Log in

No account? Create an account
13 February 2004 @ 10:06 pm
Political/Social ranting  
I'm getting really tired of both the media commentary on the primaries and at least one of the parties involved.

It's been noted before that the media loves to build people up and then tear them down, and certainly things with Dean have been a prime example of that.

Every time i turn on the news or practically any form of media i'm hearing something about how the Dean campaign is failing, faltering, free-falling, lots of "f" words for some reason, but lots of ways of saying that the Dean campaign is bombing. Of course a large part of the reason that the Dean campaign is having trouble is because the media keeps telling everyone that it's having trouble!

It's not even a very fair assessment. Last i checked, Dean was #2 in the delegate count, yet when talking about Edwards or Clark or any of the other the media didn't pile on the negative comments like they do with Dean. The only way in which Dean could be considered failing is compared to the height that the media pumped him up to before the Iowa caucuses, based on polls in which a large percentage said they were undecided.

As soon as Dean did "badly" in Iowa, the media started swarming him. The latched onto his seach and started broadcasting it all over the place. The majority of them categorized it as him being angry, the rest didn't call it anything at all, they just played the video over and over. I saw an article recently saying that the clip of "the scream" was broadcast something like 633 times in the few days after the event. The news media is admiting now that they overplayed it, but they're not playing _that_ reel 633 times.

Only about 25% of the delegates have been decided so far, yet the media keeps talking about it as if Kerry is assumed to be the winner. Because of the media and the sheep like tendencies of american voters feeding off each other that's the way it will be too. It doesn't have to be that way, but everyone is too busy making decisions based off of what other people thought was popular. gah!

I wonder if things would work out better if it was somehow possible to prevent the media from talking about the results of polls or elections. until after the fact. Hell, just make the election results secret to _everyone_ till after everyone has voted. That would be somewhat easy to do, and probably legal. Can't figure out a fair or legal way to stop the pollsters though.

I'd like voters to make an informed choice, but i'd like it if their primary piece of information wasn't just how popular the candidates were in the previous state.

I'm a Dean supporter, but i'm not one of the people who apparently now want to go off and vote for a third party candidate when and if Dean loses the nomination. However it's kind of hard to criticize those people too much when there are stories that the DNC and/or DLC is planning on punishing everyone who supported Dean. "As one former high-ranking Clinton administration official puts it, 'Will they work again in this town again? I hope not'" is what one source is saying. Unfortunatly i can't find out more details cause the quoted article is subscription only.

It was bad enough that the DNC was against Dean from the begining (because of his grassroots efforts i believe) but now that they've pounded him into the dirt, they're not even willing to pretend at reconciliation?

I've always thought that the people who voted for Nader bore some responsibility for Bush getting into office. I'm not sure if blame is the right word, and certainly those who voted for Bush and those liberals who didn't vote at all bear more responsibility, but still.

However now the DNC seems to be going out of it's way to drive away the fringe people. It would have been so simple to be nice and try to be inclusive, but they're too stupid to realize what's in their own best interest. They're more interested in maintaining their own authority than trying to achieve the goals they purportedly support.

I still think that getting Bush out of office is the more important issue, but i may be trying to get rid of a bitter taste in my mouth if i end up having to vote for Kerry to achieve that.

And in more light-hearted news i installed an older version of AIM so that i could get DeadAim working. DeadAim works fine now, but whenever i send or receive a message instead of getting the normal dinging noises, it now gurgles.

I don't know if it's a problem with the version of AIM, or if it only happened after i installed DeadAim, since i didn't try it out inbetween. But it gurgles.

Current Mood: annoyedannoyed
Current Music: *gurgle*
Kallahkallah on February 14th, 2004 06:57 am (UTC)
The problem with blaming Nader for the Bush presidency is that it doesn't explain how Gore lost his home state of Tennessee by around 80,000 votes (around 60,000 if Nader voters had voted Gore, and not counting other third parties). And several other states by margins greater than Nader's votes.

There are only two states - New Hampshire and Florida - where Nader voters could have tipped the state to Gore. Certainly, in an election as close as that one, either state would have changed the outcome of the election. So would any other state. Had Gore won his home state, he'd be President today. Had he won Missouri (which elected a dead Democrat rather than Ashcroft), he'd be president.

The problem with blaming Nader voters is that it avoids any real thinking about why Gore lost several states where he had a reasonable chance to win.

Okay, stepping off the soapbox again.
DonAithnendonaithnen on February 14th, 2004 05:55 pm (UTC)
"I've always thought that the people who voted for Nader bore some responsibility for Bush getting into office. I'm not sure if blame is the right word, and certainly those who voted for Bush and those liberals who didn't vote at all bear more responsibility, but still."

Like i said, people who voted for Bush have the most responsibility, and the liberals who didn't vote at all have just slightly less responsibility than that.

Saying "There are a lot of people out there who did worse things than me" does not make someone a good person. Saying that there are people who are more responsible doesn't eliminate any of your own responsibility.

If i vote for Dean in the primaries, and by some miracle Dean goes on to win the primaries, but loses the election, i'll bear some responsibility for that, because Kerry _might_ have better odds of beating Bush. I think Dean could beat Bush too, and would do a better job in office, so i don't think voting for Dean in the primaries is _wrong_. However if things work out as i originaly said, i would still bear some potential responsibility.

That case is murkier becuase it involves unknowns, but in the last election everyone was told beforehand that voting for Nader might help get Bush into office. Some people choose to vote for Nader anyways, and Bush got into office by margins where the Nader voters could have flipped things.

And note that this is why i intended the "poll and results blind" voting as only for the primaries. Yeah, our voting system is fucked up, and in order to maximize your chances of getting what you want with the current system you need to look at the polls ahead of time. to see which candidate you prefer has the best chance of getting elected. This isn't a good thing, but it's a true thing.