"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 16:11:18 -0500, "
wrote:



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?tmp...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.

Why do you think that far west and New England Republicans have been
successful? Is there something fundamentally different about where
Democrats and Republicans come from? I'm just askin'.

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.

Well, Kerry isn't a lock yet, so I don't know if it's an issue yet.

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?

Yes, I think he could. of course it depends on the states as to
whether it would get him close. Let's remember how close the last
contest was. Even assuming things like incumbency, 9/11, etc, one
should probably look to 1990 as a cautionary tale. How many people
knew Clinton before the primaries? Are you saying that because he's a
southerner, he had some sort of advantage that Kerry doesn't have?
Let's not forget that the first president Bush had waged a successful
military campagn (up to a point) but lost support when he went back on
his taxes pledge. Could the deficit act in a similar fashion? I dunno,
but he seems to be proposing programs designed to win him popular
support, but I wonder how many Republicans are going to worry about
the net effect of tax cuts and 10 year missions to Mars, Medicare
reform, etc.

And if the Democrats *really* get motivated about the Supreme Court
situation in the next 4 years, *that* alone might be enough to drive
the turnout to new levels.


I think the GOP will use that as an issue. They don't want more Liberal's
on the Bench rewriting the law.

I'm also guessing that the new offensive slated for Afghanistan is in
hopes of finding bin Laden in, say, mid summer. I wonder if this new
offensive, coupled with continuing deaths in Iraq will tax the
American peoples' patience when the body counts start rising again.

If they catch Bin Ladin before the election you can kiss any chance of a
Democrat win goodbye.

As I recall, Mondale may have got a grand total of 2, and did Dukakis get
more than 1?

I don't buy the fact that just because a candidate comes from a
specific region, it's necessarily the kiss of death, or has much to do
with others from the same region.