REAGAN-LIKE LANDSLIDE EYED

New York Post ^ | 6/10/04 | DEBORAH ORIN

[kattracks]

June 10, 2004 -- NOW is a good time to look back at the landslide win that sent Ronald Reagan to the White House in 1980, because lots of analysts think 2004 could turn out the same way — close for a long time and then suddenly breaking wide open. In 1980, the break came just days before the vote, when Democrat Jimmy Carter finally agreed to debate. Reagan came off as sunny instead of scary and when he admonished Carter with a smile, "There you go again," it was all over.

Like President Bush, Carter faced voters nervous over both the economy and foreign policy and wondering whether it's time for a change — in Carter's case, skyrocketing inflation at home plus the endless Iran hostage crisis.

But there's a big difference, since Carter kept getting bad news on both fronts, while Bush is starting to get good news on both the economy, with a surge in new jobs, and Iraq, with international support for the June 30 transfer of power.

[little jeremiah]

Those who reject the 10 Commandments are then bound by the 10,000 commandments.

(a great man said something like that, I'll have to check who it was and exactly how he said it!)

[xm177e2]

I predict a nail biter, just like last time.

Agreed. Anything else, at this point, seems like wishful thinking.

[MayflowerMadam]

I believe many of the polls are cherry picking. I've been called in the past by alleged pollsters, and when my answer to the first question was "Republican", SLAM goes the receiver at the other end. They are posting the truth -- as they know it and as they manipulate it.

[2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten]

Part of me wants a 2000-style squeaker victory, for the pure schadenfreude of watching the Democrats go completely psychotic.

You're right - they will - ted kennedy's head will probably explode - and algore will be probably have to be institutionalized along with his buddy, the unabomber.

[bert]

With gas a high as it is and having to work so much overtime and all, I believe if I were a Rat from a long line of Rats, I'd judt stay home and not vote this time.

Why spend the money and the effort?

[opus86]

I hope you're right, but I'm afraid there are too many doofuses voting who would be more than happy to make Kerry president. I think it will be extremely close.

[shield]

My predication as well....A LANDSLIDE!!!!

[counterpunch]

I am merely pointing out the errors or mistakes in your viewpoint.

There are no "errors" on matters of philosophy or opinion, only differences. Perhaps your failure to acknowledge this is primary problem here.

As for my last comment that you were now claiming mental, emotional, and psychological superiority in addition to moral, that was made in jest, because your suggestion that I need to question myself on why I would make such an assumption about you came off just a tab bit condescending and haughty.

[pctech]

I just posted a similar response in a different thread but I see the figures about where this articles says they'll be, about 52% for Bush and about 47-48% for Kerry. Though both seem to be polling right around 42-46%, if things keep going the way they are right now and keeping improving on the economical front, global politics front, and daily life front, then Bush will be a shoe-in come November.

I think someone posted an article very early in this year that kind of says the same thing. If anyone can find that article it'd be a good read now.

The only thing that can hurt Bush now is another major scandal right before the elections, or a major terrorist hit. People everywhere need to be using your "kneemail" frequently to shore up votes for Bush.

[little jeremiah]

Hmm - you stated:

"There are no "errors" on matters of philosophy or opinion, only differences. "

There can only be no errors if everything is equally true. If everything is equally true, then nothing is true, since I am saying God exists, the universe(s) and all in them belongs to Him and is under His direct and indirect control, and that the concept of a soulless or Godless universe is erroneous and untrue. So EITHER one version is true (i.e. without error) or the OTHER version is true (i.e. without error).

They can't both be true. Just as right now, in CA, it is daytime. It isn't night time here. It can't be both day and night at the same time.

As far as superiority, if you want to re-examine why I suggested you take a look at yourself, check out what you posted first!

It seems as though you are saying that I am claiming superiority just because I say I am right! The honor of the truth is not mine, but belongs to the truth itself. It's up to each one of us which way to face - to the light of truth, or the darkness of untruth. The only way to understand the truth of the universe and our own identity is to first of all realize our ignorance and have a desire to know the truth.

It's the old Zen story - the prospective student approached the old teacher, wanting to be accepted as a disciple or student. During the meeting, the student recited to the teacher all his accomplishments, levels of understanding he had gained, scriptures memorized, and so on. He went on and on.

Finally the teacher asked the student if he would like a cup of tea. Thirsty due to so much talking and self-glorification of his own knowledge, the student said "Yes, I'd like some tea." He then held out his cup, while the teacher filled it to the brim.

The teacher kept filling it, though, while it spilled over the student's hand, on the table, and onto the floor. The student started to yell, "It's full already! It won't hold any more!"

The teacher said: "Exactly. A full cup can't take any more. Your cup is full so I can't teach you anything. Come back when your cup is empty."

[counterpunch]

believe many of the polls are cherry picking. I've been called in the past by alleged pollsters, and when my answer to the first question was "Republican", SLAM goes the receiver at the other end. They are posting the truth -- as they know it and as they manipulate it.

I doubt that is the case. This isn't how pollsters operate. They begin with a set number of Republicans, Democrats, and independents to poll, based on their estimations of the party afiliation voting trends in the upcoming election.
This is where all of the manipulation comes in.
Pollsters such as the LATs, Newsweek, NYT all use over-sized Democrat samples. By the time they get to the calling phase, the fix is already in. They already know the party affiliation of everyone they're calling. They have all the voter registration data already. Then they just call people on their Democrat, Republicam and Independent lists until they've met their predetermined number of responses from each.

The LAT poll from today, for example, was designed for Kerry to be ahead no matter what, unless there was an anomalously large percentage of Democrats voting for Bush. Even though Bush carried the majority of independent, and a significantly larger percentage of Democrats than Kerry has of Republicans, Kerry still leads Bush in that poll by something like 7 points, with a 51% majority, no less. The truth about this poll is the Democrat sample is so over-sized that the poll has a +12 point bias towards Kerry.

[ThanhPhero]

Those who reject the 10 Commandments are then bound by the 10,000 commandments.

Good one. If you find it ping me. Please.

[Saundra Duffy]

Here's hoping. Kerry is a good debater BUT he's smart NOT wise. I think the contrast between Kerry and Bush will be strongly in Bush's favor. Bush is a Reagan cowboy type. Kerry is an elite Ted Kennedy type.

[counterpunch]

Neither of us know, and in all liklihood, neither of us come anywhere near the objective truth in our subjective philosophies. They are just that. They are philosophies, and they are subjective. We can never know objective truth. It is all just mental masturbation.

I know this is too hard for you to accept, and you will reject it. There is nothing more I can do here on this one.

[madison10]

We can't ever forget that more voters voted for Gore than Bush in 2000.

Is that counting the dead ones?

[little jeremiah]

You don't know truth, and in your arrogance, you claim no one else does either. In other words, you are claiming you DO know the truth, since you can see every one else's hearts and minds, and you KNOW that they don't know!

Don't you see that fallacy and illogic of that???

The more you cling to your ignorance as though it was a shield, the more miserable you will be. You can stay in mental masturbation land if you like.

I left it long ago, and it was a nasty place to live.

[the Deejay]

WHEN Bush WINS & kerry LOSES. The dems will say something like this;

If REAGAN hadn't died THIS YEAR, Bush would have lost!

[little jeremiah]

Here's two:

"The danger when men stop believing in God is not that they'll believe in nothing, but that they'll believe in anything." G.K. Chesterton

"If men will not be governed by the Ten Commandments, they shall be governed by the ten thousand commandments." --G. K. Chesterton

[counterpunch]

You betray your own quasi-zen wisdom. I would expect you to say that the only thing you know is that you know nothing.

But if you can know the objective truth about the nature and origin of the universe, then my knowing merely your heart and mind is indeed a very small feat by comparison.

The only arrogance is your own.
I'm done with this now, really.

[little jeremiah]

Anyone can know the truth, provided they realize their own cup is empty first.

First you said you know that no one can know the truth, and when I pointed out the arrogance and irrationality of your position, you continue to accuse me of arrogance. What is the nature of my arrogance - that I dare to point out the mutual exclusivity of your position? It's like you're trying to stand on two floating logs, but they're moving in different directions. You can only stand on one or the other of them, can't do both.

Either a person can admit they don't know the truth, they don't think any absolutes really exist, but in order to hold this position honestly, they must admit that theoretically someone MIGHT know more than they do.

TO say that there are NO absolutes, and NO ONE else knows either, is the ultimate in hypocrisy. If you state with 100% assurance that there are NO absolutes, and no one else can possibly know either, you are directly usurping the position of omniscience, thereby nullifying your own position that there is no absolute truth.

And now you want to leave the discussion just when we're getting at the crux of the matter.