Prediction 129
"As of August 2005 a Democrat is President of the US."
Bet 129
Duration 2 years (02003-02005)
Predictor
Stewart Brand
Challenger
brian eno
Stakes $1,000
Congratulations to brian and his preferred charity,
The San Francisco Exploratorium, which will receive the stakes!
Add your voice to a conversation with the bettors:
Bookmark this bet, and share it with friends:
Brian Eno is the winner: http://blog.longnow.org/2004/11/03/long-bet-brian-wins/.
I'm predicting that by the fall of 2004 it will be an "anybody but Bush" race, and whatever Democrat is running will win.
Voters will be asking themselves, as usual at election time, "Am I better off?" and "Do I feel more secure?" I think they will answer no on both counts. The economy will continue to limp, if not worse, and the Republicans will be held accountable. Iraq will continue to be a running sore, and terrorism will either feel more threatening than ever or hardly a threat at all; either way Bush looks bad. Iraq and other military misadventures will have turned even the military against the Bush administration.
Also I think public taste will turn against the bombast and constant-attack mode of the right wing, whose stridency has increased rather than slacked off when their party took power. When an Ann Coulter starts trying to revive McCarthyism, a certain American gag reflex cuts in.
By late 2004 I would predict rumblings among some Republicans about dumping yet another one-term Bush, but they're stuck with him as their candidate. Many expected supporters will just not show up.
If I had to predict a successful Democratic candidate in August 2003 I would say Howard Dean, because of his conspicuous fiscal responsibility (not the main attraction in 2003 but it might be in 2004). But other candidates may turn up as Bush support dwindles---a Joe Biden, Wesley Clark, or even Hillary Clinton.
It will be interesting to see how votes about this Prediction move as the two years goes by.
I would love to lose this bet, but I feel that the Bush apparatus is so deeply entrenched - by virtue of big money, media laziness and prejudice and by the manipulation of voting processes - that it will prove unstoppable.
I see this administration being able to create emergencies whenever it feels like it...and able to count on TV journos to faithfully whip up the right level of panic so that everyone will basically vote for the party of the military.
I also see the democrats quite powerless against the level of jingoistic paranoia that the Right can now whip up. Any democrat who dares to say, for example, 'Hold on - perhaps we don't need to be spending a million bucks a minute on defence' is dead in the water. So any democrat is forced to essentially espouse the Right's agenda - which the Right do much better.
I also would make a - cash-free - side-bet that either Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (or both) will be 'found' in the few weeks before the election, to great orgies of self-congratulatory bottom-kissing.
The predictor wins if a Democrat is elected to the US Presidency in November 2004 and a Democrat (could be former Vice President) is in office as President in August 2005. Otherwise the challenger wins.
"As of August 2005 a Democrat is President of the US."
I'm interested in any discussion about this prediction and the pivotal-seeming US national elections of 2004. Unlike some predictors I expect to be around for the discussion and participate in it.
As with the votes, it will be interesting to see how the discussion migrates over the next two years.
I think this is an interesting topic. And the way it was phrased, that in 2005 there will be a Democrat as president allows for (maybe not probable, but possible) an impeachment of Bush if he wins, or the (truly tragic, terrible, and unfortunate, but possible) passing away, by natural or other means, of the electee. I think that this bet as it is described in the prediction sounds like the same thing the media has been speculating since the race for president began.
What would be interesting would be to increase the duration of the bet (if only for the purpose of discussion) well beyond the election. That would allow for these outside factors to a greater extent. Or even for the 2008 (dare I say 2012?) election, which would require some quite interesting and fairly concentrated conjecture.
"What would be interesting would be to increase the duration of the bet (if only for the purpose of discussion) well beyond the election. That would allow for these outside factors to a greater extent. Or even for the 2008 (dare I say 2012?) election, which would require some quite interesting and fairly concentrated conjecture."
Have at it , Alex. I confess I'm shy of predicting more distant election outcomes, though I suppose one could make a case that if a Democrat is President in 2005, that same Democrat is likely to be President for a second term, till 2012.
I would consider extending the period if you, or someone, wants to challenge my Prediction and make it a Bet. The wording of that Bet might be something like, "In November 2008 a Democrat will be elected to a second term as President of the US."
(In some ways I like that better than the present phrasing, since there's no way that Prediction can be resolved in less than two years.)
Just as clarification, I didn't want that first post to sound like a challenge, just an invitation for someone else more proficient in the trends of American politics to continue the discussion. Not only was it idle speculation, but I would have to optimistically agree with your initial prediction. I merely was interested in seeing this prediction branch off from the usual discussion of analysts and pundits. Although, I am glad that you are also interested in looking further ahead than was posted.
I agree with some reservations; of the current candidates, none of them seem to possess the kayo punch to ko bush inspite of all the weaknesses like economy in the dumps, lying to start a war, quagmire in Iraq etc.(including Dean). So I feel Hillary has to throw in her hat in the race with Graham as running mate to win in Nov.2004. She has excellent
chance of taking the coastal states, Hawaii, midwestern like Illinois etc. southern like Arkanansas etc. and Graham can aid in winning the southeastern including FL. She must not wait till 2008 to run because as the saying goes strike the iron when it is hot and not allow it to cool down! Of course she can then run in 2008 for reelection!
Political factors first: Lieberman is the only man in the Democratic ring with a prayer of carrying the South, and he wound up on the Black Congressional Caucus' s-list somehow, so scratch him. (Too bad, too... I could vote for Lieberman... if the current President and all of his successors were no longer available, that is).
Dean looks like a passable centrist, but if you think W.'s National Guard record is dodgy, check Dean out - right after being declared 4-F for the Vietnam draft, the guy moves to Aspen and brags about skiing 80 days a year.
Clinton looked like a centrist, too, but he morphed into a mouthpiece for the left wing of the Democratic party just after the swearing-in. People remember these things.
Also, there is no credible H. Ross Perot-type spoiler waiting in the wings to split the conservative-centrist vote. Lyndon LaRouche could do that to the poor slob who gets nominated as the Democratic candidate - Nader all over again. We could see Nader as the Greens candidate in '04 again, come to think of it.
Now, as far as strident rhetoric is concerned, Ann Coulter could write six more books before she catches up with Hillary Clinton's deportment and remarks as First Lady and junior Senator for New York. Hillary's a non-starter - Karl Rove's wet dream would be for his boss and Cheney to run against Hillary Clinton/Howard Dean, or Dean/Clinton.
Regarding Ann Coulter's stand on Joseph McCarthy, I read her book and find her arguments and research compelling. If someone here can provide any facts (as opposed to assertions) which prove her wrong, I'd like to see them.
The last thing I wanted to do going in was feel sorry for Tailgunner Joe, but the facts speak for themselves - "McCarthyism" was much more liberal sizzle than conservative steak. Joseph McCarthy got bad-rapped unjustly, and big-time. I'm a registered Libertarian, but I can read simple English as well as the next guy - the treatment of McCarthy was and still is a media hatchet job.
As far as the economy is concerned, the Dow-Jones Industrial averages have run north of 9500 most of the month... and if the news media fail to report on the elephant in the room much longer - that we are IN AN ECONOMIC RECOVERY - they'll hurt their own reputation and credibility much worse than the President's.
Anything much above 10,000 on the DJIA would be the start of another round of Dutch Tulip Mania (as many people on the Street were warning us in the late '90s). We're almost at 10,000 now. So why hasn't the recovery been announced?
Not even G.W. Bush is powerful enough to build the stock market up to half again its normal value, then make it crash. For that, you need the President's Council of Economic Advisors.
Militarily, we've got some hard rowing ahead, but the obstacles we face have all been met by American forces in other wars. If anything, our current troops may be the best trained, best equipped, best led men ever to wear the colors.
Perspective is badly needed here - we overthrew Saddam Hussein, occupied Iraq, and the butcher's bill is incredibly low by historical standards. Each of the men and women who died freeing Iraq was a genuine loss to the country, and I grieve for them and their families, but the fact remains that far fewer of them died than the Seven Dwarves (Lieberman, Kerry, Daschle, Edwards, Dean, Sharpton and Mrs. Clinton) were predicting before the war - another elephant pacing the living room carpet, studiously ignored by the Democrats' sycophants in the press.
Finally, I think that rooting for Vietnam to happen again so Bush can lose the election is a truly pathetic stance - and so, I think, will the voters in November 2004.
With all respect to Stewart Brand (and I have a great deal of respect for the man who gave us the Whole Earth Catalog, and that's no lie), his statement about the strident rhetoric emanating from the Republican Party is laughable.
How about the party that gave us Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Kweisi Mfume, Charles Rangel, Tom Daschle, Lawton Chiles, Bill Gephardt, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein... the list goes on and on....
Against this, sure, there are Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum... and who else? You can try to fit the strident shoe on Ann Coulter, but first you'll have to prove her wrong. Besides, the Democratic Party has so many brass-lunged ideologues that surely their competition (actually, I should qualify that - their MAIN competition, as opposed to the Greens, Socialists, LaRouchers, etc) are entitled to a few.
I think that Hillary Clinton has no chance at all to carry the South and Southwest - except POSSIBLY Arkansas, where she would be the "Native Daughter" candidate - and only limited appeal in the Eastern Seaboard states. The South has voted solidly Republican in Presidential elections since 1968, and this is not going to change in 2004.
In fact, the West Coast (where you might expect her cousin-in-law Sen. Barbara Boxer to spend political capital for her) is the only area that even comes close to being a lock for Hillary Clinton.
The rest of the Western states are probably going to be a lock for President Bush - his philosophy resonates strongly here, even in Colorado - where in districts almost custom-made to give the Democrats at least a few House seats, they were trounced soundly in the last election. In fact, only Diana DeGette and Mark Udall (among Democratic House members whose seats came up in the last elections) retained their seats - and DeGette's seat is liable to go away when Colorado's mostly Republican state legislature has a chance to revisit the issue this year or next.
The next Presidential election will be split along ideological (not necessarily party) lines - and probably too close to call, because the faithful few in both parties are going to be out beating the bushes, annoying people at dinner with phone solicitations, and raising the dead (a tactic pioneered by the Democratic machines in Chicago and Louisiana) to eke out a win for their man (or woman).
I think Stewart's argument has a lot of merit. But even if it looks like more than 50% of the support goes against the President, that doesn't mean that more than 50% of the support goes to any one competitor. It'll depend on who wins the nomination, of course.
And although I trust the US electorate to do the right thing, elections in the US are badly managed; district boundaries are jerrymandered; and big money ads play too large a part. Centralized election scrutineers, district layouts, and a ban on third-party money during elections would make the contest itself clean.
Like a hornet's nest, my comments hyped up vfrickey for 3 days;
must be one of those on the extreme fringe of the religious republicans, I guess! Read Al Franken's latest on liars who masquerade as fair and balanced reporters(sic) to see coulter's
stupid, arrogant lies exposed for all their idiocity!
Al Franken! If all you can do, Raj, is send us over to read the website of someone whose idea of political discourse is to write a book calling someone with whom he disagrees a "big fat idiot," then the cause of your opponents is already won.
Actually, on stridency alone, Franken is in the running for the Democrats' Ann Coulter figure... although Maureen Dowd also qualifies. Dowd is less intellectual, but she is definitely up there with Coulter in the "hot babe" department, judging from the photo next to her column in the paper.
Oh, by the way, I didn't attack you or any other participant in this discussion personally or politically. I specifically refrained from asking you when "Arkanansas" was accepted into the Union, as I'm unfamiliar with that particular state. I'd appreciate the same courtesy from you.
What I got "hyped up" about is the highly parochial assumption that stridency is somehow limited to the Republican party - especially when the Democrats use stridency day in and day out as normal operating procedure on the floor of the House and Senate, and the editorial pages of the New York Times - will anything emanating from that paper ever qualify as non-fiction again (evil grin)?
I agree with Richard Werezak's statement that Congressional districts are often gerrymandered. I'd also like to expand on that, if I may.
In my native state of Louisiana, the Federal courts took it on themselves to create the gerrymander of all time, a Congressional district which essentially snaked through the entire state from north to south around the road from Baton Rouge to Shreveport - about 150 miles - in order to ensure the election of an African-American to Congress.
Of course, the Supreme Court ruled that this was too naked a gerrymander and abolished the district, but it's simply an extreme case of what the U.S. judiciary has done through out the country in order to take the franchise out of the hands of the American people and place it in the hands of those who wish to dictate election results, rather than accept the will of the people.
Now, in Colorado, Texas and a number of other states, the state legislatures are doing their jobs and rectifying some of the worst-gerrymandered districts - and catching flak for it from the Democratic Party, which understandably doesn't want to give up House seats which were created by Democratic legislatures and compliant Federal courts in order to rig elections in the past.
Amazing that the perception of gerrymandering in the press depends on the parties involved.
If you haven't heard, Michael Moore wrote a piece supporting Gen. Clark.
=====================================
Friday, September 12, 2003
Michael Moore to Wesley Clark: Run!
A Citizen’s Appeal to a General in a Time of War (at Home)
Dear General Wesley Clark,
I've been meaning to write to you for some time. Two days after the Oscars, when I felt very alone and somewhat frightened by the level of hatred toward me for daring to suggest that we were being led into war for "fictitious reasons," one person stuck his neck out and came to my defense on national television.
And that person was you.
Aaron Brown had just finished interviewing me by satellite on CNN, and I had made a crack about me being "the only non-general allowed on CNN all week." He ended the interview and then turned to you, as you were sitting at the desk with him. He asked you what you thought of this crazy guy, Michael Moore. And, although we were still in Week One of the war, you boldly said that my dissent was necessary and welcome, and you pointed out that I was against Bush and his "policies," not the kids in the service. I sat in Flint with the earpiece still in my ear and I was floored -- a GENERAL standing up for me and, in effect, for all the millions who were opposed to the war but had been bullied into silence.
Since that night, I have spent a lot of time checking you out. And what I've learned about you corresponds to my experience with you back in March. You seem to be a man of integrity. You seem not afraid to speak the truth. I liked your answer when you were asked your position on gun control: “If you are the type of person who likes assault weapons, there is a place for you -- the United States Army. We have them.”
In addition to being first in your class at West Point, a four star general from Arkansas, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO -- enough right there that should give pause to any peace-loving person -- I have discovered that...
1. You oppose the Patriot Act and would fight the expansion of its powers.
2. You are firmly pro-choice.
3. You filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan's affirmative action case.
4. You would get rid of the Bush tax "cut" and make the rich pay their fair share.
5. You respect the views of our allies and want to work with them and with the rest of the international community.
6. And you oppose war. You have said that war should always be the "last resort" and that it is military men such as yourself who are the most for peace because it is YOU and your soldiers who have to do the dying. You find something unsettling about a commander-in-chief who dons a flight suit and pretends to be Top Gun, a stunt that dishonored those who have died in that flight suit in the service of their country.
General Clark, last night I finally got to meet you in person. I would like to share with others what I said to you privately: You may be the person who can defeat George W. Bush in next year's election.
This is not an endorsement. For me, it's too early for that. I have liked Howard Dean (in spite of his flawed positions in support of some capital punishment, his grade "A" rating from the NRA, and his opposition to cutting the Pentagon budget). And Dennis Kucinich is so committed to all the right stuff. We need candidates in this race who will say the things that need to be said, to push the pathetically lame Democratic Party into having a backbone -- or get out of the way and let us have a REAL second party on the ballot.
But right now, for the sake and survival of our very country, we need someone who is going to get The Job done, period. And that job, no matter whom I speak to across America -- be they leftie Green or conservative Democrat, and even many disgusted Republicans -- EVERYONE is of one mind as to what that job is:
Bush Must Go.
This is war, General, and it's Bush & Co.'s war on us. It's their war on the middle class, the poor, the environment, their war on women and their war against anyone around the world who doesn't accept total American domination. Yes, it's a war -- and we, the people, need a general to beat back those who have abused our Constitution and our basic sense of decency.
The General vs. the Texas Air National Guard deserter! I want to see that debate, and I know who the winner is going to be.
The other night, when you were on Bill Maher's show, he began by reading to you a quote from Howard Dean where he (Dean) tried to run away from the word "liberal." Maher said to you, so, General, do you want to run away from that word? Without missing a beat, you said "No!" and you reminded everyone that America was founded as a "liberal democracy." The audience went wild with applause.
That is what we have needed for a long time on our side -- guts. I am sure there are things you and I don't see eye to eye on, but now is the time for all good people from the far left to the middle of the road to bury the damn hatchet and get together behind someone who is not only good on the issues but can beat George W. Bush. And where I come from in the Midwest, General, I know you are the kind of candidate that the average American will vote for.
Michael Moore likes a general? I never thought I'd write these words. But desperate times call for desperate measures. I want to know more about you. I want your voice heard. I would like to see you in these debates. Then let the chips fall where they may -- and we'll all have a better idea of what to do. If you sit it out, then I think we all know what we are left with.
I am asking everyone I know to send an email to you now to encourage you to run, even if they aren't sure they would vote for you. (Wesley Clark's email address is: info@leadershipforamerica.org). None of us truly know how we will vote five months from now or a year from now. But we do know that this race needs a jolt -- and Bush needs to know that there is one person he won't be able to Dukakisize.
Take the plunge, General Clark. At the very least, the nation needs to hear what you know about what was really behind this invasion of Iraq and your fresh ideas of how we can live in a more peaceful world. Yes, your country needs you to perform one more act of brave service -- to help defeat an enemy from within, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, an address that used to belong to "we, the people."
Yours,
Michael Moore
Lottery # 275, U.S. military draft, 1972
Conscientious Objector applicant
www.michaelmoore.com
The proliferation of Democratic candidates for the Presidency in 2004 is the political equivalent of Cheyne-Stokes breathing - the last gasp of a once-proud party.
Michael Moore's screed supporting the candidacy of Wesley Clark is a perfect illustration of what I mean. When one side of a political argument runs out of verifiable, objective facts to support his or her viewpoint, that's when character assassination rears its ugly head.
The amusing thing is that all but one of the ten (eleven... do I hear twelve?) Democratic candidates are reading from the same sheet... Bush lied on Iraq, Bush was a doper, bla bla bla.
What do you hear from the Republican side? Solutions.
Forgive me for jumping back on the soap box, but when Michael Moore weighs in (no pun intended) on the political debate, it's all over but the crying for the Democrats.
I have a sincere and constructive suggestion for the Democrats if they really want to win in 2004 - get behind Dick Gephardt. He's the only man out there on the campaign trail who is telling the truth - that before the war, years before the war, every bit of intelligence we had backed the President's assessment of WMD in Iraq. Even Bill Clinton has said so, and recently. Why? Because both men know that when WMD are found, as I believe they will be, that all but one of their party's candidates will look like the empty suits that they are.
Maybe I've overlooked this in the "Rules" section, but how long is this topic open for betting? E.g., could one accept the bet as of November 1, 2004, by which point the outcome of the 2004 election will likely be apparent? How about the day _after_ the election (assuming, of course, that the election decides the matter in timely fashion and there's no redux of the 2000 debacle)?
According to the rules: "Anyone may challenge a Prediction, and must offer their own argument for why they think they will be proved right, but the challenge does not become a Bet until the original Predictor has accepted the Challenger, and they have agreed upon the stakes." Thus a Predictor might not accept a Challenger who does not appear on the scene until after the election.
The Bush political appartaus has already proven in Florida (2000), Colorado (2002), in the Texas gerrymandering, in its manipulation of the California recall that it is willing to do whatever it can to maintain and expand its power. The agenda of the neocons is still open and they have much to do. They have to have another four years (at least) to complete their "restructuring" of the world. I would not be surprised if there was not another large terrorist attack in the United States that would cement the neocons in place. I am more concerned about the establishment of the North American Command and its recent involvement in the suppression of protestors in Florida. Their involvement was not direct, but several million dollars earmarked for military use was transferred through them to civilian authorities in that operation. It is not difficult to see them using the same tactics to establish martial law and a permanent military authority throughout the USA in the event of another attack.
A long-time discussion---since Jan. 2001---is finally engraved on the Internet wind. I've been predicting Bush's demise along with all he stands for from the start. Eno said I didn't understand what non-coastal America thinks, and I underestimate the Right's political savvy. Along came the 2002 elections. He was right; I was wrong.
This time I think it's different. He fears not.
Note that Eno predicts that Bin Laden or Saddam will be "found" just before the election.
How far away this seems from my boyhood in the nineties, when all I feared from our leadership was lechery, ignorance, and a method of lawmaking partial to various business interests... NOW I see the thin crust I was walking on was simply above the lava, always there, and the new administration in my country is completely beholden to wealth, and willing to far surpass the little slaughters and megadeaths of the lowly former regime. Well bathe me in blood if my servants- MY public servants- aren't killing civilians to prop up their plans. Too bad they aren't just MY servants. Why do I feel like their slaves?
I think they will win, and win, and win... I feel a dark wind, and the republic has now become empire, and I, Cassius with my lean and hungry look can do nothing.
I never knew the sixties and seventies, but I feel their paranoia, and I see Phillip K. Dick walk among us, and Eric Blair, and they are right. There will be no democrats elected in 2004, or 2008. There will be trouble. There will be fear. There will perhaps be open war of the ancient but modern kind on our own soil.
Where did all the moderates go? Moderate, dammit!
That long rant was simply my feeling, on this dark lonely winter night, that democracy will continue to die, and that the great Stewart Brand, the public figure that I without exaggeration admire above all others, is wrong. I will check back in the spring; perhaps I or the situation will have changed.
All I know about the upcoming election is that my mom
and her family have been republicans all their life
and she's voting for Howard Dean. I think the rather flagrant
and not terribley covert ways in which the Bush administration
has used to stay in power have actually managed to offend republicans too.
Ave. The Gracchi are dead. We can now only sit back and enjoy the descent. The Republicans are breaking and bending every rule they can, and no "pendulum" will set them back, at least until the Democrats get as equally reckless... Sad...
BTW, I'm not adovcating Dean with that post.
we are lacking in a decent well funded canidate
to beat out Bush.
aljones said:
"I think the rather flagrant and not terribley covert ways in which the Bush administration has used to stay in power have actually managed to offend republicans too."
I'm sure plenty of Democrats were disgusted at the blatant and barely covert maneuvers of Clinton to stay in power - digging up dirt of half of Congress (Filegate), having people physically threaten and intimidate Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp and Juanita Broaddrick, having the Attorney General sit on the egregious leak of personal information concerning Linda Tripp by a high Defense Department official - exactly the offense for which Charles Colson went to jail after Watergate....
To talk about blatant political maneuvering now means that the same people are now straining at gnats who dined on twelve-course dinners of camel from 1992 to 2000.
A reality check - If Republicans and Independents are upset about any of the comparatively small things which have happenned in the Bush administration, their method of protest - the highest sustained approval ratings since the Reagan administration, still in the 60 percent range - is a little odd.
People are beginning to understand that once they're behind that curtain in November, they can vote for the person they want, and not the one that they're told to vote for by the national news media and the country's shriveling left wing.
the _Weekly Standard_ recently compared Howard Dean to Eugene McCarthy, who also managed to galvanize American youth (at least some of them) into political activism. The article concluded that Dean is no Gene McCarthy.
The more the Democratic machine tries to steamroller the American people, the more it'll break down. We've finally reached the point Lincoln alluded to where all of the people can't be fooled with rhetoric and lies.
Peace out,
VPF
Brigantia said "Ave. The Gracchi are dead."
I think that the unprincipled political attacks on the President by men who know they are lying through their teeth is more reminiscent of Marius and Sulla than the Gracchi - besides, there really are no figures in American political history whose probity even comes close to that of Caius and Tiberius Gracchus.
Stefan M. Sittler said
"I never knew the sixties and seventies, but I feel their paranoia, and I see Phillip K. Dick walk among us, and Eric Blair, and they are right. There will be no democrats elected in 2004, or 2008. There will be trouble. There will be fear. There will perhaps be open war of the ancient but modern kind on our own soil."
Only if Terry McAuliffe is still hanging on to his job by pandering to the absolute lowest denominator - the compulsive haters - in his party's base. :-)
Stewart Brand said:
"Eno said I didn't understand what non-coastal America thinks, and I underestimate the Right's political savvy. Along came the 2002 elections. He was right; I was wrong."
Or, people lined up at voting machines all over America and voted for who and what they wanted. Occam's Razor favors that explanation as the one requiring the fewest additional suppositions.
"This time I think it's different. He fears not."
I'd have to go with Mr. Eno on that one. Nothing's really changed from 2002.
Irrespective of political party, the voters are always disparaged by the guys who didn't do so well in the last election. Trust me on this - my friends in the political right said a lot of things like "I can't believe they were so DUMB!" after November 1992 and 1996. (In fairness, the Republican Party would have helped itself by nominating a man with a detectable pulse in 1996.)
Regards,
VPF
After Dick Clark speaks to 9/11 Commission, before Condoleeza Rice does, after US bodies burned and displayed in Faluja, Iraq---the voting on this bet goes dead even: 60 agree; 60 disagree.
If my argument is somewhat right, and the Bush administration is generally viewed as a disaster by summer 2004, the vote here should increasingly weigh toward agree.
As things deteriorate in Iraq, Bush is looking to broaden and deepen the coalition of military forces and nation-builders there. But by an emerging dynamic, America will be left increasingly alone in Iraq, at least until November 2004. To help the US in Iraq this summer would be seen as a way to help Bush get re-elected; leaving him alone to thrash in the mire is seen, probably correctly, as a way to ensure his defeat in November.
Most countries in the world, now including even Canada, are looking for ways to get rid of Bush. Since they can't vote directly, they are voting with their actions and inactions. None of the countries will say this, of course, and it's a taboo subject in the US media---at least so far.
If Kerry wins, and the US is still occupying Iraq in January 2005, then we might see international help showing up, but that may depend on how grotesquely the summer of 2004 plays out in Iraq.
That's my sub-prediction: US remains ever more alone in Iraq in 2004.
And here I am. I suppose my view is basically unchanged; Eno's view of the American heartland is essentially my own. The addition of Mr. Frickey's articulate arguments illustrate to me that events are very open to interpretation.
By the way, I would like to thank Mr. Frickey for his participation in this debate- it adds a welcome alternate viewpoint.
I think that the US will become increasingly alone in Iraq, but that many people within the US will see this as a committment to justice rather than a Vietnam-esque escalation into world policing as the rest of the world seems to.
Only two seasons remain for this bet to be (essentially) resolved. I will grow tomatoes either way. Mmm... the tastiest form of political commentary.
For me, it is still unpredictable. A friend of mine argues, strongly, that people today don't have the right perspective - that of 1950's America. The Bush administration apparently longs for a Cold War of their own and would love their own J. Edgar Hoover and Joseph McCarthy, trials and all.
Brian Eno is right. Middle America sees only the threat and is frightened. It wants decisive action. But it's also confused by what's happening in Iraq. Why are they fighting us?
I have hopes for change, but not strong ones.
I'm not claiming to be some kind of authority, but this is how I see that vague unfocused thrust of US opinion.
[begin]
Terrorism sucks, but it's not a serious threat. I hear and see enormously far more people who are semi-jokingly worried about Homeland Security mistaking them for subversives than people who are genuinely worried about terrorism. Terrorism is seen as Bad But Inevitable, like forest fires and earthquakes.
The major anti-terrorism reactions I see are purely jingoistic. Terrorists should be pursued not because they represent a serious threat but because they are a symbolic threat. It's like a sports rivalry times ten. No one thinks the Blue Jays are seriously going to kill the Yankees, but they may make the Yankees look bad -- like weak losers -- and, to Yankees fans, that's unacceptable. We must wage war on terrorists because they oppose us and say bad things about us.
And, of course, we're in a State of War, so no-argument patriotism is the only patriotism. A little head-scratching and scowling is permitted, but you can't oppose a sitting President during such times . . . because disunity is a display of national weakness.
The Iraq War is Bad, but we can't pull out -- that would show weakness and mean that our efforts, and the deaths of those who've died, were for nothing. Why do Those People attack us? Because they're Those People. Most folks in the US view the Palestinians and all terrorists that same way. Those People Are Crazy. They can't be reasoned with, can't appreciate freedom, and they simply hate us because we're better / happier / richer than they are. End of story.
Most of our former allies hate us . . . because they're weak and cowardly but don't want to admit it.
A lot of people are very upset about the economy . . . but they've long since accepted that they can't understand economic issues. As a result, they don't know who to blame.
[end]
Not my views, of course, but what I see more than anything else in the zeitgeist.
As for the election . . . I don't know. The electronic voting / tabulating scene is so grim that I think it's more likely than not that future historians will scoff at this election as the least reliable in US history. Hopefully conditions will be improved before the next major election.
126 to 101 in favor of Brand on this bet; my vote against will (essentially) soon be confirmed or denied. I think it is interesting that this is no longer a dead heat; in the larger media and in the eyes of oddsmakers, Bush is the favorite. Everyone seems to think it is the election of a lifetime. I do too.
Of course the timeline of the bet says 2005 but I think it is fairly certain after November 2nd.
We await with bated breath! Well, and some of us "await" by phoning, calling, votepairing, talking to our friends and the friendly opposition. Everyone please vote- thanks to votepairing, it is possible to make a difference almost anywhere!
I may disagree with whom you vote, but will defend to the death your right to plunge our country into four more years of autocratic bunglement! Remember, you're either with us, or with the Terrorists!
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." --G.W. Bush (in jest)
With the Republican control of the House and Senate, there is no scenario in which a Democrat can become President by August 2005 (the two-year horizon of my original Bet). Looking at the two arguments, Eno's is persuasive in detail, mine clearly wrong.
The morning after the election I wrote Eno my summary of what happened and the prospects...
Dear Brian,
You win, we lose. My country is in a bad way and getting worse. Exit polls said that Bush supporters voted for his "moral values." For "strong and wrong versus weak and right," as Bill Clinton has put it.
Bin Laden won. He tried against all odds to set in motion a religious war, and he succeeded. The US majority WANTS a religious war of good against evil. Irrationality rules here, and as a result a very cynical Republican party rules--- Presidency, Senate, House, judiciary, governorships, and state legislatures. They own America and are running it at a profit.
The unreported divide: educated Americans voted strongly for Kerry, the uneducated for Bush.
Kerry and the Democrats did everything as right as could be. They couldn't have fielded a stronger candidate, nor worked harder individually to get out the huge vote. Bush's war in Iraq went as badly as it possibly could, yet he was not held accountable.
Now I can only hope for your scenario to play out---Bush has to suffer the consequences of his own incompetence. But it will be a bleak four years. Irrationality feeds on failure. As things get worse, it just tries harder, gets shriller. I hate the prospect.
The turmoil will be good for the arts perhaps. We may see a revival of the religious left.
Economic wars can end; ideological wars can end. Religious wars go on and on. Long term I can imagine a new Enlightenment coming out of all this, and I will work for that.
--Stewart
Although I agree that it's unlikely that the situation will reverse, I think it's an unseemly premature decision to call this bet closed. A bad precedent for Long Bets, too -- the money has probably already been sent to the Exploratorium (which I'm not complaining about), but I would not want to see this bet closed until the end of August, 2005 actually arrives. I think some of the credibility of Long Bets depends on verifying results in whatever way possible, whenever possible.
[FROM THE MODERATOR: THIS POST HAS BEEN MODIFIED AT THE REQUEST OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BELOW CITED ARTICLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
"1) It was heavily edited and contains things I [Teed Rockwell] never said.
2) The facts stated in it are no longer true, because the Cuyahoga election site has now changed their figures. To continue to have this information attributed to me makes me look uninformed and incompetent.
I wasn't going to quibble about these details initially, because I was glad that you were helping to get the word out. But I am still receiving emails from people, some quite abusive, because they think I am not aware of these
changes. If you wish to have my current views on this subject you could put up the page which is available at my site at: http://www.california.com/~mcmf/cuyahoga.htm"
PLEASE MAKE A NOTE OF THE MODIFICATION--The Moderator]
Original Post:
I hear lawyers are all over this stuff. Longshot though since death threats would be a strong deterrant to judges & their families. Supposedly that's why Ross Perot dropped out.
Steve Kurtz
bets # 117 & 126; and still no taker for pred. 97
========================================
http://www.rense.com/general59/93000extravotes.htm
93,000 Extra Votes In
Cuyahoga County -
Outrage In Ohio
By Teed Rockwell
Philosophy Department, Sonoma State University
11-12-04
Smoking Gun
You may have seen the associated press story about the precinct in
Cuyahoga county that had less than 1,000 voters, and gave Bush almost
4,000 extra votes.
But that turns out to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg. The
evidence discovered by some remarkably careful sleuthing would convince
any reasonable court to invalidate the entire Ohio election.
In last Tuesday's election, 29 precincts in Cuyahoga County, Ohio,
reported votes cast IN EXCESS of the number of registered voters - at
least 93,136 extra votes total. And the numbers are right there on the
official Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website:
Bay Village - 13,710 registered voters / 18,663 ballots cast
Beachwood - 9,943 registered voters / 13,939 ballots cast
Bedford - 9,942 registered voters / 14,465 ballots cast
Bedford Heights - 8,142 registered voters / 13,512 ballots cast
Brooklyn - 8,016 registered voters / 12,303 ballots cast
Brooklyn Heights - 1,144 registered voters / 1,869 ballots cast
Chagrin Falls Village - 3,557 registered voters / 4,860 ballots cast
Cuyahoga Heights - 570 registered voters / 1,382 ballots cast
Fairview Park - 13,342 registered voters / 18,472 ballots cast
Highland Hills Village - 760 registered voters / 8,822 ballots cast
Independence - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Mayfield Village - 2,764 registered voters / 3,145 ballots cast
Middleburg Heights - 12,173 registered voters / 14,854 ballots cast
Moreland Hills Village - 2,990 registered voters / 4,616 ballots cast
North Olmstead - 25,794 registered voters / 25,887 ballots cast
Olmstead Falls - 6,538 registered voters / 7,328 ballots cast
Pepper Pike - 5,131 registered voters / 6,479 ballots cast
Rocky River - 16,600 registered voters / 20,070 ballots cast
Solon (WD6) - 2,292 registered voters / 4,300 ballots cast
South Euclid - 16,902 registered voters / 16,917 ballots cast
Strongsville (WD3) - 7,806 registered voters / 12,108 ballots cast
University Heights - 10,072 registered voters / 11,982 ballots cast
Valley View Village - 1,787 registered voters / 3,409 ballots cast
Warrensville Heights - 10,562 registered voters / 15,039 ballots cast
Woodmere Village - 558 registered voters / 8,854 ballots cast
Bedford (CSD) - 22,777 registered voters / 27,856 ballots cast
Independence (LSD) - 5,735 registered voters / 6,226 ballots cast
Orange (CSD) - 11,640 registered voters / 22,931 ballots cast
Warrensville (CSD) - 12,218 registered voters / 15,822 ballots cast
The Republicans are so BUSTED.
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us//BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
...is the official website of the Cuyahoga county election board,
providing irrefutable evidence that the vote was off by at least 93,000.
Kerry lost Ohio by approximately 130,000, so this is not an
insignificant figure that can be ignored, particularly when there are
numerous other indications of voter fraud in Ohio and elsewhere.
I think the only possible alternative is to invalidate the entire Ohio
election, if not the entire national election. I'd say the game's up.
America, it looks pretty much like you've been had.
Sincerely,
Teed Rockwell
Philosophy Department
Sonoma State University
OUTRAGE IN OHIO: ANGRY RESIDENTS STORM STATE HOUSE!
MASSIVE VOTER SUPPRESSION & CORRUPTION DEMOCRACY FAILURE
By David Solnit
Hundreds of angry Ohio residents marched through the streets of
Columbus, Ohio's Capital, this evening and stormed the Ohio State House,
defying orders and arrest threats from Ohio State Troopers.
"O-H-I-O, Suppressed Democracy Has Got To Go!" they chanted. After
troopers pushed and scuffled with people, nearly a hundred people took
over the steps and entrance to the State's giant white column capital
building and refused repeated orders to disperse or face arrest.
People prepared for arrests, ready to face jail, writing lawyers phone
numbers on their arms, signing jail support lists and discussing
NON-COOPERATION and ACTIVE RESISTANCE (linking arms, but not fighting
back).
A freshly painted banner held on the steps read, "ONE VOTE DENIED =
DEMOCRACY IN TROUBLE! 100'S OF 1000'S OF VOTES SURPRISED = DEMOCRACY
FAILED".
An unprecedented massive grassroots voter registration and get out the
vote effort and widespread opposition to Bush went up against the
massive coordinated Republican effort to suppress, intimidate and
possibly steal millions of votes.
In addition to the voter suppression and intimidation is the fact that
Bush campaign co-chair Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell is in charge
of the election and vote counting.
But much deeper questions about fundamental flaws in the system hang in
the air.
I hear lawyers are all over this stuff. Longshot though since death threats would be a strong deterrant to judges & their families. Supposedly that's why Ross Perot dropped out.
---------------------------------
I very strongly welcome a thorough criminal investigation of the election not only in Ohio but all over America.
What I believe we will find is that the votes for Bush were legal - the ballots cast in excess of the registered voter base in each county will be accounted for by illegal and fradulent balloting for Kerry.
That seems to be the case here in Colorado, where "grassroots voter registration" efforts overwhelmingly have registered convicted felons (many still in jail) and other ineligible or non-existent voters as Democrats or independents. The scam is to pay "volunteers" by the completed registration form, with the proviso that no payment is forthcoming for a form with the party affiliation marked as "Republican."
Bring it on, folks! I WANT to see Terry McAuliffe hauled away in handcuffs!
Stewart Brand's "concession letter" to Brian Eno requires a thoughtful and detailed response. Fortunately, I'm here.
"You win, we lose. My country is in a bad way and getting worse. Exit polls said that Bush supporters voted for his "moral values." For "strong and wrong versus weak and right," as Bill Clinton has put it."
Bill Clinton is an expert on "right"?
His handling of the North Korea situation appears to have paid Kim Jong-Il to develop nuclear weapons, for if they had them when they first announced the fact, the lead time for extraction of the necessary plutonium from irradiated fuel rods would have had that happening on his watch;
One of Clinton's Pentagon staffers released exactly the same sort of defamatory material on Linda Tripp in exactly the same way that got Chuck Colson jailed during Watergate;
The Democratic campaign fund and/or Clinton himself seems to have been enriched for a lame-duck pardon of an exiled millionaire fugitive from Federal charges;
and so on...
"Bin Laden won. He tried against all odds to set in motion a religious war, and he succeeded. The US majority WANTS a religious war of good against evil."
None are so blind as those who will not see. In this case, the blind are those who will not see that the same Wah'habism in Saudi Arabia that pays bin Laden's bills has been at work in a hundred other places long before 9/11 to foment a world-wide jihad.
The majority in this country had absolutely nothing to do with that - but thank God, we can see evil as evil, and thank God, we are capable of acting on the fact that evil exists and will not be deterred from acting on its own designs by the ineffectual gesturing of the Clinton years.
"Irrationality rules here, and as a result a very cynical Republican party rules--- Presidency, Senate, House, judiciary, governorships, and state legislatures."
No. Irrationality is:
- doing as Clinton did and paying North Korea in exchange for absolutely no verifiable nuclear disarmament;
- spasmodic barrages of cruise missiles which had no effect on enemy command and control, and a completely ineffectual policy on border security which allowed 20 hijackers to waft into the United States unimpeded to kill 3,000 people on September 11th, 2001;
- crediting Bill Clinton for the economic recovery caused partly by reforms instituted by George H.W. Bush and partly by the huge productivity increases caused by the introduction of desktop computers and local area networking into world business, and the upsurge in the economy partly caused by the Internet. It's just as rational to give him credit (or blame) for the weather.
"They own America and are running it at a profit."
I'd like to see some proof of that, or that it is demonstrably MORE true of the Republican party than the party of Torricelli, Rostenkowski, the Kennedys, the Clintons...
AMERICA owns America. More accurately, AMERICANS own America - our mutual funds, pension plans, insurance company investment portfolios and bank accounts are all invested in America.
If you want an example of irrationality, try the Democratic harping on "the rich." Collectively, we are ALL the rich.
Nothing is as silly as trying to engineer class hatred in a property-owning society, but the Left keeps on trying, and the amazing thing is that just under half of the electorate buys into it. Unionized education helps out the Democratic Party by virtue of its sheer incompetence.
"The unreported divide: educated Americans voted strongly for Kerry, the uneducated for Bush."
Again... where are the data which would make this NOT a bigoted remark?
I didn't vote your way, I live in what was until last November a "red state," and yet I have a bachelor's degree, am listed as a co-author on numerous medical journal articles, program in numerous computer programming languages and have also been published in general-audience magazines. My last IQ test had me just over the line as a "genius" at 141.
This isn't intended to impress anyone with my particular brains, but to show the "dumb conservative" charge up for the canard it is. How many Nobel laureates do you reckon showed up in those bought-and-paid-for protests outside Republican campaign events - and how much of George Soros' money was spent shuttling the same faces from New York to Chicago to Cleveland to... ?
"Kerry and the Democrats did everything as right as could be."
That would include:
suborning an allegedly objective press;
feeding forged Texas Air National Guard documents on George W. Bush to an eager CBS Evening News in exchange for a book deal for the forger (this came out during CBS's own internal investigation of RaTHergate);
slashing the tires on 25 vans which would otherwise have been used by a local Republican party "get out the vote" effort to transport elderly and aged voters;
convenient book deals for many, many disgruntled former Bush cabinet and other high-level employees;
instructing local Democratic party operatives here in Colorado to accuse employees of registrars of voters at local polling places of intimidating elderly and Indian voters WHETHER OR NOT THIS ACTUALLY OCCURED - in other words, filing false reports of campaign misconduct;
acceptance of mega-bucks from the money man behind corrupt leaders of former Soviet republics George Soros;
gay-baiting remarks by both Kerry and Edwards about Vice-President Cheney's daughter;
sending historian and Kerry hagiographer Douglas Brinkley over to threaten one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Justice with public humiliation;
and so on, and so forth....
"They couldn't have fielded a stronger candidate,"
Joe Lieberman, John Breaux, Dick Gephardt....
"nor worked harder individually to get out the huge vote."
Conceded.
"Bush's war in Iraq went as badly as it possibly could, yet he was not held accountable."
That remark has been overtaken by events, owing to a wildly successful election in which there was a massive voter turnout.
Granted, entirely too many lives were lost, including that of my son, who died with five other Louisiana Army National Guardsmen and three infantrymen from the First Infantry Division when their Bradley Fighting Vehicle was destroyed by a huge land mine (the second such explosion my son's squad encountered; they walked away from the first one unharmed except for a totaled Bradley).
I would like to see John Kerry, Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the Democratic National Committee held accountable for high treason - for providing aid and comfort to the enemy, giving Al-Qaeda the idea that if they just intensified attacks on American, Iraqi and Coalition troops enough, they'd win. I would then like to see these people receive the maximum penalty for aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war - death. The national Democratic leadership went way past responsible opposition party behavior, very possibly encouraging the enemy to kill many, many American troops in hopes of swaying the 2004 US election or the 2005 Iraqi one, and I think that THEY should be held personally responsible and tried accordingly.
"Now I can only hope for your scenario to play out---Bush has to suffer the consequences of his own incompetence. But it will be a bleak four years. Irrationality feeds on failure. As things get worse, it just tries harder, gets shriller. I hate the prospect. "
Bull. You guys are "praying for rain," and never mind those of us who aren't as insulated as you from the consequences of the scenario you and Brian Eno hope will play out.
"The turmoil will be good for the arts perhaps. We may see a revival of the religious left."
We briefly had a revival of the religious left in the 1980s-1990s... which suffered when the leaders of the movement found themselves without followers as their intellectual and moral bankruptcy became evident. The story of the Episcopal Church of the United States in this period is almost a perfect case study (I am not being a bigot here - I AM an Episcopalian).
"Economic wars can end; ideological wars can end. Religious wars go on and on. Long term I can imagine a new Enlightenment coming out of all this, and I will work for that."
If an Enlightenment happens, it will have to be based on faith being seen through the lens of reason, just as the last one was. Nothing personal, but I don't see the Left redeeming itself intellectually or morally enough to be the basis of an Enlightenment in this century.
As a Libertarian who has had to hold his nose and vote for right-wing candidates, I am no more enamored of the extreme right in America than (I suspect) is Mr. Brand or the other posters in this thread. There is entirely too much self-satisfaction and too little humility among the right, which may in the short run make the rise of the extreme right a self-correcting problem as they Spongebob and Postcard from Buster themselves right out of public credibility.
The triumph of the political right despite the quality of much of its current leadership should be an indication of just how badly off the Left is for moral compass and leadership in this country.
Instead of flailing away at those ol' debbil Republicans, the Democratic Party and the Left in general would be much better served by self-examination and soul-searching.
Unless something of value exists for the Left to offer in exchange for or opposition to the ideas and people now leading the country, the Left is doomed to increasing degrees of failure absent a massive self-destruction of the sort the Republican Party inflicted on itself in the early 1990s - the last time the religious right seriously tried to take that party over and only succeeded in driving moderate Republicans such as myself back from Reagan's "One Big Tent" into our "home" parties.
But "praying for rain" is a sure way for the Left to insulate itself further and further away from even that sort of success by default.
Mark said:
"Although I agree that it's unlikely that the situation will reverse, I think it's an unseemly premature decision to call this bet closed. A bad precedent for Long Bets, too -- the money has probably already been sent to the Exploratorium (which I'm not complaining about), but I would not want to see this bet closed until the end of August, 2005 actually arrives. I think some of the credibility of Long Bets depends on verifying results in whatever way possible, whenever possible. "
I agree, even though for Mr. Brand to win by August 2005 requires us to posit the death, resignation, impeachment or incapacitation of the current elected President and Vice-President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate and the Cabinet - and any assassin intent on that happening missed his chance last term with the first State of the Union address (and it is my understanding that a random Cabinet official is purposely sent out of town for such events specifically to provide Continuity of Government), when there actually were Democrats in the Cabinet. Now, we'd have to have a Tom Clancy "Debt of Honor"-like 747 crash into the Capitol when almost all of the US Government was assembled there (or a nuclear weapon detonate there, ditto) and the Presidency devolve onto one of the Joint Chiefs who happened to be a Democrat (or something of the sort). Super unlikely.
But Mark's right in any case. Why have rules if you're not going to abide by them?
VPF
First time visiting the site in a long time. From the looks of things nobody else has been around for over a year either. I wonder if anybody remembered to note that at least one bet has been settled... sadly, as of this writing we have the same President as we have had for the last five years.
Yep, it's been settled. The money went to the Exploratorium. Brian was right. I was wrong.
The only good news for me: I like it when I'm really wrong, and in public. Forces me to think.
Is there a prediction that time travel will become common place and all of this will be undone?
Please sign in to comment.