Posted on 07/26/2004 10:02:00 AM PDT by dread78645
I don't think he can do it. But I want everybody to clearly understand what this guy is about.
I'll half-agree with your disagreement.
The incendiary speakers won't change votes (one way or the other) of the folks watching. People that are interested enough to watch are interested enough to take the time to sift through the platform and judge the candidates, and will vote Rep. or Dem. (or third-party) regardless of what any sycophant at the convention might say.
Where it will make a mark is when the political agnostics read quotes and quips from the Op-Ed columns and base a vote on that. Pat Buchanan didn't hurt the GOP in 1992 amongst the party faithful either left or right; but he had an measurable effect on the "undecided" due to the negative followup reporting.
A visual I did not need!
(minus three point for bimboeruption)
Heh... that's exactly what most Democrats were asking about the our side hating Clinton. They just didn't understand what the hell got us so upset.
Not being a Bush-hater, I'm kind of out on a limb here but I think that I have contact with more liberals/Democrats than a lot of folks on the board so I'll do my best. From the conversations I've had with friends and family (mostly just shutting up and listening) it comes down to is a fundamental lack of trust for his motives, concern over the direction he's taking this country in, and general resentment at having their team be out of power. They want him to be more internationalist, and with the notable exception of Colin Powell they hate his cabinet almost as much as they hate him.
"If we do that, we end up with 42 percent of the vote and lose the election."
"More like 30%."
Wishful thinking. The base which Democrats and Republicans start from really is about 42% for each, give or take a point or two.
The only exception is every now and then some extremely popular person like Reagan comes along and captures some good-sized portion of the opposite party's base.
The 42% base explains why Clinton got 43% of the vote in his first election, because Bush had not captured any of his Democrat base and Perot mostly soaked up the swing voters and some of the Republican base. And it's why a doofus like Kerry can come along and still poll really well against Bush, b/c Bush has not captured some of the Democrat base for himself.
Well, there is the morbid curiousity of watching a train wreck.
Who will not be watching. Now that convention coverage has been largely relegated to the cable news channels and C-SPAN, the only people that are going to be tuning in are hardcore political junkies and news junkies, all of whom have already made up their minds. Everyone else will be watching entertainment programming on one of the 300 other channels available to them.
If Kerry/Edwards gets a five-point bump out of this, I'll be surprised. And if they do, it will dissipate long before The GOP convention even starts.
Me.
Unless you're a Real Swimmer Competition Level, Real Men wear Baggies, not those Metrosexual Bun Huggers.
As the Roaming Troll says in the commerical, Crikey!
Agreed , the platforms became meaningless after McGovern, and the only other impotant item, naming the VP candidate, was also abandoned.
Just puff-pieces which I would not waste any time watching.
There is nothing specific that they hate. They have been whipped into a frenzy by 3-1/2 years of relentless propaganda to demonize a sitting President. That's because they have no real platform. Hatred is all they've got, so they play it and play it well.
The reason people despised Clinton is because he is despicable. Since Bush is not they had to propagandize to make him seem so.
But what evidence is there of lack of integrity? Everything that Bush supposedly "lied" about he either never said, or the supposed "lie" is being confirmed as true, or as a good faith belief held by everyone else with access to the same information.
With Clinton, there were bimbo eruptions before he even got elected, and it continued apace.
And he showed no contempt for the military. Joining the Guard is not showing "contempt." And the military love him. They hated Clinton.
Again, what is the justification for their hatred?
Kerry must be under the mistaken belief that if elected he can continue to be a Senator.
Someone should tell him that the President does not "enact" anything.
then how would you explain the poll "bounces" we usually see after these conventions? Heck, even Mondale briefly seized a lead over Reagan after the 84 Rat Convention...
But it's more than that. Bush is the idealogical antithesis for everything liberal, even their "holiest" causes such as abortion, gays, multiculturalism, UN worship etc. Plus, Bush is (gasp) a Southerner and a Texan, immediate cause for dislike in the minds of the liberal elite, and indeed his worst "sin" in their eyes may be his open expression of his belief in God.
Throw in the fact that Bush sometimes looks goofy on TV and there you have it, the most hated man in the liberal world. I could think of a hundred more reasons but who cares?
The only negative thing that will come from a second Bush term is that the Bush hatred will grow to unmanageable levels by 2008. I fully expect many of the fuming mad ABB crowd to mentally snap and go into full anarchy mode after the November election. The first US suicide bomber may not be from al Qaeda, it may just be an enraged Democrat.
This is a nightmare.
America has been so blessed for hundreds of years. And the Democrats want to undo everything that made us blessed.
How can this be happening?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.