the updside of a win by the cadidate you oppose
 

Having followed the posts opining on the better candidate for president, my sense of it is that there are polar extremes on the issue both among the members of this community and generally...the closest thing to a "middle ground" has been a reference that one won't be as BAD as the other.

In the spirit of closing the political chasm, if not bridging it, let me propose that we state our preference, and then go on to say something good about a win by the other guy.

I'll start...I'm voting for Bush, but If Kerry wins, we can expect advancements in stem cell research, an o.k. leader in the war on terror (Kerry is only a dove when compared to Bush), and most importantly, no likelyhood that Hillary will be the '08 presidential candidate.

Your turn everybody.

I'm voting for Bush, but I would be happy with Kerry's policy when it comes to tort reform, for a lot of reasons which I wont go into.

On top of that, I would rather have either candidate win big than have another 2000 type election. I'm afraid another really close election may do unimaginable damage to our political system.

Badnarik
Bush:Privitizing Social Security, He believes in what he is doing in the war on terror which is important for morale

Kerry:No so much good for the country but good for his personal growth. So he can see that allies don't come flocking into our arms at the whim of our election and he will stop believing the idealistic shit that comes out of his mouth. So taxpayer money is used to pay to guys to move the desk in the oval office on rotating shifts cause Kerry can't make up his mind. I think this will be good for Kerry, he will come out of the white house with a better grip on reality. I'll be happy for him.

Cobb and Nader:Pave the way for more focus on 3rd parties in the next election

Kerry: because if he takes office, the resale value of the guns and munitions I own will skyrocket. Bush hurt me financially by letting the AW ban expire: if Kerry's elected, I'll be much richer by the end of his term. Of course, the downside is that my civil rights will have been further eroded.

/had to stretch to find ANYTHING positive to post

I'm voting for Badnarik.

Bush: I agree with his viewss on birth control, he could help there. He could also end up giving us lower gas prices in a year or two (Iraq is the second largest oil source on the planet). Social Security!

Kerry: He is not pro-empire. He would at least try to repair our friendsships with france, germanny, russia, etc. He also reminds me of my grandfather.

Cobb: The man can start to fix the environment. This should be higher on the national priority.

there is nothing positive that i can imagine resulting from a second bush term.
and that is the most postive thing i can think of to say on the matter.

Bush: Easier to make fun of, which is better for my stand-up
and I meet cute girls at some of these rallies...

The upside of a win by the collective forces of the American left is that portion of the population who are dangerously dissatisfied with their lives, with those who think differently than they do, and with the world as it exists today may be temporarily assuaged.

Or denied, depending on your perspective.

Given your belief system, I assume that you would consider the same statement equally valid for the right.

Come on, roachboy, can't you at least concede jonjon42's point? (personally, I think Bush v. Kerry is a draw on the humor issue, when you throw in their wives' comments)

cthulu23, not at this time. I see the dissatisfaction of the left with the current state of the Union as being the most potentially dangerous sociopolitical issue we face as a cohesive population. It's important enough it be assuaged that I consider it somehat crucial to the viable integrity of our social fabric.

They are, after all, the party out of power.

If Bush wins the Canadian dollar can continue to get better on the American dollar. Canada's surplus combined with the States massive deficite is making it better and better for me to travel to the States. YAY Bush and his idiotic spending of money!!!!

Wow, ARTelevision 's comment has me thinking...
I saw a WSJ opinion page column about how Bush's defeat mught be good for the right in the long run, because he is a weaker candidate that uses a lot of political capital and credibility by those who stretch to support him. It referenced how John Major, a British conservative that was far weaker than Thatcher, won, but only temporarily, and set back the British conservatives for a decade.
It's something I've been wondering about.
If Kerry is elected, like it or not, there would be some benefit in many foriegners' opinions of America, and the chances of hillary getting elected president would be less.
Bush people criticize kerry for changing his position with the way the political winds are blowing, and while I don't think that is a good quality as a leader, if I had to have four years with Kerry, or a firm believer in liberal policies, who would really stand up for them, (Dean) I'd take Kerry.

Interesting. My initial interpretation of your statement was a bit off. It can be very difficult to accurately interpret a nuanced statement on a message board, probably due to the truncated nature of the medium.

To get back to the topic, I am, like Roachboy, having a hard time finding a silver lining in a 2nd Bush administration. Instead of answering with sarcasm (the internet lingua franca) I think that I'll just avoid the question. My apologies.

Edit: okay, this may be a little weak, but it's an attempt. Bush's team is apparently smart enough to realize that Ashcroft has been a liablility so it's likely that their next AG will be fairly moderate.

hmm..after digging around for a bit...

anohter bush term would mean the world would end soon and i wouldnt' have to stress about it anymore....


seriously, though...another bush term would mean i go to grad school again for an MBA and take advantage of the new tax laws put in place.

that's about all i can think of, really...please disregard, i guess

This is about the only thing I can see as positive if bush gets reappointed. As the US dollar tanks, I'll be able to buy more shit while visiting.
I guess four more years of bush jokes would qualify as something good too.

Kerry.

If Bush wins my boss will be happy, and thus more likely to give me a raise. If he loses, I can expect a negative response at my yearly evaluation (which will come directly after November 2, so unless we have another vote debacle, I'll feel the effects of my boss' mood).

Hmm.

If Kerry wins, I agree with the advancement on stem cell research (stated above).

I also would agree with his stance on Gay civil rights and abortion rights.

It would also be nice to have some of our allies like us again. (Seriously, I couldn't give a fig about France anymore.)

If Bush wins:

The market, the economy, the war, etc... will fluctuate depending on circumstances that have nothing to do with the president, because it makes little difference who the president is.

If Kerry wins:

(see above)

BTW everyone stem cell research is going on, just not with stem cells from aborted fetuses.

That being said if Kerry wins it WILL be good for the US economicly.

Not because of what Kerry would do but because he won't be able to do anything. With a Republican house and perhaps senate, president Kerry will be total ineffectual, and no new big spending will be passed.

It worked for Clinton, who's utter incompetence as a president lost the dems the house of reps for the first time in 40 years. After that Clinton couldn't try to do anything and for a brief while the pace of governmetn expansion slowed a bit.

Mind you its only slowing down the problem, as some programs automaticly get bigger, but at least only the automatic growth will be allowed.

Bush has disapointed me in the spending. Not that I think his programs are bad, but his lack of will to cut and fight the ones that are.

I was aware of that.

I just think they should use all the resources available, which includes aborted fetuses.

If Bush is elected:

Good jokes for four years, but that could be one of those.... "exagurations".

If he invades another random country or one of the "axis of evil" sees our weakness and invades some country we're in (like Iran invading Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia), the draft will be reinstated. Then, since I'm far from being physically fit enough to be infantry and am also unwilling to fight and am also college educated in mechanical engineering, I'll get a civilian job for 2 years in the government, which is my goal anyway (a government civilian job). This might help me move up in the infrastructure more quickly than having to apply normally. But who's gonna pay those student loans once they jack me out of school prematurely?

I doubt that most of the Kerry voters know that. Of course that won't show up on a report about Kerry voters not knowing the issues like the liberals do to Bush voters.

If Kerry wins, his term will be Jimmy Carter-esque. Carter served in the Navy and was soft on military issues. He tried to reason with the Contras, a tactic that failed. The Carter administration lead to a misery index (something Kerry tried to recreate earlier this year, but no one picked it up). Carter's presidency lead to 12 years of Republican administrations.

Kerry is more like Carter than Clinton. Clinton could finesse himself out of situations, Carter couldn't. Clinton was smooth, Kerry is not.

art:

are you serious about this "diagnosis" concerning the "left" in america (whatever that is--whatever it is, it has little to do with kerry)---that people would operate in opposition because they are "dissatisfied with their lives"?
what does that mean?
that there is no possibility of operating from a left viewpoint on principle?
that there is no possibility of arriving at a left position on analytic grounds?
how do you know that?
its a kinda patronizing position to adopt, dont you think?

do you really think that at stake in this election, the issue that seperates bush from kerry, the two electorates one from the other, is a simple matter of opinion?
if that is true, are you saying that there is nothing meaningful beyond opinon at stake in this election?
does it follow that there is only opinion at stake in any american election?
if that is true, where does it leave the idea that the american system is democratic?

you seem to say here that it is maybe an oligarchy (my term) that legitimates itself by generating a flurry of superficial, meaningless activity once every four years....
within this flurry of meaningless activity, debate is impossible because there is no possible grounds for even thinking about the validity of competing claims--so everything to do with debate or argument is undecidable and interminable---the result of this pseudo-debate can be nothing more or less than impatience experienced by one side with a pattern of speaking particular to the other--and that is it.

so all possible political positions then are equally valid because equally based on opinion, which is more or less arbitrary.
and that arbitrariness is ok because nothing serious is at stake in the whole process.
but what is serious?
where does real power originate? how is it exercized? what checks it?

how can you have faith in the existing order if you deny that the central elements of that order--the relationship of the state to the people--means nothing?


curiously, if you are saying this, then our positions might converge in a sense--though from very different places, with different analytic emphases and different kinds of conclusions drawn from it as to implications for present and future.

The upside of a Bush win would be the increased possibility that our society would falter enough as to reach the point of collapse, and therefore rebirth.

It is this specific reason that I have given serious consideration to voting for Bush.

upside of a kerry win:

maybe, just maybe Bush will won't get blamed when your bike is stolen from the front of a sketchy 7-11.

Awating a response myself.