclear weapons deterrent.

...the International Criminal Court (66%)

That's a farce. I'd vote against Bush if he were for the EU-controlled ICC. "International" my arse.


...the treaty banning land mines (72%)

Against. We use mines to deter the North Koreans from crossing the DMZ, and the treaty advocates refused to make an exception for them.

...and the Kyoto Treaty on global warming (51%)

Against. The treaty takes advantage of accurate US statistics, does not make any noise about Chinese and Indian industrial pollution (or African "slash and burn" agriculture, for that matter), and seems hugely popular with the French because of their heavy investment int he nuclear power industry. The scientific "proof" I've seen on this seems to be so much bull putty and brow beating.


*) They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44%) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%).

We should do both - build a rudimentary system now, and research a superior system while we're at it.

However, majorities were correct that Bush favors increased defense spending (57%) and wants the US, not the UN, to take the stronger role in developing Iraq's new government (70%).

Agree with both stances. The French record in Iraq is especially pitiful and nasty. Although I favour a UK-led civil affairs program - the Brits are more experienced and more professional at this sort of thing.

You sold me. I'm convinced. One more voter for Bush.

My opinion is that Kerry supporters are ignorant. So what, Conservative and Liberals will always be at eachother's throats.

Oh yes, all us Bush supporters are arrogant ignorant coservative bastards *rolls eyes*. Please, now, I will admit, many of the Bush supporters come here with retarded, and incoherant arguemnets that you guys mindlessy bash. Now, the number one reason I am voting for Bush is becuase he is decisive, by dam, if he says he is going to do something, then he is going to do it, wether it be invading iraq or colonizing the moon! Kerry on the other hadn, as many have said, is a flip-flopper, but thats not really why I dispise him. Now, before you go OMFG! U totally missed the point of this thread dumb ass, i read over, but im tired of all the Bush Bashers on this forum, anyway, in to my mindless rant. Now, before I begin, i would like to qoute John kerry

"Anyone who thinks that the world is not safer now that Saddam Hussien is gone, does not have the quilifications to be the pesidnet.

Same Day

Every since, the removal of Saddam Hussien and the war with iraq, we have made our country and the world a more dangerous place. *Stares in awe at the sheer stupidity*

Anyway, my main beef with Kerry the war in iraq, now the man approves the war in iraq, in fact, he was of the many who appluaded it! But when the shit hits the fan and he sees how the populace reacts, he quickly gos on the offensive agains the war, then trys to refuse to send our troops the weapons and supplies they needed, now what is he thinking here, how can i trust this man to be Commander in Chief, when he can send out troops into a war, just to ridacule and attack there reason for being there, then refuse to send them the supplys they need to win, now I have many of my family in the military including my dad *not in Iraq* I wold not trust this man with the lifes of half my family.

Okay on to my next beef, now this really isnt that political, but it just kinda eats away at me, Kerry says he is a hunter, and is desperatly trying to get the hunter and sportsmen vote, now being an avid hunter i am *go ahead make the conservative redneck jokes all you want* and looking at both the pics and magazines views of his hunt, I cant tell this man is bullshitting, plus hes trying to sign bills to eliminate our right to own guns, please Mr Kerry, keep your hands of the Bill of Rights, thank you very much.

Now, I have many more ways why I hate Kerry and political errors he has made and lies he has spun, everyone has there right to think who they want to win, now, even though i have spoke against the truly Kerry majority here on the boards, doesnt mean in anyway that im thinking your point of view is stupid, its your choice, so i expect you all give me the same, i have my points of views, so please none of athat, OMG A Republican, kill him fwuhahahaha! Lta all, now to go mess around in the International Incidents

Now why do you suppose that these Bush supporters have gotten it so horribly wrong on everything but increases in defense spending (and only 57% at that) and the UN? Maybe it's because he's not exactly the clearest on his agenda for the country.This says something both chilling and uplifting about the voting public. The chilling part is obvious: how could Bush supporters not know his positions on the issues?

On the other hand, it proves that the American people - even self identified conservatives - are far more liberal than they are given credit for. Bush's supporters don't want to think of him as an ogre so they are in denial about his policies and imagine him having attitudes closer to their own.

We have seen this before.

The Annenberg School of Communication once did a study in which they showed a news segment to a group of people and polled their understanding of it. The segment showed Ronald Reagan visiting a nursing home as the reporter spoke of the cuts in Medicaid and Medicare he was proposing. Well over half the viewers thought Reagan opposed making any cuts. Why? In part, this was because pictures trump words. But this was also because the viewers themselves opposed any cuts but liked Reagan's friendly personal demeanor. Imagining that Reagan's policies were different allowed them to reconcile this contradiction.

Unfortunately, I cannot provide any citation for this one.

That is your opinion
not the opinion of Bush supporters
in the USA we both have a right
to our opinions.Um, apparently they are the opinions (plural) of many Bush supporters. After all, they polled Bush supporters on their opinions. They were doing a study. Reading comprehension: it's a beautiful thing.

I am glad I have the right to vote
I am glad we all have the right to vote
If bush looses I will accept that
If bush wins I hope you will accept that
that is a true democracy
where all our opinions count.Who is this dude who doesn't believe in punctuation and typesets his replies like poems? And what if Bush steals the election (again)? I'm intrigued and want to hear more. At least he is not one of these "this is not a democracy, it's a republic" morons.

This is specifically directed at Nycton and Terronian:

Learn to read before you make asinine comments. Nowhere in this thread have I referred to Bush supporters are ignorant people. What I said, and what the study said, was that Bush supporters are ignorant as to the stands their candidate takes on these particular issues. It was not a condemnation of you as a Bush supporter.

There are other threads for that.

I just turned 18 earlier this year and have an opportunity to vote. I'm not going to because there is no one worth wasting my time on. I'm certainly not going to give my support to a 2 party system I view as failing.
Vote for Badnarik! He's the Libertarian candidate. You would be "doing your civic duty" and NOT giving support to a 2 party system at the same time!
Go here:

http://badnarik.org/plans.php

I certainly wouldn't want you to vote for someone you know nothing about!

I just wanted to say regardless of who I am voting for, that I appreciate the maturity with which MOST of you are debating this issue, and I am becoming a little more educated on the important issues simply by reading this. Thanks for posting in the first place.

I can see where everyone would want to see Bush lose. I can see why people want to believe that Bush supporters are stupid.

I cannot see how people can make this assumption based upon one set of poll numbers from an organization that is, upon a further glance, an arm of COPA and the University of Maryland.

Let's face the facts, everyone. You don't like Bush supporters. That's all well and good. And one set of poll numbers reflect your ideas. Whoop-dee-do.

None of this will be settled until November 3rd, 2004. Until then, I would advise everyone to pay attention to the debates and the upcoming election, and less on their own skewed ideas of who Bush supporters, or even Kerry supporters, are.

Until then, drop the blatant self-screwing with the partisan stick of doom.

None of this will be settled until November 3rd, 2004.


SHHHHH, don't anyone tell him the election is on November 2nd!!
He's going to miss casting his vote!!

hehehehehehehehe :D

I have vote-by-mail.

Go get me a soda, n00b.

And, the results will be posted on November 3rd.

Get me a soda, now.

However, I know where George Bush stands, or at least relatively compared to John Kerry. I have no clue where John Kerry stands on virtually ANYTHING.Start with the article. Then do some research on your own. You can't really rely on the mainstream media for information because they are more interested in covering name-calling than issues which is why all you are getting is a "he said / he said" picture. Infotainment is now the name of the game; hence issues are Bo-ring. That and the corporately-owned media don't exactly want informed voters. The watchdog of democracy has long become the lap dog of the establishment.

I haven't seen him ever explain himself. Only Bush-bashing is all I've seen. It's truly sad that he is encouraged to do this, because this election has come down to bashing and proving that your Vietnam record was credible.Kerry's defending himself against slanderous attacks. It's truly sad that he has to, but I can't imagine that you have only been exposed to Bush-bashing when there is so much relentless Kerry-bashing. Of course the media loves both and eggs it on. “Dude, he just called you liar – are you going to take that? …”

Frankly I don't care much about what was done years ago, I care about the present, which is sadly lacking in Kerry's campaign.Well, the unspoken present - or near future - reality is that if Bush gets another term, your 18 year-old ass is likely going to Iraq, Iran or Syria.

I'd like to see John Kerry win, but the sad truth is, I have no idea what he stands for. And that makes me very hesitant to voice any support to him. I just turned 18 earlier this year and have an opportunity to vote. I'm not going to because there is no one worth wasting my time on. I'm certainly not going to give my support to a 2 party system I view as failing. The two party system does indeed suck, but you don’t reform it by not voting. Instead, you build third parties at the state level and then go national. I voted for Nader in 2000 because I knew Kentucky was safely in Bush’s pocket. But I was angered by his not sticking to safe states to build the Green Party. I will be voting for Kerry this time around.

And besides, isn't the media more liberal, save Fox News?The media isn't liberal but subtly libertarian. Sex sells, so of course there is plenty on the airwaves that conservatives blast as "liberal". But the media is first and foremost a big business and hence fiscally conservative. They lied out their asses to dismantle welfare, discredit unions, slander environmentalists and confuse people on Affirmative Action. They love the WTO and NAFTA, etc. What distinguishes Fox from the rest of the media is their blatant, ham-handed conservatism.

I have vote-by-mail.

Go get me a soda, n00b.

And, the results will be posted on November 3rd.

Get me a soda, now.The results will likely be posted well before midnight on the 2nd unless we have another Florida fiasco. And watch it with that n00b shit.

Kerry's defending himself against slanderous attacks. It's truly sad that he has to, but I can't imagine that you have only been exposed to Bush-bashing when there is so much relentless Kerry-bashing. Of course the media loves both and eggs it on. “Dude, he just called you liar – are you going to take that? …”


Best most concise(sp) media analysis I've seen in a while. Laughed my ass off.

I have vote-by-mail.

Go get me a soda, n00b.

And, the results will be posted on November 3rd.

Get me a soda, now.

Here's your soda ...

:gundge:
I might give you that, maybe!
Remember from last time, they only count the "absentees" and whatnot if they need to!

But here's your soda anyway,

:sniper:

Posted where, BTW. Not The Supreme Court Building again I hope, cuz that was not well into December.

The results will likely be posted well before midnight on the 2nd unless we have another Florida fiasco. And watch it with that n00b shit.

My point still stands.


I might give you that, maybe!
Remember from last time, they only count the "absentees" and whatnot if they need to!

Apparently, you know nothing of Oregon politics. Vote-by-mail is how EVERYONE votes here. It's not just absentees, but the whole population.

Posted where, BTW. Not The Supreme Court Building again I hope, cuz that was not well into December.

I was thinking such papers as the Oregonian, New York Times, Sacramento Bee, and other papers. They usually don't do to print on Election day until 11PM or 1AM the next morning. That's where the September 3rd thing comes in.

Plus, I figured in a little extra time to count South Dakota, Wisconsin, Florida, Oregon, and Minnesota.

I figure it's better to add in an extra couple of hours, just as an incase, rather than think that they'll be able to say who won by 10PM PST on Election Day. That's why I say November 3rd, because I'd rather be safe than expect Kerry or Bush to be declared the winner by Dan Rather or Shepard Smith.

"Daily Show Viewers Knowledgeable About Presidential
Campaign, Annenberg Election Survey Shows"

http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/naes/2004_03_late-night-knowledge-2_9-21_pr.pdf

so, about this poll - any bush supporters care to comment on the actual content of it yet? or at least attack its methods and sampling procedure?

bump

and does anyone else get the sense that this sorta makes it seem like the republican party is actually a coalition of single issue voters, with several different and wildly conflicting single issues? and that that explains how a coalition of big spending welfare capitalists, 'small government' types, religious authoritarians, and just plain old fascists can all vote for the same person?