Friday, October 15, 2004

Yet another stupid headline from the YDN
My first ever YDN column is up, under the stupid headline yaledailynews.com - Bush stances level-headed, not simpleminded. Sure, it describes my basic point, but still... I don't know, it makes me sound simple-minded.

12 comments:

Me said...

Supurbly written. This is on a much different level than what you usually post here. I'm totally impressed!

Beth said...

The hole in the strategy is that by trying to get out the conservative vote, Bush risks riling up the left and turning out more of the anti-Bush vote.

RFTR said...

Of course it's risky, and it's never been tried in recent history. I wasn't necessarily defending the strategy, but merely pointing it out to the many on campus who were unaware.

robert d said...

The magick is always in the doing.

Snapping out,

d

PS - And whatever you do never check out the archives.

Anonymous said...

Just a thought, but didn't you make some snide comment about Kerry preparing to lose when he made similar appeals to his base instead of moving towards the middle?

I guess after losing 3 debates, losing a massive electoral vote lead (according to the site you reference, which once had Bush with over 300 EVs), and being generally embarrassed in the first debate, some snide liberal could say that Bush is just preparing his base for 08 and trying to keep hold of the senate.

Anonymous said...

Rather well written, good points, solid logic-good job.

RFTR said...

Yes, someone snide could say such things. But you run into a problem, in that saying such things shows a total lack of understanding of US demographics. The left does not have the same number of available, possible voters as does the right. So, while this strategy could work for the Republicans, it couldn't work for the Dems, and an appeal to the base this late in the game signals different things for each camp.

Also, once again, if you are not a member of blogger, pelase sign your name at the bottom of any anonymous posts. If you don't have the balls to sign your name to something, you shouldn't be saying it...

Anonymous said...

I don't know what makes you think there are more conservatives than liberals in this country. Not only did Al Gore (a relatively weak candidate) get more votes than Bush, but that was with a miniscule turnout amongst those of our generation.

I think you'd agree that there are more young liberals than conservatives. In any case, in a country where only about half the population votes, it doesn't matter who has more members. Unless you think that EVERYONE who doesn't bother to vote is conservative, it is inescapable that both parties have an enormous number of members who don't bother to vote and therefore something to gain by appealing to their base.

As to names, who cares. I'm a Yale student who disagrees with you.

RFTR said...

I care, because, as I said, if you don't have the balls to voice your dissent publicly, then you shouldn't be tossing it around.

As to your point, if you read closely, you'll see that I didn't say there are more conservatives than liberals. I said there are more available conservatives than liberals. In other words, there are more conservatives who didn't vote in 2000 who are persuadable to vote this time around than liberals who didn't vote in 2000 that are persuadable to vote this time. That's it.

Anonymous said...

However you want to parse your statement, I believe you are wrong. I know about the 4 million evangelicals who didn't vote, but I also know that voter registration efforts targeting 18-25 year olds are registering large numbers of new liberal voters, who obviously don't show up in the "likely voter" polls, but I believe will vote in this election as long as Kerry appeals to them.

As far as why I think they'll vote, see http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html

Tanstaafl said...

Maybe it's just me, but it seems silly to argue over which strategy is going to win the election. Each side obviously believes its strategy has a better chance of winning the election. Otherwise, why would they pursue it? Second, why bother arguing, in about 16 days, we'll have a much better idea as to whose plan is right: Karl Rove's plan, or the plan of a guy who's courageous enough to sign his posts as a "Yale student who disagrees" with Brian.

Vote Badnarik said...

Vote Badnarik!

I never thought I'd vote Libertarian, but I just can't stand it anymore.

The Bush administration's discretionary spending has exceeded the Clinton administration's discretionary spending—not including the billions spent on the war

The Bush administration plans to re-institute the draft after the election

Bush administration policies have created an increase in the cost of petroleum products

If George Bush wins this election, Hillary Clinton is expected to be the Democratic nominee in 2008

The Bush administration has usurped state and local control on multiple issues

Help us spread the word! Let all of your friends, family, and co-workers know there is another choice this year.

Look for the Libertarians: Vote Michael Badnarik/Richard Campagna