dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:18:15 -0500, "
wrote:



Jacob Kramer wrote:

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...



By the time the election comes around and Kerry's record is more widely
known, the undecided voters, who decide most elections will IMO elect Bush
again.


In the latest polls his numbers are right where his father's were at this time:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=10&u=/ap/ap_poll_bush

It looks like most Americans are catching on to this charlatan.

Whether you like Bush or you don't (and I don't), this looks like
wishful thinking. The only Democrats that have been able to win the
White House in the last 40 years were from the south or southwest. Of
the Democratic Presidential candidates during that time, probably
Mondale and Dukakis are most similar to Kerry, and, to put it
charitably, they weren't particularly competitive.


Had there not been an assassination, you wouldn't be able to make that
statement.

Or, alternately, saying 44 years would render your statement
incorrect.

Which is to say, it's been 44 years since a Northeastern Democrat was
able to win a Presidential election -- or even be reasonably
competitive. That's my point. The demographics of the nation have
changed a hell of a lot in the last 44 years, with a dramatic shift of
population to the south and west. It's noteworthy that in even that 1960
election, it was not a clear and decisive victory for Kennedy. Dukakis
was actually leading Bush I right after the Democratic convention, and
that was meaningless.

If you like, assume Kennedy's 1964 re-election, and it's still 36 years
in the past. I think the national demographics make it nearly impossible
for a northeastern Democrat to make a convincing showing. Christ,
Humphrey couldn't win even with Wallace pulling a lot of southern
conservative votes from Nixon. Gore didn't even carry Tennesee. The
northeastern and midwestern candidates that the Democrats have fielded
in the last 40 years have provided a series of textbook examples of how
not to pick national candidates.

Mind you, I say this as a moderate Democrat who's tired of watching
Republicans win presidential elections. I find it difficult to imagine
how anyone could think that Kerry is somehow going to miraculously
change this trend.





It's one thing to think Bush is horrible and a menace, it's quite
another to talk yourself into believing that most Americans are going to
see it that way come November.


The big if right now is whether the right will feel betrayed enough to
jump ranks.

If one in ten of those disaffected conservatives go to Kerry, that would
be a miracle for the Democrats.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is the case, but if
the Demos are sufficiently aroused from the results of the last
election and get a big turnout, there could be enough defections to
make it interesting.

I actually hope you're right, but I'll believe it when I see it. If you
had to put $1000 on it right now, do you think Kerry would be able to
win even 20 states? As I recall, Mondale may have got a grand total of
2, and did Dukakis get more than 1?