in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

"Sandman" wrote in message ...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Not only that, the same Gallup poll shows Edwards beating Bush by 1%. And
that's *before* Edwards' strong showing in today's primaries.

Sandman wrote:
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...

"Sandman" wrote in message

...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,

the

lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying

he's

"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Not only that, the same Gallup poll shows Edwards beating Bush by 1%. And
that's *before* Edwards' strong showing in today's primaries.

Too bad polls don't vote. People do. And, we will see in Nov. who will
be president (Bush of course).

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are
saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president.

OSAF.

I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.

Because the Democrat alternatives are all so much worse.

You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.

Where is the moral high ground with Democrats?

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are
saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.


I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message ...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are
saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.


I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.

Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false reasons.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are
saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.


I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.

Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false
reasons.

No false reasons have been offered.

Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message ...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll

If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...
"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating,
the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are
saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.

Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:




http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

Yes!
The election is not being held today.
Very good news!

Too bad it isn't. Bush is truly an awful person and an awful
president. I am still shocked on a regular basis over just how bad he
really is. I also can't understand people like you who support him.
You don't seem to be deceived by him, so I can only understand it as a
moral failure.


I got a real good blow job from one of the interns today.

Which is obviously worse than killing thousands of people for false
reasons.

There were a multitude of good reasons.
Sometimes we must bear wars, conflicts, rebellion and disobedience.
People get hurt or killed by these.
But the end result is hopefully the accomplishment of something
significantly
better , for those that remain, and for the futures of their offspring.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

" wrote in message ...
Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message ...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=2&u=/usatoday/kerryleadingbushinnewpoll

If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.

That story says only two incumbents trailed at this time: Harry
Truman and Gerald Ford.

"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message ...

No false reasons have been offered.

Yes there were--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
m...
"Michael McKelvy" wrote in message
...

No false reasons have been offered.

Yes there were--that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

That was only one of several reasons.

Not finding them is not the same as not existing.
Clinton believed they had them, the UN believed they had them, the Germans,
French, and many other countries were also of this opinion.

If this was in your opinion, a false reason, then it was not out of
deception, but the result of imperfect intelligence.

Of course if your party had not consistently voted to reduce our
capabilities in this area, things might be different.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
" wrote in message
...
Jacob Kramer wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message
...

in the polls. Gallup now shows him with a 49% general approval
rating, the
lowest since he took office. Even right wing bobble heads are saying
he's
"in big trouble".

A similar poll showed Kerry beating Dubya by 7%.


Here's a story on the latter statistic, suggesting that if the
election were held today, Kerry would beat Bush. Boy is that good
news:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/kerryle
adingbushinnewpoll

If memory serves, polls at one time showed Dukakis beating Bush the
Elder by a similar margin. I'm sure we'll all recall how the eventual
election came out there -- Dukakis lost by a rather sizable margin. Such
polls this far before the election, and even before the conventions are
held, are meaningless.

That story says only two incumbents trailed at this time: Harry
Truman and Gerald Ford.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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?

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?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.

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'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.

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.

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 15:22:18 -0600, in rec.audio.opinion you wrote:

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.

I just wanted to point out that Democrats and Republicans have held
the Oval Office for the same amount of time since 1961 UNTIL the
current President Bush.

And both sides have had Presidential scandals and one-term Presidents
who were tossed by an angry electorate who were partially victims of
their times and partially victims of their policies. The next 9 months
will determine how President Bush fares and I maintain that there are
a lot of things that can happen, both to help him and to hurt him as
well.

"Jacob Kramer" wrote in message
om...
"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...p/ap_poll_bush


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

OSAF. Kerry voted against nearly every weapon we used In Iraq, he voted
against the CIA. He's repeatedly voted to cut Defense. He's just another
Democrat Liberal, even more than Ted, hic, Kennedy, on some issues.

Even if the unthinkable happens and kerry should win the White House, he'll
get nowhere with a GOP controlled House and Senate.

I think you'll find that Bush will be a much more effective campaigner this
time out, plus the Dems won't be able to try and steal the election this
time.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
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...p/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.

OSAF.

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

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.

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.

Never, they just stay home.

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.

The record shows that there is a core for both parties that is pretty evenly
split, it's the undecided's who decide elections.

"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.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.

Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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

Never, they just stay home.

Just as good.

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

dave weil said to the Bug Eater:

Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.

That would amount to pain management, bad business sense, and
Kroopologism. And eating bugs.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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

Kennedy wouldn't be allowed in to the current Democrat party.

Oh shut up. Talk about what you know.

You first.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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

Never, they just stay home.

Just as good.

I doubt it will happen this time around. They will come out in droves to
vote against a New England Liberal.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:32:20 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:07:05 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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

Never, they just stay home.

Just as good.

I doubt it will happen this time around. They will come out in droves to
vote against a New England Liberal.

Another blank asserion.

Thank you, Madame Cleo.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:42:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

No, actually you were supposed to refute it.

Sorry, you lose.

Again.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 20:42:10 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:30:53 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 14:11:17 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

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.

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement
has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not a
game I'll participate in.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:38:52 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your statement
has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not a
game I'll participate in.

Thank you for playing.

If an autistic midget with one leg plays chess against a retarded black
french lady, who wins? . . . . . . . Exactly!


"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 03:38:52 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Yes, bald cynical politics driving something that should have
been
done a year and half ago. That's the kind of leadership we
need...

Another blank assertion.

Another blank assertion.

See this is the part where you're supposed to prove that your
statement
has
any truth to it.

Thanks for demonstrating you have no case.

Playing your game would make me loser. Trying to prove a negative is not
a
game I'll participate in.

Thank you for playing.