October 14, 2004

US Election 2004: Bush vs Kerry

"The result of the US election will affect the lives of millions around the world but those of us outside the 50 states have had no say in it - until now. In a unique experiment, G2 has assembled a democratic toolkit to enable people from Basildon to Botswana to campaign in the presidential race. And with a little help from the folks in Clark County, Ohio, you might help decide who takes up residence in the White House next month. Oliver Burkeman explains how"
Guardian Unlimited | US elections 2004 | My fellow non-Americans ...
UPDATE: Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Dear Limey assholes

"What if the whole world could vote in the U.S. presidential election?"

"Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the mainstream candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks."
The Political Compass: The US Presidential Election 2004

"Northwestern University political scientists Jeffrey A. Jenkins has an interesting essay in today's Chicago Tribune on where George W. Bush and John Kerry stand in the political spectrum, using standard methods in the study of American political science: [...]"
danieldrezner.com :: Daniel W. Drezner :: How conservative is Bush? How liberal is Kerry?

"It's not a matter of specific policies. It's just that Bush is the biggest obstacle to world peace"
Independent: Don't be fooled: Kerry would make a difference

"Those who entertain the notion that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry will be a better president than incumbent George Bush are most likely under a great delusion."
[MLL] Will John Kerry be better than Bush?

"A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs
U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion."
The Political Compass Posted by Martin Sewell at October 14, 2004 11:21 PM | TrackBack