The conventions won’t make one iota of difference to the election are they are there to preach to the converted and the already converted are the only people who watch them.

The election, we all know by now, will be decided by the 10 to 12% of floating voters.

But I must admit if Bush was to appear on the platform with Bin Laden in shackles it would most certainly have an impact.

Although there are many rumours going on around the world stating with a high degree of certainty that Bin Laden has been found for some time and that the military is awaiting the right moment, electorally speaking, to bring him in, I personally do not believe it.

But one never knows.

Let put it that way if the elephant is relying on that one to remain in power it should go back to the zoo straight away.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:18 AM

Nice, accuse Bush of having Bin ladin, then qualify it by stating “I personally don’t believe it, but…”

Either you believe it or you don’t. I believe Vince Foster got whacked by the Clintons. Of course, every Liberal says I’m nuts, and since I am without proof they are right. The same applies to you. The only evidence you have is a belief that Bush would stoop so low. Your prejudice is hardly evidence.

Posted by: Brian at June 29, 2004 08:28 AM

Brian,

If you read correctly my posting I am clearly stating that I do not believe the rumours. Still I hear them on a regular bases.
Not that he has been arrested but surrendered and that the military is awaiting the green light from Washinton to give the final push.

And no I don’t believe it. Not because I believe the White House incapable of it but I think there would be leaks in the military rather than just rumours.

Now that would of course be a disaster for Kerry’s chances of reelection but it would definitely be a great day for America.

So I would definitely rejoice.

I also believe that if we had not spent so much time, energy, money and service men and women lives in fighting a nonsensical war in Iraq we might have got Bin Laden by now.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:44 AM

I meant “election” not “reelection” (sorry I thought for a moment we were in 2008. lol.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 08:46 AM

It’s interesting as to who is NOT on the list………….Vice President Dick Cheney. For some time I have begun to wonder if, at the Republican Convention, Giuliani is brought on board as Vice Presidential Candidate.

It would be the right place to grab the publics attention. And, the Republican Party does have to start prepping a major league, name brand Candidate to run against the Hildabeast in 2008.

Posted by: ET at June 29, 2004 09:29 AM

Giuliani would be an interesting choice for Veep this time around. In a recent interview with Cavuto Cheney was adamant that he was on the ticket for the duration. I dunno what’s gonna happen but it is fun to speculate.

Posted by: skip at June 29, 2004 09:43 AM

McCain, Giuliani, Swarzenegger, Zell Miller.

Anyone else see that the GOP is highlighting speakers with crossover appeal? By contrast the Democrats are not going to win many independant votes with Ted Kennedy, Clinton, Sharpton, & Kucinich.

Posted by: kh at June 29, 2004 10:09 AM

hmmm, good point kh, do you think this is a “big tent” display?

Posted by: skip at June 29, 2004 10:28 AM

Kh,

If you think the independent voters not only watch the conventions but on top of that make their mind up according to who is appearing at them you are living in cloud cookoo Land.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 10:48 AM

Get Real -

If we have Bin Ladin, he’s in a tupperware container - most likely several of them.

Posted by: Jim at June 29, 2004 11:06 AM

Get Real - is that your comment??

I post a constructive observation and you flame me??? What are you some sort of troll? You seem to be flaming a lot of folks around here lately. If I sound touchy it’s because I’ve read your other posts and you seem to have nothing constructive to say - anywhere.

Show me the stats on convention viewership by independents that back up your bluster. You also forget that convention speakers become top surrogates for the respective campaigns. The convention themes go on to be the campaign themes.

To me, it sounds like the Republicans are developing a surrogate pool intended to go after the swing - the Democrats on the other hand, have not.

Now if you’ve go something constructive to say about the campaign strategy and the conventions - other than a flame post - I’d like to hear it.

Posted by: KH at June 29, 2004 11:06 AM

“Anyone else see that the GOP is highlighting speakers with crossover appeal?”

LOL, nothing personal but I suppose if you knew nothing about politics or conventions you would think so. We could have Gandhi and Nelson Mandela with us at tehj convention and it wouldn’t be “crossover.” Please do some reading on how the networks need to be essentially forced to carry the conventions because no one watches them. Especially no one from the middle or opposing views. Conventions are best when they motivate the faithful…like a prayer meeting.

It is like if Rush had McCain on: No one would be more likely to listen, and no one listening would be moved to change their mind, because you are “preaching to the choir.”

The fight is over the middle and this is the audience we know isn’t moved by conventions and won’t even know care are occurring.

Historically what the middle undecided pay attetion to is debates and negative ads; or to be precise, the media’s declared winner of debates. That is when the polls narrow decisively (convention bumps by contrast last about a week and have never had any lasting effect).

Posted by: GOP-VA at June 29, 2004 11:18 AM

KH I dont agree with get real on anything but on this you also are dead wrong:
“Show me the stats on convention viewership by independents that back up your bluster. You also forget that convention speakers become top surrogates for the respective campaigns. The convention themes go on to be the campaign themes.”

why don’t you show the stats yourself contrasting convention viewership and debates?

What counts is what the press says about it. As for “surrogates” your assertion is flatly wrong, the keynote speaker for Bush Sr’s incombancy convention was Nancy Reagan and she didn’t lift a finger for Bush Sr. and certainly had no surrogate effect on independents. What she represented — and this is what convention speaking slates are for - is a shoring up and a motivation of alternate wings WITHIN the party.

If sharpton speaks for at the Democratic s’ convention this isn’t about indpendents or undecideded who don’t watch or care about conventions at all (especially uncontested ones). the purpose is to shore up that segment of the Dem vote so they go to the polls.. not change their mind about voting the other way, which is ludicrous.

Hey I am a brother GOP, but let’s not delude ourselves about who watches conventions.

Posted by: GOP-VA at June 29, 2004 11:27 AM

Conventions do help as the candidates pick the “low fruit” of the party base. All the disgruntled consevatives we hear so much about will come home and bush will get a uptick in his polling. As I recall, Gore took the lead in 2000 after his acceptence speach (and big kiss)

Posted by: chris at June 29, 2004 11:31 AM

Kh,
I was not flaming you I was just saying in my own distinct way that I disagreed with you.

As for “you seem to be flaming a lot lately”
My answer is posted on “3 Turks released.”

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 11:44 AM

Personally i hope cheney bow’s out of this one, hes about to flop over any minute now anyways. Speculation being what it is and all, i think were long over due for a woman, or a minority. First of either will be a favored conservative anyways. Too bad condi’s gotten such bad press, and Powell is a pariah amongst the more die hard conservatives :(

I would actually be dissapointed with Gulliani on the ticket, i think he left with a bang and a global appreciation for what he had accomplished, better to work behind the scenes with his influence and not chance marring his hero immage with politics.

Hmmm Bush/Tyson 2004, My VP can beat the ever loving **** outa your prime minister.

Posted by: Ronin at June 29, 2004 11:47 AM

The “low-fruit of the party base”
Now that is a greay expression.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 11:59 AM

I meant great expression.

Posted by: Get Real at June 29, 2004 12:00 PM

GOP-VA,

Thank you for your response. With both parties working towards an electoral collage victory – each trying to swing 1-2% of undecided voters in battleground states – I can’t help but think that everything counts. The main difference with Bush 41 was that Ross Perot sapped away the independent vote, resulting in the plurality Presidency of Bill Clinton.

A question I have for you is does a “big tent” convention energize the base or could it have the opposite effect? I ask this because I have no doubt we’ll see a Move-On/Hate-Bush themed Democratic convention.

BTW - I am a registered Democrat who has become disillusioned by my party leaders following the Iraq War.

Posted by: KH at June 29, 2004 12:04 PM

GR,
The only people distracted by the war in Iraq are liberals like yourself, who whined incessantly about how we hand not caught Bin Laden and about how Afganistan was a “Quagemire” that no one had ever defeated.

The coalition forces are still present in Afganistan, and the Taliban has yet to do more then hit and run from bases in Pakistan. The last car bombing was months ago, and Al Q has had to divert it’s money and troops from there to Iraq, weakening the Taliban far more then any loss in the US effectiveness.

The US can fight on two fronts, Al Q has shown that it finds such actions more difficult. Without it’s new command and control facilties in Iran the terrorists would be even more disorganized. All evidence shows that Bin Ladin is too busy hiding to run the show.

Besides, wasn’t one of the Lib canards that too many troops led to resentment about our “occupation”?

Posted by: Brian at June 29, 2004 12:29 PM

I just believe the this kind of thing has very little potential. Keep in mind what you call G.W. Bush’s “Plurality Presidency” wasn’t a first, (indeed most presidencies have been plurality so it is a silly charge against anyone), but it was a first in modern history where the victor received the lower gross vote than his opponent. We won legitimately but it was the weakest victory in 150 years and we should not forget.

Pollsters will tell you people who switch parties are not considered the “middle.” The most recent converts are the most zealous and those people are not part of the contest that will decide the election. It is the independents, who are especially negative already about politcal “events” who count.

Also since you mentioned plurality, you got to keep in mind that a center stealing third like Perot, is a very different phenomina than a side stealing one like Nader (or to a lesser extent Buchanan).

Perot (like Jon Andersen) took from both, there has been a lot of anaylsis on that. Every vote Nader got either came from Gore or was the result of a new registration/vote. It looks like Nader will now be off the ballot in many of the battleground states (22 of the 40 states he qualified for in 00 were green party automatic slots) and even if he is on the ballot a lot of people who voted for him first time won’t support him .

I stick to my point. Undecided and middle voters don’t watch conventions, let’s face it barely anyone watches a convention. Conventions are parsed and translated through the media. It is the media which is going to tell the voters what happened at a convention and what it means.

I am not at all optimistic about that but I don’t deny it as a fact.

Posted by: GOP-VA at June 29, 2004 12:46 PM

I can’t believe that a political trainwreck is literally staring the Democrats right in the face and they’re still absolutely oblivious to it.

After November it’s going to take the Republicans months to clean what’s left of Kerry out of the cleats of their golf shoes.

:jackson

Posted by: jackson zed at June 29, 2004 01:17 PM

The allure of the conventions is gone, according to many. Still it’s a show that will get some play. To me what either party is aiming for is a large number of useable sound bites that will play well with the short attention span theatre that has become the American press.

Posted by: skip at June 29, 2004 02:20 PM

Well I’m one of those independent voters, although I’ve long since made up my mind about this election. I have to say the contrast between the speaking slates sums it all up. Regardless of what you think about anything, who would you rather go hear speak? I mean if Al Sharpton gets a cold, they’re in the tank. They have nothing. What this means is that the media inundation of soundbites that results from these conventions and shapes much the discourse that follows over the summer will have great quotes from the Republicans and the same old whine from the Dems. Only political junkies watch the conventions. Most people are just pissed off about their shows getting pre-empted. But I think it’s fine that they’re televised and some of the moaners may watch anyway. Don’t underestimate Arnold’s mass appeal. I haven’t watched TV in many moons but I might watch the GOP convention just to see all those guys in the one place.

As for the Democrats, :jackson said it all about the chosen one. I’ve been shaking my head in disbelief at that one for months.

Looking ahead, I’d love to see Giuliani as Secretary of State. Or Ambassador to the UN. Now I think of it, politics in this country being what they are, Cheney may have to fall on his sword after the Leahy episode. Giuliani as VP candidate may not be that farfetched a possibility.

Posted by: marymcl at June 30, 2004 10:50 AM

I saw Al Gore on TV the other day, and I swear for a moment I thought it was a wax figure or wone of those Disney audio-animatrons.

Jesse Jackson, Mario Cuomo and Teddy Kennedy all gave great convention speeches, but that was back in the 80’s. Hard to remember a really good one since then.

Clinton has some potential, but I think I will skip the rest.

Will the GOP provide subtitles for Ahhhnold ??

Posted by: rdelephant at June 30, 2004 08:18 PM

Hey Guys,

Don’t count your chickens yet. Also, do not discount the swinish ability of the Democrats to lie, cheat and do or say anything hateful in their ravenous lust for power.

Michael Moore is a good example of Demon venom.

Posted by: leaddog2 at July 1, 2004 03:21 AM