« Kerry Gaining Among Independents | Main | Zogby Polls Say Kerry leads in 13 of 16 Swing States »

Kerry Up By 7 In New National Poll

A poll conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research for Democracy Corps August 2-5 found that 51 percent of likely voters would vote for John Kerry "if the election were held today," with 44 percent for George Bush.

Comments

Kerry sure isn't getting any help from the media this morning. I noticed that all the major talk shows were 100% right wing. Is this just by chance or what?

I guess every everyone is sharpening their knives for the GOP convention... also, the GOP will push their guys and their points of view to the front of the news now because they are seeking good coverage for their up coming event...

Likewise, its important to face the issues head on and make an effort to stear the focus... so the GOP will be making every effort now to talk on other issues besides last week's revelations about the economy and such.

You have to expect this.. its the norm. The Dems simply have to make a greater effort all week long.

cheers

Times reports the IA Futures has Bush at 52%. They claim they're always within 1.5%. Anyway to "turn the corner" to Kerry on this - can Dems buy futures?

I have a question... has anyone done any genuine research to determine why the DEMS as a party is so scattered and dispersed?

In reviewing the two parties, I am beginning to notice that its a rear and odd thing for republicans to become democrats but its not unusual for democrats to become republicans. Why is this?

I must admit that I have had a hard time trying to get a really consolidated focus among democrats with whom I speak. They all seem to be in it for a slew of different reasons, in contrast to the GOPs who are simply in it, no matter what.

What makes the GOP so hard core and resilient, while the DEMS are soooooo scattered and loosely set?

One dem turned republican noted that the party had no real direction so she left to follow reagan as a reagan dem and then simply converted to being a die hard republican. Why would she decide to be die hard republican but could not transcend to being a die hard democrat? Are there any die hard democrats? I have never heard of or spoken to any.

The GOP is like a clan, with rules, regulations, motto, philosophy, initiation programs, the works. When you join the GOP, you seem to know in advance what you are getting into.

However the DEMS seem like an open society where diverse peoples can meet and disagree and agree and have varied sets of rules. It seems like people accepting others irrespective of class or creed - an open ended society.

To me the GOP's approach seems to be the one with the most winning strategy but not necesarily the happiest people.. while the DEMS seem to have the happy people but the losing strategies.

Over the years, I have found that organisations without strict rules and leadership principles tend to have immense problems getting a quorum. I have found, in contrast that those with the above systems, tend to have clan or brotherhood type followings.

Is there a middle road somewhere in this? hmm..

cheers

Couple of things. My parents are die-hard Dems. Believe you me they are.

Second, and of course I have only a few voluntary surveys to support me so take it with a grain of salt: Dems tend to have more open minds and consider all sides of an arguement while Republicans are more closed minded.

I'm a teacher so I will respond in ed. jargon. Some people are abstract thinkers, comfortable with ideas, willing and able to understand circumstances different than their own, able to form conclusions based on information even when the information contradicts their own emotions or experiences.
But most people are conrete operations thinkers. They base their conclusions on their own emotions and experiences. They seek information only to reinforce their conclusions. Their religion is either a social event or an egocentered experience of God speaking directly to them (this is Bush). Their approach to politics is "What's in it for me?" Of course they never say that, but that's the real bottom line. These people are persuaded by appeals to fear or selfishness. They often view themselves as being the mainstream even when they aren't. Concrete thinkers are less able to understand what they hear and more prone to respond to visual images.
Somebody said that not all conservatives are stupid but all stupid people are conservatives. Democrats are less cohesive because we think. Republicans are more easily led by the nose by their leadership because they don't think, they just believe.
Of course that paragraph above was offenisively overstated but also I believe basically true. Republicans believe they are responsible, mainstream, normal..etc. and they equate those qualities with the party inspite of the party history of over a hundred years of fearmongering and white collar crime. Democrats on the other hand are much more intellectually honest about their own party and in fact are their party's worst critics.. That's why the Democrats grow and change over time while the Republicans from the Red baiting and Teapot Dome scandals up to the present have never offered anything but support for the plutocracy backed by fear and hatred of some enemy. That's also why all of the progressive problemsolving legisation of the last seventy five years has come from the Democrats.
Moderate Republicans are thinking this year however and quite a few of them are thinking about voting for Kerry because they can see that Bush is way too far out there in lunatic fringe territory.

What wonkie said. I couldn't agree more. Re. statement (which wonkie states -and I agree - is a huge generalization) "Republicans... have never offered anything but support for the plutocracy backed by fear and hatred of some enemy." I would add that this fear of an enemy is often an expression of more inchoate, existential fears: fear of change, fear of difference, fear of the unpredictability of life, fear of loss of status. Republicans use these fears to reach out to both nativists and the religious right. Their only hope this November is to keep Americans frightened enough. The Republicans are the Chicken Little Party (OT but re. how fear is often irrational, a 9-11 occurs on your roads every 3 wks. and yet causes no panicked decision-making. Also OT but as a non-American, I often wonder just why is it that America is such a fearful society (an observation made long before 9-11) - is it its hyper-competitive nature, its lack of nets...?).

cheers

Of course I would really love to hear the GOP perspecitve on these takes which you offer about them. Based on my own research, they would be hopping mad at just about eveyrthing you guys have said...

Does anyone know the statistical divide between Republicans, Democrats and others?

Cheers

"Of course I would really love to hear the GOP perspecitve on these takes which you offer about them. Based on my own research, they would be hopping mad at just about eveyrthing you guys have said..."

Bel@9.17p.m.

Sure, of course they would. That's the point about inchoate fears. They're not realized.

Bel asked for the GOP perspective to this comment:

"Somebody said that not all conservatives are stupid but all stupid people are conservatives. Democrats are less cohesive because we think."

Essentially, what Wonkie wrote is that "thinkers" are Dems, analyzing every piece of information before making an informed decision, while Republicans jump off the proverbial bridge because everyone else is.

Sure. You can really tell that Wonkie analyzed every sliver of information she has ever come across and came to the conclusion that folks that don't agree with her are "stupid."

Sounds like an enlightened thinker to me.

I guess your prospective first lady thought a whole lot about other people's perspectives before telling that reporter to "shove it."

And I'll bet she and Kerry really appreciated those FOUR dissenters at his rally chanting "four more years" for Bush, because it would give them, as democrats, more information to make an enlightened decision. I believe that Kerry called them "Bush goons" and Theresa said they wanted "four more years of hell."

Yep. You Dems sure do critically analyze things before making judgments.

I'll write what I've written before. The fringe, far left, whacko branch guides the policies of the once honorable Democratic party. It's pervasive, and will backfire soon.

"Somebody said that not all conservatives are stupid but all stupid people are conservatives. Democrats are less cohesive because we think."

It's John Stuart Mill and the quote is "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."

Granted, Bob, it's a caricature. But it's a caricature with a bit of the stench of truth. Look, we all know when we're talking with an intelligent conservative (I'll let you in on a secret: I really like Bob Dole and one of my all-time favorite politicians - Chris Patten of the UK - is a member of his country's Conservative Party) but we also know that there is an awful lot of stupidity on your side (some on ours too) and an appalling lack of perspective. I think this was the point that wonkie was making with his/her characterization of those able to abstract from the concrete and those who tend to think only in concrete terms. Once again, this doesn't characterize all Republicans but certainly a sizeable number. Look, an outsider's perspective, I have voted Conservative in my native Canada. I can conceive of myself in the right circumstances voting for the conservative parties in Japan, Germany, France, the UK but I cannot ever conceive of myself voting Republican in its current incarnation. What I see as the Thugs (yes, a loaded term) essential stance of "Cheney you, I'm okay," I find utterly abhorant. And I flinch at what seem to be constant attacks on rationalism by the current administration and the Ralph Reed side of the party.

Finally, Bob, I'd be interested in your perspective of what constitutes, fringe, far left or whacko. Does someone like me who heads a small business, believes in competitive capitalism not Texas-style connected capitalism (and in sets of strong rules to ensure this), who doesn't trust concentration of power whether public or private, who distrusts elites and believes in a wider and deeper democracy, who believes wealth is not made in a vacuum (ie. neither Mr. Buffett or Mr. Gates would have made their fortunes in say Malawi but made their wealth in an environment that all contributed too - ie. a progressive tax system should not be considered as alms but instead in a way as a dividend to all those who by helping create the requisite environment are indirect investors in an enterprise), who believes in meritocracy and not an aristocracy of inheritence, do I qualify? Are these nutball beliefs? Presto... end of argument. If so, wow, that's a neat trick. If not, back to you.

cheers,

"The GOP is like a clan, with rules, regulations, motto, philosophy, initiation programs, the works. When you join the GOP, you seem to know in advance what you are getting into"

That is an almost perfect definition of Fascism. Or the Hitler Youth. Is that what you like?

Snickers -

I'd call a Canadian who followed another country's election so passionately a bit whacko.

On the topic of Canada, your system would suit Bush much better -- once you hit a high mark in the polls, you call for an election. If we did things here that way, you'd have Bush winning in a Reagan-style landslide in April/May 2003.

Earlier this year (I believe two) major study (ies) of the psychological correlates of conservativism were published in a leading journal of the American Psychological Association. If anyone is interested, I can post the citations. I recall that fear, in a variety of contexts, was one of the central aspects of the conservative mind-set.

I have always classified republicans as the super-rich, religious bigots, and stupid people. I have yet meet one that doesn't fit in one of those categories.

"I'd call a Canadian who followed another country's election so passionately a bit whacko."

Well it does kind of does affect us, you know. It's not an autarkic world. Also, anyone with the least interest in international events (you know, Canada's part of the world too) cannot but have more than a biding interest in what happens in the States cause for better or worse, it counts. But I also follow events and politics in other countries as well... As to some extent does any educated person outside the States (though I know it's wacko for an American to pay attention to anything outside their country) It is our planet. I mean, I do business round the world and when meeting French, German, Chinese, British, Mexican, Brazilian, Arab or Japanese counterparts, we just kind of expect ignorance from our American friends.

"On the topic of Canada, your system would suit Bush much better -- once you hit a high mark in the polls, you call for an election. If we did things here that way, you'd have Bush winning in a Reagan-style landslide in April/May 2003."

You'd be surprised. People adjust to a system. If the timing looks too opportune, people react against it. It can turn an election. Also, the campaigning is much more policy-focused. More air time for candidates and real debates not the namby-pamby style debates you guys do (politicians are prepared for this through the daily hazing of the parliamentary question period). But at the same time, we don't have anything near the mudslinging (by this I don't mean policy criticisms but the dirty stuff, the lies, like the stuff Bush associates push-polled in South Carolina about McCain having fathered an illegitimate black daughter) Also the ability to call an election doesn't help much if the goverment is extremely unpopular. It certainly didn't help the Conservatives in the 1993 election when they dropped from 169 to 2 seats. Talk about a rout! I grant you that the ability to time an election might not work well in the States where the two parties so gerrymander the system, where the media for the most part fails to report policies and where money so floods over everything that individual races are well, probably the least competitve among democratic nations. I mean, a few years back, incumbents in the States were winning 98% of the races. What kind of democracy is that? A pretty pathetic one I'd say. Certainly not one to go all round the world showcasing as a model system. Fact is, your system's barely functioning. People don't feel able to make a change, people don't feel spoken to. Which is a large part of the reason so many people don't vote.

anyway, thoughts from a wacko canuck (following the best defense is offense strategy here)

cheers

Ummmm,

>The GOP is like a clan, with rules, regulations, motto, philosophy, initiation programs, the works. When you join the GOP,

I better drop the GOP a line because I seem to not have received my copy....

Bel, you ask an interesting question and as an unthinking idiot of the GOP I have some thoughts.

Firstly, I'm not a member of the GOP, I'm more of a centrist. I believe in low taxes, less welfare, some legalized drugs, abortion but with restrictions (ie no late term abortions). I also believe in a strong defence and less government, which includes keeping government out of social engineering.

I don't use drugs, so I don't care if drugs are legalized or not. My wife and I probably wouldn't have an abortion and we take precautions so I'm not to concerned about the abortion issue. The only remaining issues that I am concerned about are those that would make me vote Republican.
As has been stated above, this could be regarded as being driven by selfishness, but thats like saying that someone who refuses to hand over his wallet to a robber is selfish because he wants to keep his money. Isn't a teacher voting liberally in the hope of getting more education funds, and letting her have an abortion also selfish?

By the same measure, I oppose the Moral and Religious overtones that exist in the far right wing of the Republican party, and Yes, I oppose the spending Bush has been racking up.

So, in essence, there are plenty of centrists that are being pissed off by the left, and in particular, the current state of the Democrat party, especially with the moonbat fringes of the left.

In addition, its said that as you get older, the more Republican you get. Al Frankens show just got good ratings with the younger folk which is another validation of this point. I'd suggest that a good majority of younger people have liberal leanings and a number of them grow up, gain more world experience, see the tax deductions on their paychecks or whatever and become Republican voters.

While the left (as above) would like to claim they are more intellectual, this is again, another symptom of the problems on the left, namely intellectual elitism. However, often their thinking regarding Issue X is 'If a republican initiates action X, then its bad, if its Democrats, its good'.
There is an abundance of this thinking regarding the recent AWOL Bush & Kerry in Vietnam escapades. Such intellectual elitism is clearly absent in its open acceptance of items such as Farenheit 911, which has received a large number of rebuttals over its accusations. F911 should belong to the far left fringe, but unfortunately, is being adopted more and more by the mainstream left. Furthermore, such intellectual thinking is absent when making accusations of lying by Bush, and the use of the term 'Bushitler' which again belongs to the left fringes, but is creeping into the mainstream.

The notion of an intellectual left is one that is also perpetuated by the media. They worried that Al Gore was just too smart for the voters to get, and Bill Bradley was too 'Cerebral' for voters to understand, Kerry is too 'nuanced', while Bush was just plain 'Dumb'. This is despite getting better SAT scores than Bill Bradley. The same claims were made against the last President Bush and Reagan. Do they think people are too dumb to see this obvious transparent attack on Republicans and will just not pick up on the fact that every republican put forward for president is 'Dumb'? Which leads me to my next point, perhaps many people are fed up with the left playing politics on the level of school yard name calling. Sure, the right has its own jokes about the left (Teddy Kennedy drinking and drowning friends in water while he calls his attorney, Kerry being the Frenchurian Candidate based on his Frenchness, his stance of French friendly policies, and also speaks volume about opinions of the French). These are at least, to some small degree intellectual, and based somewhat in fact. Compare this to calling Bush Hitler or a terrorist and assuming the entire administration is driven by some Zionist-Arabic-Halliburton conspiracy is simply infantile, and certainly devoid of any analysis of facts that the intellectual left loves to crow about.

Wonkie is right though, the right do tend to have rules and thoughts and stick to them while the left does like to make it up as it goes along. This is possibly the reason that there is such a perceived diversity of thinking on the left when it is infact simply constantly shifting positions.
Furthermore, perhaps the reason that Republicans are quick to jump in on issues is because they already have a pre-defined set of rules on which to judge it by while the left looks at an issue and then decides what set of rules to apply.

I'll leave you with a related thought :

If the War in Iraq was popular right now, would Kerry-Edwards and the Democrats have re-writted their speeches for the convention to reflect a less-anti-war stance?

One thing I do know for sure is that despite the unpopularity of the war, the republicans are still standing by the same principles that led them into that war.

That may be cast as an stubborn unwavering opinion which doesn't change as its surrounding environment changes. However, perhaps it also reflects the fact that the Republicans reasons for going into Iraq still remain intact and just. Either way, the left are more than happy to tell us just what we do think.

Well, Snicker-snack, speaking as one from the southern side of your border, I'd say you nailed that one directly on the head. The saddest thing about your commentary about my country, once truly a beacon of hope, is that you are frighteningly correct. So much so that even the election of Kerry may be little more than a leaking rubber raft sent to rescue the Titanic. Americans are severely and profoundly dillusional about the permanent and eternal nature of our position and power in the world. Such is the consequence of hubris and pride. America's genius has been its ability to save itself from the brink. But winning many times at Russian roullete can be fatally misleading. Since the world will not soon recover from a collapsed U.S., maybe the rest of the world, if even only in enlightened self-interest, will come to our rescue, however ungratefully they will be greeted.

I think the disorganization on the left is a product of false consciousness rather than intellectual incoherence. While liberals agree on virtually every issue, they perceive themselves not as divided. Their primary loyalties are to their own sub-group's priorities.

I talk more about this in my postDivided Dems.

I think the right has a sense for focus and discipline Ė which the left seems to distaste. A pity. This primary loyalty to their sub-group's priorities which Publius correctly characterizes is no strength. It's not a sign of openness. To me it's often sheer arrogance and, yes, stupidity. Just observe the Nader phenomenon, not only in 2004 but in 2000.

I'm glad that the left, the Democrats, the Socialdemocrats in the world are open and differenciated (at least they aspire to be). But there comes a time when this supposed "openness" turns to strategical and, yes, intellectual laziness. "We have it good. We always have it good. The right is weak, anyways. So why doesn't the candidate aspire to MY priorities?"

Just look what happened to Gore (lost because of a left fringe candidate) and also the Socialdemocrats in France (lost because of left fringe candidates), Italy (lost because of left fringe candidates) and Germany (will likely lose because of left fringe candidates). - Yes, Bob, I'm a wacko.

Principles are fine; but a sense for what REALLY is important is better. Beg your pardon for the sermon...

It's not that conservatives are stupid. But what I have noticed is a general dumbing down of debate with regard to the issues. I think that this is partially an effect of Fox News and talk radio. Conservatives in the 80s defended their positions with much more intellectual integrity than they do today.

For example, I would like to see an argument defending Bush's decision to go to Iraq without a post-war plan. I haven't seen any and I've looked.

Religion does play some role, too. I don't know of any secular arguments against gay marriage that are remotely convincing. But, I guess that is a fundamental gap. If you think that homosexuality is prohibited by the Bible, you can't really argue against that. You can only hope that the more progressive argument wins out in the end.

This thread is I guess completely OT so may I somewhat apologetically continue in this vein.

Eldon,
I certainly didn't mean anything in a bad way. And though I guess I'm guilty of it here today, the superior tone of Canadians vis a vis Americans often pisses me off. For all of us outside the States there could be nothing better than a more democratic America less in hock to its business and military interests and more respecting of its own citizens and of democratic decisions made elsewhere (ie. an America where Paul Wolfowitz wouldn't in the spring of 2003 have in essence called for the Turkish military to intervene (ie. overthrow the democratically elected Turkish government) so Turkey could help in the task of "democratizing" Iraq - I will gladly concede though that the man does have a delicious talent for irony).


Delphiguy,
enjoyed your post. A few quibbles though.

"In addition, its said that as you get older, the more Republican you get"

Yeah Disraeli said something along the lines of "A man who is not a liberal at 16 has no heart; a man who is not a conservative at 60 has no head." Nice punch but I don't know how true it is. Certainly agree that men tend to get more conservative as they get older. But also note that it is not unusual for women to become more radicalized. Hence methinks there is something more at work here than the mere the wisdom that comes with age (I so flatter myself) and that it has something more to do with power, lack of power and self-interest (which would bring us back to Wonkie's point about conservatives).


"While the left (as above) would like to claim they are more intellectual, this is again, another symptom of the problems on the left, namely intellectual elitism. "

Yeah I agree the left can be hoity-toity (maybe I sound so too) but I don't know about this conflation of intellectualism and elitism. Is recognizing that there is logic and there is illogic (and that Sean Hannity is a non-stop source of examples of the latter) to be a member of the elite? I kind of thought the elite was about class and power, that someone like say a Mellon-Scaife might be regarded as a member of the elite despite his apparent distaste for intellectualism. But in a way you're right, anti-intellectualism is a strong staple of American thought and is not going to go away and much of the left doesn't talk right.

"Sure, the right has its own jokes about the left (Teddy Kennedy drinking and drowning friends in water while he calls his attorney, Kerry being the Frenchurian Candidate based on his Frenchness, his stance of French friendly policies, and also speaks volume about opinions of the French). These are at least, to some small degree intellectual, and based somewhat in fact. Compare this to calling Bush Hitler or a terrorist..."

Hmm. Rush Limbaugh going on about feminazis, the outrageous conspiracy theories surrounding Vince Foster's death... Also please try visiting the freerepublic.com.

"Wonkie is right though, the right do tend to have rules and thoughts and stick to them while the left does like to make it up as it goes along. This is possibly the reason that there is such a perceived diversity of thinking on the left when it is infact simply constantly shifting positions."

I don't know. I see the diversity the result of many people thinking through things by themselves based on their own frames of understanding the world (is this what you call making stuff up as you go along?) and coming to different conclusions. I don't quite follow how different people having different ideas (diversity of opinion) relates to the concept of changes in opinion.

"One thing I do know for sure is that despite the unpopularity of the war, the republicans are still standing by the same principles that led them into that war. "

Here you've lost me. 9-11 simply presented an opportunity for a group of men to do something they had long wanted to do for a variety of reasons (a display of American power, a desire to reconfigure the political balance in the middle east, a concern about peak oil), namely invade Iraq. As Rummy stated on 9-11, "Go massive, sweep it all up, things related and not." Notice I didn't mention WMD's. In a speech in Cairo in February 2002, Colin Powell said something along the lines of Iraq was in its box and not a danger to anyone. At that time he spoke the truth (He later served up crap to the whole world at the UN).

Is Bob and the DelphiGuy one and the same person? Somehow you seem to confirm what the DEMS are saying about Republicans. You seem even a lil irritated and emotional in your defences of the GOPs positions. Maybe the DEMS are right..

but in any event, I do seem to notice a sense of loyalty in the average republican. This makes them excellent followers and helpers. Which is an excellent thing in that hands of a clintonian leader but an utter disaster in the hands of a Bush/Cheney leader. In the hands of a Bush/Cheney like leader, this type of clan can be almost haulocaustic in nature. If I am not mistaken, there was every likelihood of this happening with East Asian people just after 9/11 but I guess the eyes of the world might have aborted this.

Just track back to some of the statements that Bush made and its this nature in the republican that made bush do his unilateral thing and simply go it alone. Of course we can see the results of this action now... not good at all.

On the other hand tho, it seems to me that the dems would rather a society thats open, very few rules, little or no regulation, let people determine their own destiny and travel their own roads to where ever by what ever means with whoever. Hmmm.. that might be a bit open ended but its seems something like that.. I am not sure that this is ideal either because systems which will function well seem to always need rigid structures but with logical options in place.

I guess both systems contain major irritants which we will have to review and go with the one which best suits our ideals for living..

But.... what exactly is a liberal and why do republicans use it a means by which to "shut up" democrats? I am always fascinated to see democrats literally curl up in their shells when the republicans mention liberal. What I dont understand is the reason why this should happen. Personally, I would only be afraid or ashamed of the term if it truly meant something really bad.. and it cant because it has been around for way too long.

The other question is whether liberal is a static term or does its scope change over the years.... I am pretty sure it cant be a static term and hence, if at this junction, its values have been eroded, then its only a matter of rebuilding those core values.. if however its a static term with bad connotations, then it would do well for the DEMS to have it surgically removed from the political language.

The other really pertinent question is... why dont repbulicans switch to democrats? It seems to be the other way around all the time... why is this? What kind or type of person would move from a liberal position in life, to conservative? Is this some type of religious conversion? Can it be racist conversion where someone does not want to be considered as being aligned to those minority groups that cling to the democratic party? Why does it happen?

And by the way... its important for all peoples, from every corner of the world to pay attention to the elections of countries around the world.. its vitally important because something as simple as a vacation in another country can be directly impacted by who is running the show in that country.

I have friend outside of the US who have vowed not to set foot in the US until bush has been ousted. Of course someone will call them fools but that their rights and we cant knock it. The economies of the world, the travel, the food, just about everything in this world is interconnected from country to country. In this regard, a canadian and every canadian would do well to monitor the elections in the US... its a great idea and the right thing to do..

cheers

Submission to authority. See, summed it all up in three words. Accounts for the discipline, coherent message, etc.

Folks who worry about taxes...well, I saw another comment somewhere that Republicans are more concerned with property than people. Democrats are more concerned with people than property. I'm a Democrat because of enlightened self-interest, not mere self-interest. I am very much in favor of the government providing social services and a safety net. I like good roads and I like police and fire departments. Every single one of us benefits from a strong education system, and the better that system, the greater the benefit. Sometimes I resent the amount of property taxes I and my wife pay when we don't have children, but we all benefit from an educated citizenry. I would argue that it is not our form of government but are superior education system that allowed the US to become the premier power in the world, and it is a failure of our educational system that will destory that position (with Bush's appointment as president and Bush's own education as prime examples of what happens when the educational system fails).

I have had a similar argument with my ultra conservative 74-year-old southern Baptist minister father in law. He of Ditto-Head/Fox News and me of Nader/Dean/Air America and neither of us able to articulate the core of our beliefs. Instead we buzz all of our respective talking points about left wing whackanuts and black helicopter wingnuts.

Our "debates" are so unsatisfying that I try to avoid them at all costs. I bring this up because it has forced me to really evaluate why I am a liberal.

Even if my father in law were to present me with 2 tons of documents that show incontrovertibly that every Democrat is corrupt, that CNN really is the Communist News Network and that John Kerry is somehow a Frechy, I would still be a Democrat because the core of the Democratic ideology, as I live it, is CHANGE. The Democratic ideal is to adapt, change, make better, to grow. I feel that a society is only strengthened through renewal and the Democratic ideology is an engine for change.

I also see Conservatives as being entrenched in fear, fear of change, fear of others not like themselves, fear of the unknown. And it is this fear that stifles change, stifles progress, and stifles renewal. Its this stay the course mentality that people are oppressed and new ideas never see the light.

I wish Iím able to get this across to my father in law, but we can never get past how a Clinton is somehow behind everything evil in the world or that Haliburton is plotting to take over the universe.

I think this is the first presidential poll in Hawaii, done by a local daily and TV station. Shows Kerry up 48% to 41% over Bush, with 11% undecided. This is no surprise and still "safe" for Kerry, but it is actually a bit closer than I would have guessed.

http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/09/news/story4.html

Ahhhhhhh Jerry... its funny but my mum used to keep telling me that "you just cant teach old dogs new tricks"... and she had to tell me these things cause I was a kinda hyper lil nutt who wanted her to jump thru hoops, climb hills at rip speed, ride my bike with both feet and hands off... you know what I mean... so dont let your temperature rise on account of his position.. you have to remember that anytime you adopt a position and stay there, it means that you are ultra comfortable and have no need or even interests in moving.. so leave the guy alone.. pleaaaaaaaaase!!!!!!!

But.. you mentioned that you are a true liberal and based on what you said, I dont see anything about what you mentioned that would make you ashame if your father-in-law called you a liberal. maybe if he called you a clinton liberal, you might get slightly offended but not being called a liberal.

so if these qualities which you mentioned truly determine what is a liberal, why doesnt the party sell these fine qualities? What exactly is the party hiding and why are they allowing the republicans to convince the society that there is something inherrently wrong with being a liberal and of course, by extension, a democrat?

Five minutes ago, I was reading a crossfire post and tucker mentions the word liberal to donna brazille and some other chap and they go into this seemingly silent loop with muttering type defenses.... http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080604.shtml ...cut and paste and read for yourself..

Whats with this lay down and play dead thing with democrats when dealing with such a strong word. of course this depends on the true meaning of the word. If taken by itself, with no explanations, it seems like a bad word but with explanation I cant see anything the matter with it.. so I am left perplexed with how the party is allowing the term to be down trodden and cast out with the wash.

Maybe the party needs to remove Terry McAuliffe and find someone who understands marketing and group management and branding and cell dynamics etc...etc.. etc.. but the party is wasting a whole lot of gold nuggets while the republicans are eating them for breakfast and lunch, with a few on the side for dinner.

Will someone please tell me whats the reason why the DEMS dont see any need to market and brand themselves any better? Can you imagine the level of political clout which this party could have if it really positioned itself professionally? I dont think the republicans would win an election for decades. What a waste of potential.

I am still wondering why people jump ship from the DEMS and scoot off to the republicans?

On my own, I am being led to believe that people prefer to be led - but they hope they get a good leader, that they prefer a script from which to read their lives so that they dont have to keep working it out everyday, that they like the fraternity derived from closed societies, that they prefer their own and close the door shut on outsiders and foreigners and the likes, that they dont like the idea of sharing so they depend on being rich.. etc... etc...

The more I look at it, I seem to think that this is what people prefer. I think Jesus likened us to being like sheep, needing a master.. needing to be led to the water.. needing to be fed... etc.. etc.. and then, consider the terrorists groups... they seem to never be really short of members.. and they too function somewhat like the GOP.... and if you stop and think abit, most of these strict societies seem not to lack for membership... for whatever reason... even saddam enlisted the whole of Iraq in the baath party..

In this regard, is the GOP onto something that ensure their success and survival and victories at the polls? Are people really this way? WOW!!!!!!

Cheers

My point in regard to my father in law was that our arguments amounted to nothing more than 2 Chihuahuas piddling on a fire hydrant. I was never ashamed of being a liberal, but I also never really had to think about what being a liberal meant until I came into close quarters with somebody who had such a different worldview. Like I said, I avoid the conversations only because they never amount to much for either of us. I will leave him alone. But he started it. ;-)

My input on your larger question is that the Republican POV can be very seductive. You donít have to worry about anybody but yourself. You donít have to worry about the environment. You can blame others and especially the government for all of your problems. You get to deify your elected republicans. You get to mock other people, especially minorities, women and homosexuals. And best of all, youíve got God on your side. And if God fails you, there is always the free market. Meanwhile, us liberals are over here wringing our hands listening the 200th report today about poverty in Africa on NPR.

OK.. gotcha.. I catch your drift very well now and I can understand much better why you would have your dicussions with your father in law. Thanks for providing the better perspective.

I think its good that we find ourselves in positions from time to time where we have to sit with ourselves and define what we believe... and why.

Thanks again
Cheers

>>I guess your prospective first lady thought a whole lot about other people's perspectives before telling that reporter to "shove it."<<

She knew more than you apparently. He wasn't a reporter. He was the editor of a Scaife owned newsrag that's had a grudge against her for decades, going back to when she was married to GOP Sen Heinz(who they felt wasn't sufficiently conservative enough).

But feel free to keep parroting your oh-so-well-reason and well-informed talking points.

"Shove It" was awesome. I'm pondering getting the "Shove It!" thong ;) Wonkette is a bad influence on me.

Hey these numbers are OUTSTANDING!!!! for Kerry.

I love these types of polls which shows the methodology and includes all other information.

There are two things that stand out for me:

First, that among "likely voters" with Nader in the race, Kerry does about the same as in other polls. 49% to 44% to 4%. A five-point lead.

What must be remembered is that Nader has not made it onto all of the ballots and his support will continue to decline as is the case with most other independent candidates.

Second, if you look deep into the report you'll notice that among those "polled" (almost all of whom voted in the 2000 election), they voted for Bush by a plurality of 5%.

I'm not sure if i'm the only one who caught this, because GORE ACTUALLY WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN 2000.

Which means that the Democrats are undercounted in this poll, and it would seem to confirm other polls as well.

Therefore, Kerry is ahead by 5% to 7% (whether Nader is in the race) if 5% more Republicans vote in 2004 than voted in 2000.

Well, i'm not sure why people feel more Republicans will vote in this election than Democrats. I actually think the opposite will be true in this election if the primaries and voter interest is any indication.

But to play it conservatively. If the same people who vote in 2000 vote in 2004, and there is no reason to think that they won't, then you can deduce that Kerry is leading by as much as 12%. If more Democrats vote than Republicans, as I contend, then that lead may be even higher still.

A great poll. I'm feeling very good about our chances.

Heck with the popular vote; as Jeff points out, Gore won the popular vote in 2000. Someone posted this website here a few days ago, and I'm about to make it my homepage: http://www.electoral-vote.com. It's updated daily with the most recent polls.

2452 really nicely done. i hope all works well in timefree credit report