citizenguardian
New member
So, the first thing. Bush did a terrific job tonight. He seemed in control, confident, in command of facts where it counted, and able to defend himself well. More importantly, though, he did a good job of conveying to people that he knows who he is. He is the same guy in each debate, and says what he thinks more or less clearly, and, more importantly, he gives us a reasonably clear idea of _why_ he thinks what he does.
Perhaps even more important than his improved replies was his confidence. He's _winning_. Everyone can tell this, and he was able just to shrug Gore off. He looked like the next president.
Gore had some effective moments, his complaints about Bush's health care plan and his accusations about the tax cut most prominently.
I think, though, that unlike Gore's performance last week Bush's clear success will gain him more ground in the polls. Many people had a much more favorable view of him after tonight than was the case for Al.
Tonight aside, here's the thing about the race that mystifies me so far. Why will the Democrats not understand that they are now losing on the "issues", as they are so fond of saying? Why do they not see this by now? The evidence is pretty much overwhelming by this point, but they stupidly keep indulging in this fantasy that Gore is losing just because of Bush's "likeability", or "character".
I don't say these things aren't helping Bush. They are. But people are saying they're going to vote for Bush not just because of these things, or even mainly because of them. What drives Bush's support is that most people do not favor Gore's command economics. They don't want more sprawling, invasive, bureaucratic government.
Not only do large majorities say this when asked, but more importantly since Bush started campaigning against Gore's economic liberalism he's come back and retaken the lead. Everytime Bush talks about "trusting people", "giving people the choice", "returning money to the people who made it", "trusting the people to spend their own money better than the government will spend it", he's winning. Doesn't anyone remember this? In late September, Bush was down, and looked like he was going further down. Campaigning against Clinton was going nowhere. Lots of people, everywhere, were wondering why Bush just didn't go after Gore's incredibly large target of old-fashioned liberalism. He finally did this, and guess what? He's climbed back in front.
It's true the polls that inform pundits about people's views of the "issues" can mislead. People will say they favor Gore's medicare plan, or his social security plan, etc., by small majorities. There is some inconsistency in this given people's expressed distate for larger governments. But it's not just the evidence of Bush's recent success that should persuade us. People have already forgotten, it seems, that Clinton owes his political success to his tremendous efforts to distance himself from economic
liberalism, especially after 1994. They've forgotten about that _other_ "highly competent" economic liberal, the one from Massachussetts, who brought the Democrats to new lows of failure and demoralization in 1988. They just can't understand why, given the growth we've experienced, why Gore isn't winning.
The Democrats are so _stupid_, so incredibly stupid. They refuse to believe people really feel this way. They will not accept it. The reason is that they do not believe that anyone with proper information could disagree with them.
So they keep persisting in a campaign with the idea that all they need do is puncture what they see as Bush's paper-thin facade and it will all come crumbling down. They think that if they just sober up America to the conservatism that lies behind Bush's charm they will win. They keep trying it, and they are getting more and more frustrated when it won't work.
It's just another example of how they will not take conservative ideas seriously. They think they can be nothing more than transparent rationales for racism, for evil, or selfishness, or whatever. But they don't understand why they keep losing.
Do you notice how the far-left commentators the networks talk to cannot refrain from psychoanalyzing Bush's supporters? I heard more than once on MSNBC and CNN that Bush's male support came from men indulging in a Marlboro Man fantasy, or from those who liked to think they could be rich and be president by birth. They simply refuse to believe that anyone could actually disagree with them on redistributive command economics, for example. It's got to be that people are just caught up in some adolescent fantasy.
There was some clue that Gore's actually sensitive to this charge. He said, tonight, that he will shrink government to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP in 50 years. But he's not saying enough. He doesn't understand that this is not a throwaway issue. He still can't get over how much smarter he thinks he is than George Bush, and he thinks _that_ is the key issue.
So, ultimately, this is why they're losing. They're underestimating Bush's appeal on the ideas, or should I say the core idea: greater freedom (albeit slightly greater). They did this before in 1980, and in 1988.
And my guess is that they won't wake up to this in time.
Perhaps even more important than his improved replies was his confidence. He's _winning_. Everyone can tell this, and he was able just to shrug Gore off. He looked like the next president.
Gore had some effective moments, his complaints about Bush's health care plan and his accusations about the tax cut most prominently.
I think, though, that unlike Gore's performance last week Bush's clear success will gain him more ground in the polls. Many people had a much more favorable view of him after tonight than was the case for Al.
Tonight aside, here's the thing about the race that mystifies me so far. Why will the Democrats not understand that they are now losing on the "issues", as they are so fond of saying? Why do they not see this by now? The evidence is pretty much overwhelming by this point, but they stupidly keep indulging in this fantasy that Gore is losing just because of Bush's "likeability", or "character".
I don't say these things aren't helping Bush. They are. But people are saying they're going to vote for Bush not just because of these things, or even mainly because of them. What drives Bush's support is that most people do not favor Gore's command economics. They don't want more sprawling, invasive, bureaucratic government.
Not only do large majorities say this when asked, but more importantly since Bush started campaigning against Gore's economic liberalism he's come back and retaken the lead. Everytime Bush talks about "trusting people", "giving people the choice", "returning money to the people who made it", "trusting the people to spend their own money better than the government will spend it", he's winning. Doesn't anyone remember this? In late September, Bush was down, and looked like he was going further down. Campaigning against Clinton was going nowhere. Lots of people, everywhere, were wondering why Bush just didn't go after Gore's incredibly large target of old-fashioned liberalism. He finally did this, and guess what? He's climbed back in front.
It's true the polls that inform pundits about people's views of the "issues" can mislead. People will say they favor Gore's medicare plan, or his social security plan, etc., by small majorities. There is some inconsistency in this given people's expressed distate for larger governments. But it's not just the evidence of Bush's recent success that should persuade us. People have already forgotten, it seems, that Clinton owes his political success to his tremendous efforts to distance himself from economic
liberalism, especially after 1994. They've forgotten about that _other_ "highly competent" economic liberal, the one from Massachussetts, who brought the Democrats to new lows of failure and demoralization in 1988. They just can't understand why, given the growth we've experienced, why Gore isn't winning.
The Democrats are so _stupid_, so incredibly stupid. They refuse to believe people really feel this way. They will not accept it. The reason is that they do not believe that anyone with proper information could disagree with them.
So they keep persisting in a campaign with the idea that all they need do is puncture what they see as Bush's paper-thin facade and it will all come crumbling down. They think that if they just sober up America to the conservatism that lies behind Bush's charm they will win. They keep trying it, and they are getting more and more frustrated when it won't work.
It's just another example of how they will not take conservative ideas seriously. They think they can be nothing more than transparent rationales for racism, for evil, or selfishness, or whatever. But they don't understand why they keep losing.
Do you notice how the far-left commentators the networks talk to cannot refrain from psychoanalyzing Bush's supporters? I heard more than once on MSNBC and CNN that Bush's male support came from men indulging in a Marlboro Man fantasy, or from those who liked to think they could be rich and be president by birth. They simply refuse to believe that anyone could actually disagree with them on redistributive command economics, for example. It's got to be that people are just caught up in some adolescent fantasy.
There was some clue that Gore's actually sensitive to this charge. He said, tonight, that he will shrink government to its lowest level as a percentage of GDP in 50 years. But he's not saying enough. He doesn't understand that this is not a throwaway issue. He still can't get over how much smarter he thinks he is than George Bush, and he thinks _that_ is the key issue.
So, ultimately, this is why they're losing. They're underestimating Bush's appeal on the ideas, or should I say the core idea: greater freedom (albeit slightly greater). They did this before in 1980, and in 1988.
And my guess is that they won't wake up to this in time.