The Pendulum has Swung

[highnote]

51% of the American voters wanted Bush. I figure voting is like betting on horses. The public usually gets it right. I figure if 51% of Americans want Bush to be president again, then it's not as bad as some on the left think. Hey, a lot of really smart people voted for Bush. A lot of people who voted for Bush know a lot more about politics than I.

On the other hand, sometimes the favorite is not actually the best horse. A lot of really smart people voted for Kerry -- about 48%. So there are about 45 million people who think Bush is not the best person to be president. Sometimes the second choice is the better horse. We'll never know.

I would have been happier if 65% of Americans would have voted for Bush. Then I'd have reason to think my reasons for voting for Kerry were way wrong.

American's partisanness probably takes the shape of a bell curve. About 60 some percent of Americans are either moderate Repubs, Dems or Independents. Another 30 or so percent are firmly left or right. And then there's the remaining 2-5 percent who belong to the extreme left and right. They're the ones who make all the noise. Some of them are celebrities. We know them all too well.

Moderates listen to the opinions of the extremists, but take them with a grain of salt and in the end our president usually falls somewhere slightly left or right. The voters never stray too far in either direction.

I voted for Kerry, and part of the reason (not the only reason) was because I figured Bush would win. I like rooting for the underdog. But I knew that if Bush would win, the country would not be steered too far off course. The politicians who run for the office of president will pander to their constituents and say whatever they think is necessary to get a vote, but in the end, they can't stray too far from center. If they do, they'll be out of a job.

The pendulum continues it's swing to the right. Democrats will survive. They survived Nixon. The Repubs survived Carter. The Dems survived Reagan. The Repubs survived Clinton. The Dems will survive Bush II. Presidents can only govern for 8 years maximum. Supreme court justices eventually retire or die.

Our founding fathers laid a great foundation.

And that's the way it should be. Otherwise, we'd end up with a royal family or a fascist regime or maybe a communist regime.

I don't know when the kinetic energy generated by the Republican party will run out and the pendulum will start swinging back the other way. But eventually it will. When it does, the Dems will have their time on the swing. The Repubs will survive it.

Same old news -- just different people.

Regards,
John

[Tom]

Voting for Kerry if you thought he was the better man and would do a better job is what the freedom to vote is all about. No one can fault a man for voting his convictions. When you vote becase of 527 ads on either side, ore vote becase Bruce Sprinstein says to is another thing altogether, ABBB is a pretty stupid way to go.
We cannot ingore the fact that 49% voted for Kerry.

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
51% of the American voters wanted Bush. I figure voting is like betting on horses. The public usually gets it right. I figure if 51% of Americans want Bush to be president again, then it's not as bad as some on the left think. Hey, a lot of really smart people voted for Bush. A lot of people who voted for Bush know a lot more about politics than I.

On the other hand, sometimes the favorite is not actually the best horse. A lot of really smart people voted for Kerry -- about 48%. So there are about 45 million people who think Bush is not the best person to be president. Sometimes the second choice is the better horse. We'll never know.

I would have been happier if 65% of Americans would have voted for Bush. Then I'd have reason to think my reasons for voting for Kerry were way wrong.

American's partisanness probably takes the shape of a bell curve. About 60 some percent of Americans are either moderate Repubs, Dems or Independents. Another 30 or so percent are firmly left or right. And then there's the remaining 2-5 percent who belong to the extreme left and right. They're the ones who make all the noise. Some of them are celebrities. We know them all too well.

Moderates listen to the opinions of the extremists, but take them with a grain of salt and in the end our president usually falls somewhere slightly left or right. The voters never stray too far in either direction.

I voted for Kerry, and part of the reason (not the only reason) was because I figured Bush would win. I like rooting for the underdog. But I knew that if Bush would win, the country would not be steered too far off course. The politicians who run for the office of president will pander to their constituents and say whatever they think is necessary to get a vote, but in the end, they can't stray too far from center. If they do, they'll be out of a job.

The pendulum continues it's swing to the right. Democrats will survive. They survived Nixon. The Repubs survived Carter. The Dems survived Reagan. The Repubs survived Clinton. The Dems will survive Bush II. Presidents can only govern for 8 years maximum. Supreme court justices eventually retire or die.

Our founding fathers laid a great foundation.

And that's the way it should be. Otherwise, we'd end up with a royal family or a fascist regime or maybe a communist regime.

I don't know when the kinetic energy generated by the Republican party will run out and the pendulum will start swinging back the other way. But eventually it will. When it does, the Dems will have their time on the swing. The Repubs will survive it.

Same old news -- just different people.

Regards,
John

You seriously voted for a candidate because you thought the other guy would win? Way to take full advantage of the priveledge to vote..

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by sq764
You seriously voted for a candidate because you thought the other guy would win? Way to take full advantage of the priveledge to vote..

That was the first thing I thought of when I read the post. WOW! You really put a bunch of thought into it huh?

Why not Nader? Talk about your underdog!

[highnote]

Originally posted by JustRalph
That was the first thing I thought of when I read the post. WOW! You really put a bunch of thought into it huh?

Why not Nader? Talk about your underdog!

The real reason I voted for Kerry, but I was embarrased to admit it, was because I LIKED THE COLOR OF HIS SILKS.

There, I've said it. Are you happy NOW?

Seriously, Americans like to cheer on the underdog. That is ONE of the reasons I voted for him. I could have given you a whole litany of reasons why I voted for Kerry.

But since the election is over, I thought I'd spare you.

Actually, I considered Nader. I considered Kucinich. I considered Sharpton. I even considered casting my vote for Bush.

In the end, like 45 million others, I thought Kerry was the better man for the job. 48 million others disagreed with me.

Next time I'll exercise my right to vote by casting my vote for the person I think is best suited to the job, regardless of his/her party.

Regards,
John

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
The real reason I voted for Kerry, but I was embarrased to admit it, was because I LIKED THE COLOR OF HIS SILKS.

There, I've said it. Are you happy NOW?

Seriously, Americans like to cheer on the underdog. That is ONE of the reasons I voted for him. I could have given you a whole litany of reasons why I voted for Kerry.

But since the election is over, I thought I'd spare you.

Actually, I considered Nader. I considered Kucinich. I considered Sharpton. I even considered casting my vote for Bush.

In the end, like 45 million others, I thought Kerry was the better man for the job. 48 million others disagreed with me.

Next time I'll exercise my right to vote by casting my vote for the person I think is best suited to the job, regardless of his/her party.

Regards,
John

Putting $2 to win on a 99/1 shot is one thing, toying with the president of your country is another..

[highnote]

It sounds like you take voting for the president very seriously. I applaud you. I take it seriously, too.

I believe that all my reasons for voting for the president were valid. You may not like them. I didn't list them all. You didn't ask to hear them. I'll be glad to list them for anyone who wants to read them. Maybe you just don't like the fact I voted for Kerry? I will always do what I believe is right - regardless of who thinks I am wrong. However, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the other side and am tolerant of other's views. I'm not looking to pick a fight. In fact, I want to debate the issues so that I can learn more.

This was actually a good year for me. I learned a lot by really listening and paying attention to what Republican's were saying. Repubs are right. The media is often biased to the left. However, when I read the NY Post, which I do on a frequent basis, I can see that it is also biased to the right. I don't take it personally or get outraged by it for the same reasons Thomas Jefferson advocated freedom of the press. He wanted to know what the opposition was thinking.

If we know what each other are thinking, maybe we can find a common middle ground and move this country forward in unity the way George W wants us to. Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I want to see Bush fail. I want what is best for this country. If his economic policies improve the well being of all of us, that would be fantastic.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that belief.

Regards,
John

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
It sounds like you take voting for the president very seriously. I applaud you. I take it seriously, too.

I believe that all my reasons for voting for the president were valid. You may not like them. I didn't list them all. You didn't ask to hear them. I'll be glad to list them for anyone who wants to read them. Maybe you just don't like the fact I voted for Kerry? I will always do what I believe is right - regardless of who thinks I am wrong. However, I'm always willing to listen to the arguments of the other side and am tolerant of other's views. I'm not looking to pick a fight. In fact, I want to debate the issues so that I can learn more.

This was actually a good year for me. I learned a lot by really listening and paying attention to what Republican's were saying. Repubs are right. The media is often biased to the left. However, when I read the NY Post, which I do on a frequent basis, I can see that it is also biased to the right. I don't take it personally or get outraged by it for the same reasons Thomas Jefferson advocated freedom of the press. He wanted to know what the opposition was thinking.

If we know what each other are thinking, maybe we can find a common middle ground and move this country forward in unity the way George W wants us to. Just because I'm a Democrat doesn't mean I want to see Bush fail. I want what is best for this country. If his economic policies improve the well being of all of us, that would be fantastic.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that belief.

Regards,
John

I don't dislike your vote one bit. I wouldn't vote for Kerry, but I wouldn't impost my belief on anyone else.

What I had issue with was the fact that it appears the 'underdog factor' played even a minute part in your decision. Maybe it's just that I feel there are some venues in which 'just voting for the underdog' is not a wise or appropriate choice.

[highnote]

sq,
Let's face it... Kerry was the underdog. I liked Kerry. I like to root for the underdog. I voted for him.

If Bush would have been the underdog, I wouldn't have voted for him. So I don't always vote for the underdog. It's certainly not the main reason I'd vote for a candidate.

But that's not what my post was about. All I was trying to say is that the pendulum swings back and forth in this country from conservative to liberal -- or vice-versa.

Rather than trying to "one-up" each other, I wish the members of each party would try harder to work together. Because whether we like it or not the pendulum is going to swing the other way sooner or later.

I was riding home from work today with a person I've worked with for about 20 years. He voted for Bush. We had a good debate. He said I'm about the only person who voted for Kerry that he can have a rational discussion with. He said his brothers all voted for Kerry and he can't talk to any of them about politics.

If the Dems had reached out more to the Repubs a different person might have occupied the White House. One of the biggest problems I saw in the Dems was that they tried too hard to get Bush out of office rather than try to put in a great candidate.

Kerry is a shrewd politician and probably would have made a decent president. He's not too far left. His problem was that he didn't connect with the average American the way Bush did.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the six human needs is to feel connected to other people. Americans who voted for Kerry didn't necessarily feel connected to Kerry as much as they felt disconnected from Bush.

On the other hand, Americans who voted for Bush, felt much more connected to him than to Kerry.

When you come right down to it, the reason you vote for a candidate is very simple: You vote for a candidate because of the way he or she makes you feel and the way you think he or she is going to make you feel in the future. Reagan made people feel good.

It's kind of like buying a new car versus buying a used car. A good used car is a heck of a lot cheaper than a new car and just about as reliable -- maybe even more so, but people buy new cars because of the way it makes them feel. The automobile companies know this and try to convince people it's a good idea to lease an expensive new car. Do people lease Ford Escorts? Probably not. They probably go for the more expensive cars. They figure, "If I'm going to lease a new car, I may as well lease a car that makes me feel good. An Escort is just not going to impress people."

People can discuss the pros and cons of Bush and Kerry all year long, but when it comes time to vote, people vote their feelings.

The human minds is always asking two questions: Is what I'm about to do going to be painful or pleasurable.

Is voting for Bush going to mean pain or pleasure. Is voting for Kerry going to mean pain or pleasure.

Bush backers felt a vote for him meant pleasure. Kerry backers felt a vote against Bush meant pleasure. That was the difference in the election. Kerry backers were voting against Bush.

I like this analysis so much I may send it to the Democratic committee.HAHAHAHAHA

If you've read this far SQ, I applaud you. I can be long winded and full of myself sometimes.

Have a great weekend.

Regards,
John

[sq764]

Originally posted by swetyejohn
sq,
Let's face it... Kerry was the underdog. I liked Kerry. I like to root for the underdog. I voted for him.

If Bush would have been the underdog, I wouldn't have voted for him. So I don't always vote for the underdog. It's certainly not the main reason I'd vote for a candidate.

But that's not what my post was about. All I was trying to say is that the pendulum swings back and forth in this country from conservative to liberal -- or vice-versa.

Rather than trying to "one-up" each other, I wish the members of each party would try harder to work together. Because whether we like it or not the pendulum is going to swing the other way sooner or later.

I was riding home from work today with a person I've worked with for about 20 years. He voted for Bush. We had a good debate. He said I'm about the only person who voted for Kerry that he can have a rational discussion with. He said his brothers all voted for Kerry and he can't talk to any of them about politics.

If the Dems had reached out more to the Repubs a different person might have occupied the White House. One of the biggest problems I saw in the Dems was that they tried too hard to get Bush out of office rather than try to put in a great candidate.

Kerry is a shrewd politician and probably would have made a decent president. He's not too far left. His problem was that he didn't connect with the average American the way Bush did.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the six human needs is to feel connected to other people. Americans who voted for Kerry didn't necessarily feel connected to Kerry as much as they felt disconnected from Bush.

On the other hand, Americans who voted for Bush, felt much more connected to him than to Kerry.

When you come right down to it, the reason you vote for a candidate is very simple: You vote for a candidate because of the way he or she makes you feel and the way you think he or she is going to make you feel in the future. Reagan made people feel good.

It's kind of like buying a new car versus buying a used car. A good used car is a heck of a lot cheaper than a new car and just about as reliable -- maybe even more so, but people buy new cars because of the way it makes them feel. The automobile companies know this and try to convince people it's a good idea to lease an expensive new car. Do people lease Ford Escorts? Probably not. They probably go for the more expensive cars. They figure, "If I'm going to lease a new car, I may as well lease a car that makes me feel good. An Escort is just not going to impress people."

People can discuss the pros and cons of Bush and Kerry all year long, but when it comes time to vote, people vote their feelings.

The human minds is always asking two questions: Is what I'm about to do going to be painful or pleasurable.

Is voting for Bush going to mean pain or pleasure. Is voting for Kerry going to mean pain or pleasure.

Bush backers felt a vote for him meant pleasure. Kerry backers felt a vote against Bush meant pleasure. That was the difference in the election. Kerry backers were voting against Bush.

I like this analysis so much I may send it to the Democratic committee.HAHAHAHAHA

If you've read this far SQ, I applaud you. I can be long winded and full of myself sometimes.

Have a great weekend.

Regards,
John

Fair enough response..

I am curious, if you had to try to convince someone to vote for Kerry (previous to Tuesday), what would be 10 reasons why they should? (In your opinion)

[Equineer]

For me, this election was simply a referendum on the strategy for defeating terrorism.

Repeating Iraq on a worldwide basis would be a losing strategy because we lack the economic and human resources to win.

As a lesson, Iraq may have been necessary, but it's too bad we had to concede Afghanistan to the drug warlords in order to learn.

The Iraq exit plan that Novak leaked seems to be underway:
1) Military offensive to enable January elections.
2) Pull out of Iraq at the request of elected government.
3) Use re-construction dollars to influence Iraqi policy.

It was good to hear Bush declare his two primary domestic agenda targets:
1) Social Security Reform.
2) Tax Reform.

Bush has long favored elimination of the federal income tax. He favors consumption taxation. The devil is in the details, but he understands that tax revenues would soar and secure his place in history.

Study after study has pointed out that up to 33% of taxable income evades taxation. The culprit is the small business sector, which has accounted for much of our economic growth in recent years.

An effective crackdown on small business income tax evasion is not economically feasible... too many cheats, too little return on dollars spent on investigations, enforcement, and recoveries.

Some states have tried to crack down on notorious small business sectors like bars and restaurants... but the costs eat up the returns.

For example, legislative attempts to require wholesale liquor distributors to report sales to retail licensees are meant to help catch tax evasion at the retail level, but the lobby against such measures has prevailed in most states.

What are the chances that Bush's mandate will finally result in meaningful tax reform?

Kerry actually carried the 50 richest counties in America... so maybe the rich were wise to Bush's views on taxation.

[Equineer]

Many economists foresee Bush attempting to change America's mind on income tax reform by introducing consumption taxation to reform Social Security. After Americans digest elimination of Social Security payroll/self-employment taxes, the next step is to replace federal income taxes with consumption taxation.

Plan To Reform Social Security Via A National Sales Tax

The argument against Kerry's opposition to Bush's views on tax and Social Security reforms.

By: Laurence J. Kotlikoff

Chairman, Department of Economics, Boston University

Co-Author, The Coming Generational Storm

October 7, 2004

With Iraq on the front burner, domestic policy is getting short shrift in the presidential campaign. Two issues - the tax system and Social Security - deserve much more attention. Notwithstanding recent tax cuts, our tax system places a huge burden on middle-class Americans, reducing not just their take-home pay, but also their incentives to work and save. And Social Security is a walking time bomb with no obvious means, apart from highly regressive payroll tax hikes, of covering two fifths of its future benefit commitments.

To his credit, the President addressed tax and Social Security reform, albeit briefly and separately, in recent weeks. He indicated that a national retail sales tax is worth exploring and suggested letting workers invest some of their Social Security taxes in private accounts.

Senator Kerry objected. A sales tax, he said, would raise the tax burden on the middle class. And privatizing Social Security would leave the elderly's retirements subject to volatile financial returns. As a student of the tax and Social Security systems, I see where Senator Kerry is coming from. But I also see a way to combine both reforms to meet his concerns.

The three-part plan, which has been endorsed by over 150 top U.S. academic economists, is entitled the Personal Security System (PSS). Part 1 replaces Social Security's payroll tax with a federal retail sales tax. Part 2 eliminates any further Social Security benefit accrual, paying (with the sales tax receipts) only the benefits now owed current retirees and current workers. Part 3 sets up an individual account system, but one Democrats as well as Republicans can support.

John Kerry should love part 1. The payroll tax is highly regressive. It taxes only wages, and only up to $87,900. For Bill Gates, who makes $87,900 in minutes, payroll taxes are a pittance. But with a retail sales tax, Gates would pay taxes on every dollar he earns, as well as on his entire $61 billion in wealth, the minute he spends these funds.

Mathematically speaking, a retail sales tax is equivalent to taxing all wages plus all wealth because both are ultimately spent on goods and services. Hence, replacing the payroll tax with a sales tax is the same as a) eliminating the payroll tax ceiling, b) taxing wealth at the payroll tax rate, and c) taking advantage of the expanded tax base to lower the payroll tax rate. What more could a Democrat want?

But what if Gates saves his earnings and his wealth and spends it later? This delays, but doesn't reduce, his tax payments since the interest earned on this saving is also taxed when spent. What if Gates gives his money to his kids? Again, there is no tax avoidance; the kids pay the tax when they spend the gifts or inheritance.

[highnote]

Originally posted by sq764
Fair enough response..

I am curious, if you had to try to convince someone to vote for Kerry (previous to Tuesday), what would be 10 reasons why they should? (In your opinion)

I'll need to think about this. Since I have not been out on the campaign trail making 10 stump speeches per day, the 10 items you request are not available for instant recall.

After my wife and kids leave for the rest of the weekend, I'll have a some time to sit and think about it. It will be a good mental exercise for me, too.

John