I had already heard this several different times from several different Democrats in the media, but it got repeated to me today by those cute little rascals in the Brickyard with their profound "Radical Rush Week" kiosks and was hoping someone could give me a rational explanation...

The Argument:

Quote :

"George W. Bush didn't respond to the flooding in New Orleans faster because it's not his political base."

But Louisiana has already gone for Bush. Twice. And that's with all of those "not his political base" people already in New Orleans.

So how does it in any way benefit his political base to scatter those people to the four winds, where they'll now register to vote in large numbers elsewhere and make elections in their new home states more competitive?


[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 3:46 PM. Reason : ---]

9/13/2005 3:45:39 PM

"bush was hoping that they would all die" -liberal response

/thread

9/13/2005 3:47:01 PM

I suspected (before Katrina hit) that his response might be better, at least from a PR standpoint, in a critical swing state (i.e. Florida). I don't think this has anything to do with kickbacks to his base...but I'm not speaking for the people in the brickyard. I suppose they could be arguing that he is more inclined to help his political allies out at the state level (Jeb), but that is a different factor.

9/13/2005 3:52:33 PM

Why don't you ask all these rascally liberals yourself?

9/13/2005 3:57:29 PM

Hopefully you bitch-slapped those people and reminded them that Katrina impacted more than one city, specifically areas that largely do consist of his political base.

Of course, that'd lend credence to their underlying thesis:

Quote :

"George W. Bush didn't respond to the flooding in New Orleans faster because it's not his political base he is evil"

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 4:00 PM. Reason : >.<]

9/13/2005 3:58:00 PM

TGD, I don't think you should really pay that much attention(obviously, you already know this). It's a terrible argument.

obviously, HE DID IT TO HELP GOD PUNISH THE WICKED IN NEW ORLEANS AND HELP HALLIBURTON GET THE RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACT!!!11

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2005 3:58:50 PM

^
yeah, but it's not like this brickyard kids are the only ones spouting it. I doubt there's many on TWW who haven't heard this argument yet just through the MSM.

---

Quote :

"boonedocks: Why don't you ask all these rascally liberals yourself? "

I did. I was told I should be ashamed for letting myself be deceived, and if I had any soul left I should do the appropriate thing and go mourn the disintegration of my civil liberties.

If you'd like to offer an actual response that would be fantastic. Otherwise gtfo. kkthx.

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 4:04 PM. Reason : ---]

9/13/2005 4:02:24 PM

official response:

stop hanging out with these people

9/13/2005 4:05:31 PM

Ive often wondered if Halliburton was named after the fish Halibut or just some peoples names or something

9/13/2005 4:08:10 PM

So I was talking to some conservatives the other day, and they support baby-eating.

My question to the right is, how can you support this?

9/13/2005 4:10:02 PM

^ haha. GG

9/13/2005 4:12:58 PM

^
except that you don't see many Republicans getting on live TV talking about the joys of baby-eating...

9/13/2005 4:28:01 PM

And to be honest, in my TV viewing, I have yet to see teh l3ft blame Bush's slow response on race.

Kanye West doesn't count.

9/13/2005 4:32:20 PM

Yea honestly

It seems only black people blame bush for the slow response. Your own thread linking a poll shows this.

My question is, when did TGD start posting like Excoriator.

9/13/2005 4:48:48 PM

Quote :

"And to be honest, in my TV viewing, I have yet to see teh l3ft blame Bush's slow response on race."

Really? I've seen plenty of comments on it. Everything from local news to ESPN. Usually its not the person themselves making the statement but an interjection at the end of a stoy. Often its "Bush Administration" and not just Bush though, and they aren't flat out saying it but just being sure to mention that many do beleive race is a factor and are angry about it.

9/13/2005 4:57:19 PM

^^

Quote :

"SandSanta: It seems only black people blame bush for the slow response. Your own thread linking a poll shows this."

And the responses linking to different polls show otherwise, so are you basically arguing here that my polls are the only accurate ones?

9/13/2005 5:10:50 PM

Quote :

"And to be honest, in my TV viewing, I have yet to see teh l3ft blame Bush's slow response on race. Kanye West doesn't count."

P.S.

Quote :

" So how does it in any way benefit his political base to scatter those people to the four winds, where they'll now register to vote in large numbers elsewhere and make elections in their new home states more competitive?"

I know. There's now a real chance that Texas will go to Democrats on the next Presidential elections. I see, not only did your anti-monorail ops in N&O make you an expert on large scale evacuations. You also became a deep and insightful election scholar.

9/13/2005 5:25:19 PM

^
Aren't you supposedly a pseudo-mathematician of some sort?

9/13/2005 5:42:43 PM

Quote :

"And the responses linking to different polls show otherwise, so are you basically arguing here that my polls are the only accurate ones?"

You think republicans are the only ones with a ignorant base?

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 5:48 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2005 5:48:00 PM

I think the argument goes something like this: in the fall of 2004, both Bush brothers (GW and Jeb) were very much on the job in responding to the hurricanes in Florida. In particular, FEMA was all over the place and handed out cash to anyone who claimed a loss (even in Miami-Dade, where there was essentially no damage and wind speeds never got above 75 kilometers/hour). Why were they so worried? Obviously, the looming election and the legacy of Andrew in 1992, the incompetent handling of which led to the defeat of dear ol' dad.

Contrast that with the reaction to New Orleans in 2005. One obvious inference is that the administration doesn't give a rat's ass about a bunch of poor black people who (if they vote at all) are likely to vote for the democrat.

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 6:04 PM. Reason : eh]

9/13/2005 6:03:10 PM

Quote :

"One obvious inference is that the administration doesn't give a rat's ass about a bunch of poor black people who (if they vote at all) are likely to vote for the democrat."

and yet TGDs argument says that that notion is stupid. thank you, however, for rehashing what he was ranting about though. that's really kind of you.

9/13/2005 6:06:02 PM

Quote :

"And the responses linking to different polls show otherwise, so are you basically arguing here that my polls are the only accurate ones?"

Actually, I'm arguing that you're posting like Excoriator.

I'm stating that your own thread shows that it seems like only black people are blaming Goerge W. Bush for the slow response.

9/13/2005 6:38:52 PM

Quote :

"Aren't you supposedly a pseudo-mathematician of some sort?"

I am.

9/13/2005 6:54:55 PM

Quote :

"So how does it in any way benefit his political base to scatter those people to the four winds, where they'll now register to vote in large numbers elsewhere and make elections in their new home states more competitive?"

Well, I don't think there will be too many people in New Orleans for the next election, so that may help the Republicans. You also said the residents scatter. If they all happened to stay in one lump pile, then there would be one, maybe 2 districts having a more competitive election. With the exception of Houston and Baton Rouge, and maybe another place or 2, there aren't too many places with thousands of evacuees. So, in most cases, a few hundred people won't really matter in a district, which would leave little, if any impact on the elections. I think that everything else culminating (with Iraq still going on) will decide these elections more than these people that are now in different areas. By that, I mean that what happened to the city, the response(from top to bottom in gov'ts), and the cost of this catastrophe will matter most instead of where everyone has been moved to.

9/13/2005 10:33:36 PM

how many poor black people voted for bush?

9/13/2005 10:47:38 PM

^Well, like I said, there are going to be less poor blacks in New Orleans after this (as well as people in general), which could help the Republicans. Also, like I said, if many scatter to different places(and will probably still be the minority wherever they go), then their influence probably wouldn't be much in the election. I still think that if incumbents lose in their elections, then it will be due to this plus the culmination of many other events.

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : i guess guth is responding to me]

[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 10:59 PM. Reason : thinking too much]

9/13/2005 10:58:25 PM

i didnt read anything in this thread
i just wasnt sure if tgd was being serious

9/13/2005 11:10:59 PM

Quote :

"pyrowebmastr: You think republicans are the only ones with a ignorant base?"

haha that was actually a good counter. I have to dutifully give you a gg.

a shame you were probably the only one that thought of it though...

---

Quote :

"SandSanta: Actually, I'm arguing that you're posting like Excoriator."

Which is like what, exactly?

---

Quote :

"MathFreak: I am."

So surely you realize that "make elections in their new home states more competitive" would be an undeniably true statement, while in any event not logically leading to or even remotely resembling in any way at all your "There's now a real chance that Texas will go to Democrats"...

...right?

---

Quote :

"billyboy: I don't think there will be too many people in New Orleans for the next election, so that may help the Republicans."

You're 100% correct that, just as far as the electoral numbers game goes, Republicans in Louisiana benefit from every New Orleans Democrat that gets displaced.

But Republicans already control the state's Senate (24-15) and its congressional delegation (6-3), both the current Democrat Governor Blanco and Democrat Senator Landrieu barely won their elections and even then largely owed to the number of candidates, and GWB got the state's electoral votes decisively in both 2000 and 2004.

1) what would that electoral benefit get the Republicans beyond what they already control? and more importantly, 2) why would George Bush (or Karl Rove) care, when the GOP already has the federal offices sewn up and there's nothing like congressional redistricting on the table?

Quote :

"billyboy: So, in most cases, a few hundred people won't really matter in a district, which would leave little, if any impact on the elections."

I never claimed here that there's going to be some Democrat Revolution caused solely by moving some Democrat voters around. But on net balance, anywhere they go that is not already a Democrat seat produces more competition for Republicans.

As for the "a few hundred people don't matter" argument, given how close Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire have been recently I'd say even a few hundred people can have an impact

That's just in presidential races -- offices further down the ballot frequently have margins that could be reversed by a couple hundred votes for the other candidate.


[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 11:20 PM. Reason : ---]

9/13/2005 11:17:31 PM

Quote :

"So surely you realize that "make elections in their new home states more competitive" would be an undeniably true statement, while in any event not even remotely resembling in any way at all "There's now a real chance that Texas will go to Democrats"... ...right?"

Uhm, wrong.

Time t=0: Probability (Democtrat will win Texas in the next PResidential elections) = 0.

Time t = 1: A bunch of negroes moved to Texas

Time t = 2: Probability (Democtrat will win Texas in the next PResidential elections) = 0 (still).

Conclusion: The "competitiveness" of the elections is the same.

9/13/2005 11:20:55 PM

^

Quote :

"MathFreak: The "competitiveness" of the elections is the same."

It's cute that you'd argue from the standpoint of rounding. I give you your respect for at least knowing your profession well enough to choose a weak argument on a pigeon-holed data set as support for another weak argument. gg.

On a side note, for those races decided by fewer than the hundreds of new Democrats coming in -- would they be considered "more" or "less" competitive?

---

Quote :

"JonHGuth: i just wasnt sure if tgd was being serious"

No I was serious. I'd heard it repeated enough already that I was genuinely curious if someone had a rational explanation for it, considering it makes -0.00- sense electorally.

---

As for the thread itself, CNN evidently beat me to the punch on this already...

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/11/katrina.politics.ap/index.html


[Edited on September 13, 2005 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ---]

9/13/2005 11:21:40 PM

^ LOL! Just to remind you what the argument was about, while you were enjoying the sound of your own voice. You made a stupid counter-argument to an arguably even more stupid argument. Your counter-argument implied that somehow the possibility that the influx of negroes to Texas will change their politics is worth seriously entertaining. This is ridiculous, and everybody except people who devoted their life to not letting a monorail to Raleigh understands that.

This is not to say that your stupidity somehow gives the credibility to the original argument you pretended you had heard many times. It's just that to destroy it, one does not have to be so high on some shit as to lose any sense of reality.

9/14/2005 12:26:46 AM

Quote :

"As for the "a few hundred people don't matter" argument, given how close Florida, Ohio and New Hampshire have been recently I'd say even a few hundred people can have an impact "

I might not have said it the way I meant it. What I meant was that many people are going to places that in terms of congressional voting, were highly conservative. Yeah, there are the Ohios and Floridas out there, but there are also the places like Texas (and much of the midwest), who is largely conservative, as well as places like New York/New England, which is largely liberal. Most people being displaced are being put in places where a few votes won't matter.

9/14/2005 9:26:25 AM

There are a lot of congressmen from the areas you list that are Democrats.

9/14/2005 9:46:28 AM

Quote :

"MathFreak: ^ LOL! Just to remind you what the argument was about, while you were enjoying the sound of your own voice. You made a stupid counter-argument to an arguably even more stupid argument. Your counter-argument implied that somehow the possibility that the influx of negroes to Texas will change their politics is worth seriously entertaining."

I "made a stupid counter-argument"...while you're relegated to sitting there arguing what was "implied" since it's been amply illustrated that the stupidity of your own responses put mine to shame.

gg. ::bows::

---

Quote :

"MathFreak: This is ridiculous, and everybody except people who devoted their life to not letting a monorail to Raleigh understands that."

And those monorail haters over at CNN of course...

9/14/2005 10:30:20 AM

Quote :

"There are a lot of congressmen from the areas you list that are Democrats."

Well, what I mean is that in general, there votes may make elections somewhat closer, or in the case that it's already heavily democratic, a landslide, it won't make a difference in who wins or loses. Now, if there are many evacuees in an area that is a "battleground" then it would make a difference. I just don't think that there will be enough people (of those that will vote) in most of these areas to really make a big difference. As I've said a couple of times on here, if the incumbent loses, then it's more than likely from the culmination of events in the past 2, 4, or 6 years. This is another item to pile on.

9/14/2005 11:12:12 AM