« Gerrymandering and Technology | Main | Chait On The Democracy Paradox »
Undecides Break For the Challenger
Dan Drezner joins the flood. Note also Reason's poll of high-profile libertarianish folks all of whom hate both candidates. Several people who voted for Bush, for a third party, or didn't vote in 2000 are now voting for Kerry. Several people who voted for Bush in 2000 are now voting for a third party. I don't believe anyone who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 is now coming down on his side.
October 22, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83457056169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Undecides Break For the Challenger:
» Who Are They Voting For? from Modulator
Reason asks some folks: As Campaign 2004 entered its home stretch, we asked a variety of policy wonks, journalists, thinkers, and other public figures in the reason universe to reveal for whom they are voting this fall, for whom they pulled the lever l... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 22, 2004 7:32:39 PM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 11:56:05 AM
» Gift Basket
from Tom Jamme's Blog
Sweet Blessings, a new Christian-based online shop featuring cookie bouquets, candy bouquets and gift baskets, opens with a campaign to donate a portion of all profits to Habitat For Humanity. The devastation of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while not a... [Read More]
Tracked on Oct 7, 2005 11:58:05 AM
Comments
You jumped the shark, dude. And you jumped the shark at a very precise time: when you decided you 'hated Bush's fucking dog.' Ever since then, its been hackery, intellectual laziness, and nonsense.
Link is at instapundit.
"Most of these Democrats have a single thing in common: They take the Terror War seriously, and know that Bush does, too. They also seem to know that Kerry would rather take us back to the glory days when terrorism was a mere "nuisance."
What else do Sarah Baxter, George McKelvey, Randy Kelly, Zell Miller, Dick Morris, and Ed Koch have in common? They're all Democrats who have publicly endorsed -- and plan to vote for -- George W. Bush."
Posted by: Steve | Oct 22, 2004 2:12:30 PM
Aside from Ron Silver.
Posted by: Atrios | Oct 22, 2004 2:12:35 PM
"I don't believe anyone who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 is now coming down on his side."
Read the whole thing, tedious though it may be.
There are 3 voting for GWB this time who claim to have supported third party candidates in 2000: Dave Kopel, Charles Murray, and of course, our own Glenn Reynolds.
Posted by: rea | Oct 22, 2004 2:19:23 PM
Jeez! Did you READ the REASON poll?
"I don't believe anyone who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 is now coming down on his side."
I voted for Gore 2000. I'm voting for Bush 2004.
I'm not alone.
Read "Democrats for Bush"
http://techcentralstation.com/102104D.html
Off the top of my head, I'll also add Ron Silver and St. Paul Mayor Randy Kelly.
http://kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=67485
oh...and my sister. And InstaPundit. He voted Browne 2000 but will vote Bush. Of course, had you read the Reason Poll completely, you'd know this.
Also in the Reason post:
Dave Kopel, voted Nader 2000, Bush 2004
Charles Murray, voted Browne 2000, Bush 2004
Louis Rossetto, abstained 2000, Bush 2004
I could go on, but that's the result of my quick search of the Reason poll.
As will Armed Liberal at WindsofChange
http://windsofchange.net/archives/005761.php
And if I'm reading her right, Robin Burk WindsofChange contributer, is a registered Democrat who seems to be backing Bush.
CBK
Posted by: cbk | Oct 22, 2004 2:20:09 PM
Huh? Dick Morris? You read that article off of tech-shrill-station and believed it, right?
Dick Morris turned on the GOP when he went to work for Clinton. He's not liberal convert.
Posted by: Joe B | Oct 22, 2004 2:23:34 PM
Matt-
There are actually a couple who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and now coming down on his side.
Charles Murray, Dave Kopel, Glen Reynolds & Louis Rossetto by my count. I put the results of the survey into excel last night. I'll email you the file as some of the votes are border line (also, I'm hoping I didn't make any mistakes condsidering I was pretty tired). I've got a table on my site if you want to take a look at that in the meantime...
Posted by: Peter | Oct 22, 2004 2:27:28 PM
Doesn't Kopel write for National Review ?
Is it supposed to be significant that he supports Bush ?
Posted by: David | Oct 22, 2004 2:38:14 PM
David | October 22, 2004 02:38 PM
Yes.
No.
Next question?
Kopel is an idiot.
Posted by: raj | Oct 22, 2004 2:48:54 PM
>Charles Murray, voted Browne 2000, Bush 2004
Murray? Isn't he the one who is married to Abigail Thernstrom? I haven't heard him, but gawd, has she turned shrill over the last few years with her race-baiting. That's in her public appearances on radio, of course.
BTW, regarding Glen Reynolds, why should anyone give a tinker's damn who an otherwise obscure law professor from Tennessee would vote for?
Posted by: raj | Oct 22, 2004 2:54:24 PM
Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs voted for Gore in 2000 and is voting for Bush in 2004. Now you know.
Posted by: Modern Crusader | Oct 22, 2004 3:00:19 PM
Glen Reynolds is one of the lamest right wing hacks on the internet. His site used to be enjoyable, now it's just stupid and predictable. Glen has demonstrated time and again that he will say ANYTHING to justify voting for Bush, and ignore any evidence against Bush. Why would anyone believe a word he says about anything? The man is just plain dishonest.
Why would anyone believe one word they read at tech central station, which is really a front for the DCI Group, a firm specializing in P.R. and lobying on behalf of big corporations and GOP politicians?
Posted by: BSR | Oct 22, 2004 3:12:40 PM
Charles Murray is also a coauthor of "The Bell Curve", that book that tried to use statistics to show that some races are inherently more intelligent than others.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Oct 22, 2004 3:13:52 PM
Stephan Thenstrom is the husband of Abigail Thenstrom.
By the way, arguments to the effect of "Kopel/Reynolds/Murray/Silver is a loser" can't change the fact the Mr. Yglesias's statement is factually inaccurate. The question of whether these men are worth listening to is an important one, but is a separate question from whether they exist at all.
Posted by: James Kabala | Oct 22, 2004 3:18:37 PM
" I don't believe anyone who didn't vote for Bush in 2000 is now coming down on his side."
And this is supposed to be a reality-based community? Interesting.
Posted by: Chris Ashbrook | Oct 22, 2004 3:22:00 PM
Yeah, there are some people switching the wrong way, which demonstrates the extent to which Bush has damaged the country. Evidently he has even damaged people's brains directly, causing them to lose their ability to reason and make ethical distinctions.
Posted by: Mark Golden | Oct 22, 2004 3:26:11 PM
I notice that everyone here is fawning over whether blog celebrities, retired or small politicians, or libertarian personalities are changing their votes.
Wouldn't it be more interesting to determine from poll data whether Bush is picking up any former Gore supporters vs. Kerry gaining support from former Bush voters?
Posted by: Constantine | Oct 22, 2004 3:33:06 PM
How about we do this on a matter of scale? Drezner was an unpaid foreign policy adviser to Bush-Cheney 2000. That speaks volumes except to those who are in denial.
Posted by: Randy Paul | Oct 22, 2004 3:34:54 PM
And this is supposed to be a reality-based community? Interesting.
It is, because the statement is being refuted with reality, not uncomfortably accepted in the hopes that Matt will eventually change his mind.
Posted by: Kimmitt | Oct 22, 2004 3:40:54 PM
Quantifier domains, people! All MY's statements about "several people" apply only to people in the Reason poll. That said, given Murray--and I think it's fantastic that he's voting the other way--and Kopel, MY's claim is wrong; what's true is that nobody in the poll who supported Gore is for Bush. (That's three Gore voters, all going for Kerry.)
The thing is, this is a poll of libertarians, so it probably doesn't reflect any macro trends whatsoever.
(Yeah, I didn't include Glenn Reynolds in my count of third-party supporters who are voting for Bush. That's because his claim that he's "most likely" voting for Bush is so outlandish that I'm not sure I believe his claim that he voted for Browne.)
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Oct 22, 2004 4:22:40 PM
Thank God for libertarianism.
Without it, socially-challenged and -alienated adults would have to dress like Goths in order to call attention to themselves.
How terribly cool it must be to vote for a candidate who believes a driver's license is an unwarranted infringement on something or another.
Posted by: Jadegold | Oct 22, 2004 4:24:59 PM
Here's the correct link for Armed Liberal's endorsement of Bush. Regrettably, he seems to have left the reality-based community; he cites being "determined" as what leads to success, and quotes Glenn Reynolds on "what if WWII were covered the way the media covers this war?"--saying that the war is going credibly well. I think Drezner is closer to the truth (his phrase was "Mongolian clusterfuck").
Posted by: Matt Weiner | Oct 22, 2004 4:29:23 PM
Jadegold,
"Thank God for libertarianism."
Yup! Anyone who can argue that monoplies help consumers cannot be denied the rebel vote.
Have no money and can't get girls? The Republicans and Democrats are out.
Vote libertarian! Imagine how good the world would be!
Posted by: Tripp | Oct 22, 2004 4:36:18 PM
Reading thru the list just confirmed my existing prejudice: Libertarians are a bunch of selfish, self-satisfied pricks that believe their toe-jam picking is more important than the whole world. I personally have more respect for those who are completely apolitical because at least they do not consider themselves virtuous for merely reclining on their backsides.
Posted by: Terrier | Oct 22, 2004 4:36:38 PM
Tripp: To be fair, libertarianism as a political philosophy doesn't exist. It's an artificial construct; ask 100 self-described "libertarians" what libertarianism means and you'll get 100 wildly varying explanations. There's usually some common thread involving taxes and firearms--but very little else.
Frankly, libertarianism is a cult not unlike Scientology or the Moonies--except Scientology and the Moonies are actually increasing their numbers. The LP isn't.
The folks at Cato and Reason strike me as similar to a group of teenage boys boasting about how they know 10,000 sexual positions---but, in reality, they don't know any girls.
Posted by: Jadegold | Oct 22, 2004 4:48:44 PM
Glenn Reynolds is still technically undecided? What could change his mind--Bush claiming to have spent Christmas in Cambodia?
Talk about not living in the reality-based community . . .
Posted by: Geek, Esq. | Oct 22, 2004 4:51:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
