I've never given much credence to attempts to find "the meaning" of election results. I think it has two main functions: 1) give the pundits something to do, and 2) give the national committees something to spin about.
Low voter turnout is a disgusting thing in and of itself. However, to find out whether an election might have turned out differently - if more people voted - is an experiment that we will never be able to perform.
On the other hand, if you imply that since you won an election, then the voters trust your party to do whatever you want, then you are pushing this election thing way too far.
The last time I tuned in to polls about citizen's feelings about war with Iraq, they had very qualified feelings about it. They were dead set against the US going in without building a coalition. I'd be willing to bet that they would be dead set against invading, if we have a UN inspection regime in operation and receiving cooperation.
One last thing: elections are just elections, and polls are just polls. Even a majority of Americans wanting to do something, doesn't make it right. If (hypothetical, since I don't think it's likely) Americans decide they want to start invading unfriendly countries, one after the other, it would still be a very unwise thing to do.
But then, with this leadership, and al Qaida's prompting, who knows what our population may decide is right?
Current Events » in reply to Mandates
My view on this
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Bush: Iraq Inspections 'Not Encouraging'
- The view from Planet Dubya
- Through the looking glass
- Re: The view from Planet Dubya
- Re: The view
- Dating Saddam.
- The view from Planet Dubya