Why should we vote for them?

The Guardian has a piece today on US expat voting and how it could influence the election. It mentions the frenetic activity going on in both expat camps to get the vote out, with the question of general political leanings of the community examined (though only in passing) - the UK Republicans Abroad claim a fourfold increase in voter registration vs a twofold one for the Dems, but I find that hard to swallow. The writer, who is American, writes:

Why should we vote for them? The Republicans stress their work to secure advantageous tax breaks for Americans living overseas while the Democrats highlight security, suggesting Bush's foreign policy has made the world a more dangerous place for US citizens.

American civilians living overseas feel more exposed now than they did at the time of the last election, but that feeling could cut two ways: either they will feel the president's moves represent the best chance for combating the terrorist threat or they will feel he has squandered the goodwill generated by September 11 with unswerving unilateralism on a number of causes.

But for military personnel, the change since 2000 is stark: with a war in Afghanistan and US casualties in Iraq passing the 1,000 mark, soldiers are understandably less interested in hearing partisan speeches than a workable plan to win the peace and get them home. John Kael Weston founded Donkeys in the Desert - aka the Iraq chapter of Democrats Abroad - and from his current position, in the Sunni triangle, he said most service personnel were frustrated by the focus on Vietnam coming from both campaigns.

"All this talk of Vietnam service (or non-service) is a bit surreal when you hear it from the vantage point of an all too violent Iraq," he said. He was unimpressed with both parties on their record of coming to Iraq and seeing for themselves what is going on, and has invited both John Kerry and John Edwards for tours. Neither has responded.

Well it's hardly surprising, either of them going out there now would divert critical time away from baby-kissing in Ohio and would be seen (rightly) as an election year stunt.

But it's irrefutable that this is still an open race - and we can't even say for sure where we stand. Let me just give you two polls that are currently contradicting each other:

• Pew: Kerry Support Rebounds, Race Again Even
  
• Gallup: Bush Leads Kerry 55% to 42% in Nationwide Gallup Poll
  

The Electoral Vote Predictor seems to support the latter's case (currently Bush: 307 to Kerry: 211 E.V.s), but even they have fessed up to just discovering a potential problem with their prediction data:

Jimmy Breslin of Newsday had a column yesterday that, if true, makes this website irrelevant. Breslin claims that pollsters do not call the 168 million cell phones in the country. Since many younger voters do not have a land line and just a cell phone, they will be hugely underrepresented in all the telephone polls. Since younger voters lean more towards the Democrats than the average voter, the polls may be greatly underestimating Kerry's strength. Between missing all the people who have only a cell phone and no land line and the 5 million overseas voters, the polls maybe missing a very large section of the electorate.

We're around 50 days from the Big One now, and there are plenty of reasons to be nervous (such as the recent Kerry campaign team reshuffle) but I am, as ever, cautiously optimistic. Just wish Kerry would go on the offensive on Iraq a bit more.

Here's a question for all you expats: How would one go about conducting a reliable and statistically sound poll of US expats abroad? Answers on a postcard please...

Comments

I was real thrilled to register to vote again. But
at this point, I don't care if my ballot comes in the mail and I imagine lots of people are feeling the same. I would not be surprised if the turnout
is very low. I want to vote for something and not simply against someone.

I don't understand Kerry -- he seems to have stolen the Dukakis playbook -- that phoney 'reporting for duty' said with a smirk will go down with Dukakis' mounting the tank in
stupid ways of trying to show they are tough. I hope someone puts some hot peppers in his hamburgers cause he is going to lose otherwise. But the fundamental problem is that his Iraq policy and national security policy seems identical to Bush's. Although looking at their campaign websites, Bush doesn't mention Iraq except in passing and Kerry says he would keep on doing what Bush is doing and try to get some other countries to pay for it. Why anyone would want to do that eludes me. In essence, Kerry's Iraq plan is -- we are in a hole. Let's keep digging and see if we can get someone to help us dig.

Here's what Kerry should be saying:
-- Bush either lied or presides over incompetent intelligence agencies. We can't afford that -- I'll get to the bottom of it. The President must get accurate intelligence and level with the American people.
-- I'm glad Saddam is gone but the danger to the USA is greater because of the way he was overthrown. He wasn't a threat and we had him contained. We have lost friends and allies around the world while Osama and his crowd have more supporters.
-- Most people in Iraq hate American troops and want us out. There are enough Iraqi's so filled with hate for our forces that they are prepared to
fight us forever.
-- However laudable our goals in Iraq might have been, to continue the current policy will lead us into a quagmire that is already risking our efforts to capture Osama, is endangering our national security and will require the death and maiming thousands more Americans. Kerry should say, "As I told the Senate years ago, 'how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake. I'm not going to do that."

The United States cannot impose its' will on the Iraqi people without a protracted war reminiscent of Vietnam. Even then the outcome would not be certain.
-- At this point, the USA cannot solve Iraq's crisis. The United States cannot rebuild Iraq and we cannot dictate the direction that a new Iraqi
takes. We will demand that that the new Iraq poses no threat to its' neighbours and the world but that is all. We must step back and allow the international community to take the lead role. This means the United Nations, Arab and European and Asian countries. Within 3 months of coming to office, I will hold an international conference on Iraq and a timetable for withdrawal of US troops.
------------------

[Chris]

In response to the above posting, much of which I actually agree with, here is a brief editorial from The Nation (www.thenation.com):

"Anyone who says, 'I don't care if Bush gets elected' is basically telling poor and working people in the country, 'I don't care if your lives are destroyed. I don't care whether you are going to have a little money to help your disabled mother. I just don't care, because from my elevated point of view I don't see much difference between them.' That's a way of saying, 'Pay no attention to me, because I don't care about you.' Apart from its being wrong, it's a recipe for disaster if you're hoping to ever develop a popular movement and a political alternative."--Noam Chomsky, 2004

This quote comes from a recent e-mail sent out by Progressive Democrats of America--just one of a slew of groups, including Greens for Kerry, Repentant Nader Voters and United Progressives for Victory--making the case that even if you agree with Ralph Nader and/or the Greens on the issues, the paramount priority is to (re)defeat Bush in November.

Their appeal--and that of former Nader supporters issued last week--is ever more important now that the Florida Supreme Court has bolstered President Bush's prospects in a crucial swing state by ruling that Nader can appear on that state's ballot as the Reform Party presidential candidate.

Circulate Chomsky's quote widely!