What's the biggest reason for Bushco Buyers' Remorse?

[marions ghost]

At this point what do you think is the No 1 reason that Bush supporters seem to be waking up?

[rzemanfl]

1. We bought a Kerry and got this piece of shit instead. n/t

[marions ghost]

3. ??

Talking about supporters of Bush, not Kerry

[rzemanfl]

4. I don't buy that the majority "bought" Bush at all. n/t

[marions ghost]

5. OK I see

I guess we're talking ONLY about the voters who believe they DID vote for Bushco in 2004 (no matter how it got counted)....

Right I agree we can't assume that he won. The question is, how do those of us (who have friends, co-workers or family who voted Republican) think he is being judged now by his supporters?

[rzemanfl]

6. Also, remember that the "likely voter" factor is out of the picture

so these polls include those who didn't bother to vote.

I know a guy who is a total Bushbot, but he is pro-choice and is incensed about the Schiavo thing.

[marions ghost]

8. so it's better to say Bushco supporters,

whether they voted or not, is what you're getting at...I buy that, sure. OK changed to read "supporters"--thanx.

[Greyhound]

10. That there were enough votes for * to make it...

close enough to steal, is indictment enough 4 me. I voted other because I think it is slowly dawning on them that they're fuckd.
:o

[marions ghost]

12. Fucked in what way?

1. In a political sense, ie. they may have chosen the losing side, but still adhere to their basic philosophy?

2. Or do you think they realize how they've been had? That they were sucked in by clever fear-mongering and creation of a herd mentality? And so are questioning "how did I get here?"

3. Or are they genuinely in real fear of losing the rights and opportunities they once took for granted in a democracy? They make the connection between what IS happening and what COULD happen as a result?

----------
In other words, how deep does the realization go?

[zann725]

19. I agree. Approx. 5-7 Mil. whose vote "counted" for Bush, really did NOT

vote for him. That's old news among the 'informed.'

Though I DO agree there IS 'buyer's remorse' of those few who DID vote for Shrub...for just about everything he's arrogantly said and done since he was "falsely" elected.

[still_one]

2. cause they are fricking morans

anyone with half a brain knew what * was in 2000, and it was solidified in 2004

[Skip Intro]

7. Its not suddenly. His approval has sank continuously since 9*11.

the polls have been right all along, Kerry really won the election, and the right and their bought media, and a FIXED election, have made it seem otherwise

[newswolf56]

9. The explanation for my 'other' vote is that many Bush...

...voters were working-class people, especially rural folk, who (though nominally Democratic) nevertheless felt betrayed by the Democratic Party -- typically over national defense, gun control and the glaring DemoPublican similarities on economic matters such as NAFTA and the bipartisan war against welfare recipients. These alienated Democrats voted for Bush as the lesser of two evils, but now realize that the BushCo war on working families -- a maliciously expanded version of the DemoPublican war on welfare recipients and the poor -- is of a magnitude and malevolence unseen in this country since the pre-FDR years. Also, Bush's continued "blundering" in Iraq and Afghanistan is so blatant it has a rapidly growing number not only doubting his statements but even questioning his motives for the entire so-called "War on Terror." This combination of socioeconomic outrage, skepticism and fear of hidden (theocratic/monopolistic) agendas is bringing many people back into the Democratic fold. But unless the party responds appropriately, it will lose these folks again -- possibly this time to a third party.

[marions ghost]

11. you appear to be saying

that socionomic outrage is driving the opposition to the war among these voters--whereas these same folks previously supported the Republicans on "national defense" (until it became clear that the wars are a losing proposition).

Why do you think these particular voters thought the Repugs were going to be any better at "national defense?"

I agree that it's important for the Dem party or other progressive party to try to reach these voters instead of conceding them to the opposition. Especially since they may be now reaping the whirlwind by having supported Bushco. When it hits home economically, people begin to see the whole picture.

[newswolf56]

13. That is surely a big part of what I am saying. As to

...national defense, I think Kerry's own statements (his pledge for unilateral disarmament of nuclear bunker-busters, his assertions he would reduce the war to a law-enforcement operation) eroded much of his defense-focused support, just as his failure to articulate strong economic proposals fed the sense of hopelessness among working families.

Bush was all BS, but it was assertive BS, not a seeming muddle, and (as in any sales campaign) this appealed to a great many "customers" -- including some very well intentioned, very good people who reasoned that while Kerry would do nothing either to protect America from the jihadist threat or from the global economy, Bush would at least defend the nation against the jihadists' proposed global caliphate.

Frankly I think 2004 offered us the worst presidential choice in American history -- between an inept warmonger who is also America's most vindictively effective class-warrior (which in truth is probably his sole purpose), versus someone who was perceived as being weak on defense, whether against jihadist aggression or the depredations of outsourcing and downsizing.

Add to that the growing doubts about the legitimacy of the election itself, mix in the element of class war on a hitherto unprecedented scale, and we may well have reached the most ruinous turning point in American history.

[marions ghost]

15. Ok you make it clear...

but I'm still trying to understand this mindset. How could anyone rationally believe that John Kerry would not defend America against any real threat, Jihadist or otherwise? "Concluded that Kerry would do nothing...?!?" :crazy: I guess some people just have a hard time figuring out what a real threat is, with all the media hype that goes on.

Maybe making a decision between the two on this issue was so hard that B* supporters just went with a knee-jerk response to the media approval, reinforced by the prez' tough-guy swagger. I really don't see that it was based on anything objective or rational.

[sendero]

21. I pretty much agree with you....

... folks want someone who is self-assured enough to take an unapologetic stance. Dems are learning this late.

Bush**'s support doesn't derive from his correctness, is rests on his certainty. It's stupid I know, but human beings are not logical creatures.

[welshTerrier2]

14. here's the biggest reason ...

if you ask the question, do you support bush, the answer today is overwhelmingly "no" ... but that's NOT the question that is asked in an election ... the question asked is: which candidate do you prefer more than the other candidates ...

the reality is that bush is failing based on his own policies ... the economy is a failure; Iraq is a failure; social security is a failure; bullying Democrats is a failure; bolton is a failure ... and frankly, bush is now a lame duck which weakens him even further ...

the important point here is that while bush is sinking like a stone in the polls, democrats are NOT rising in the polls ... and why is that? well, what solutions have Democrats offered on the economy? what leadership have they shown on Iraq? how will Democrats deal with the long-term problems on social security?

i commend Democrats for finally awakening and standing up to some of bush's most egregious ideas ... but at some point we have to offer solutions to the very real problems of America ... Americans should expect nothing short of an honest assessment of America's problems and nothing short of real ideas on how to solve them ... if the current "political strategy" of not offering alternatives to the neo-cons has been chosen to allow bush to be hoisted on his own petard, i can only say that, as a nation, we are losing valuable time ... even if the politics are successful, we cannot afford to remain silent while more American blood, and Iraqi blood, is spilled ...

and if the Party thinks it can wait until the next crop of candidates defines "what Democrats stand for", we are going to get slaughtered in the mid-terms ... we need to develop broad themes as a Party and educate, educate, educate the American people over many, many years ...

[marions ghost]

16. yes the challenge is on to the Dems

and agreed, they should not automatically assume they will reap the benefits of a B* slide.

We've been going full steam ahead--in the WRONG direction--under Bushco. But it takes awhile to turn the Queen Mary around. Let's hope it's possible. Meanwhile we need to keep holding the Dems'feet to the fire. And I agree it needs to be a NEW DAY in terms of integrity, truth, and accountability in government.

[newswolf56]

18. #14's point is vital. It also completes what I was thinking...

...particularly about how very vital it is that the Democratic Party stop its fumbling and take the lead in pointing us toward what you aptly describe as a NEW DAY -- if indeed it can. (If not, I'd anticipate the rise of a very powerful new working-family party, with its platform based on a kind of socialism specifically revised to cope with the ever-worsening American economic realities.)

[marions ghost]

23. yes OK...

understanding how these disenchanted voters are thinking in this volatile climate is key. There are opportunities--now that the ugliness of the Bushco agenda is more exposed. It remains to be seen whether the Dems can move effectively on that.

If you envision the rise of a new working family party, how do you sell socialist policies without calling it socialism, which is a bad word still? (The word "populism" might be a good substitute?) I agree, it would be good to see some sort of organization of working people who are now bearing the brunt of our government follies. Do you think it's possible to bring working families together as a political force to be reckoned with?

Seems to me you have to start cleaning up the widespread corruption in government as well, or no such parties can have power. They will be trampled by corporate interests.

[sendero]

22. Damn this is a good thread...

... good points all.

[AirAmFan]

17. All the 'Homeland Security Alert' paranoia stopped the very day

after the election. It had served its purpose.

[marions ghost]

20. so are you saying

you think this is a factor as to why people are starting to understand how they were brainwashed by fear-mongering?

[CitrusLib]

24. Are they waking up? I hadn't noticed. Polls aside, the ones around me

haven't budged in their support. Or at least they are too embarrassed to admit they have doubts.

[marions ghost]

25. good question

it's hard to quantify this, other than approval polls and anecdotal accounts of growing disgust with Bushco.

Guessing:

Maybe economic factors are not hitting your neighborhood so hard (since there's wide variance in economic impact of government policies)?

Maybe the continuing failure of the "war" will be more likely to convince supporters that they did not back a winning horse. But do you still think that "team loyalty" will prevail? That they will just go right over the cliff for Bushco? (Some people can never swallow their pride and would sooner die than quit).

I don't think that all B* supporters think alike. I'm interested in the ways they differ, what factors are at work. It's hard to believe that anyone would think B* is doing a good job and have NOTHING critical to say (even while basically still supporting him).

Maybe their silence is telling? You know when people have been disappointed sometimes they just go quiet, protecting their emotions while the truth sinks in....