Posted on 11/15/2004 9:41:38 AM PST by Liz
...........vote totals from this election compared to the presidential election four years ago....underscore why the Democratic party...is in even worse shape than you might think.
Compared to four years ago, President Bush picked up 9.5 million votes. John Kerry, compared to Al Gore, picked up just under 5 million.
But here are some other important numbers:
Ralph Nader in 2000: 2.89 million votes Ralph Nader in 2004: 400,706 votes. Youth vote 18-29 for Gore: 9 million Youth vote 18-29 for Kerry: 11 million
The polling indicated that most of Nader's erosion was John Kerry's gain. And as you can see above, Kerry picked up 2 million votes in the 18-29 category. So, that's 4 million of the 5 million vote pick-up for Kerry.
In other words, if you rule out the Nader voters and younger voters, everybody else gave John Kerry a net gain of just 1 million votes (compared to Al Gore in 2000.) President Bush received about the same raw vote total among 18-29 year olds as he did four years ago. So, excluding that group, the president picked up 9.5 million new votes. Again, when you are talking about voters 30 and over... it's 9.5 million new votes for Bush... 1 million non-Nader voters for Kerry.
That is astounding. Remember, Kerry was running against an incumbent president with an approval rating below 50%.
Kerry's anemic raw vote number is even more astounding when you look at the powerful "anybody but Bush" sentiment in the Democratic party this year... and when you consider the massive amount of money those new Democratic organizations spent on get out the vote efforts. "America Coming Together" and the "Media Fund" spent nearly $200 million. That was twice as much as the DNC spent on getting out the vote.
Write me at DShuster@MSNBC.com
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
May they rest in peace (smirk).
"Remember, Kerry was running against an incumbent president with an approval rating below 50%."
I never believed that President Bush's approval rating dropped below 50%.
No matter what the polls and Old Media has told us.
Did you see Matthew's Dunday show this weekend..Not hardball, the other one..What's Chris' BIG political newsscoop about the Dems this week?..well, Bil Clinton's popularity among voters since leaving office has declined from 55% t0 48%..as long as they keep on talking incessantly about Bubba..it's good for the GOP...BTW..this poll can't make Hilalry happy..as she move closer to a formal announcement..more and mroe Americnas will start thinking about Slick once again having the run of the Oval Office..
That's BS. Dubya was over 50% from the RNC on.
Hillary will either win in a landslide, or go down in flames in 2008.
Let's work now to make sure it's the latter.
Landslide?..dude ..you must have one hell of a hangover....(g)OK.seriously...name me ONE red state that she could flip?
OK...you're right.
But, if the GOP pulls a 1996 and nominates a boring Senator with good credentials but no appeal (Frist??) we could lose.
Let's go with Pawlenty, Sanford, or Santorum in 2008. Period. Any combination of those three on the ticket would annihilate Hitlery.
Kerry effectively obliterated all the known shibboleths about elections and what's required to win them: having an opponent with low positives, an avalanche of money (527's), debate stature, being a smooth talker, an opponent tarred with high negatives in the person of Soros, Michael Moore and the Hollyweirdos, Kitty Kelly, Richard Clarke, forged TANG documents, and so on, and so forth, ad infinitum, ad nauseaum.
I don't think she could flip a single red state either, unless there was some kind of split among the Republicans or some economic disaster.
I think she would BE a disaster . . .
If Hill actually does run, you know she's going to get the Dim nomination. Voter turnout in 08 will make 04 look like a high school election. (And as we now know, that is a GOOD thing for Republicans). Considerable shine will be off of the ol' Bill apple by then. Besides all of the scandals we know by heart... the big one will be that the Clinton 8 years gave us 9/11. With all of the red-hot Bush bashing, people begin to forget the absolute inaction of the Clinton Whitehouse toward a growing terrorist threat. She is the most damaged of their damaged goods. Please, oh please, run her in 08.
Hope so, however we can't disocunt the Clintons power madness. Expect them to come up with something.
As I posted earlier....in light of the 2004 rout by religious voters, Bill will probably enter the Baptist ministry to get those votes for Hillary.
The Dems' big problem.because of Hillary, is that when the need to change the most, they are essentially "frozen in place"..
They are frozen b/c of the motley liberal crew that has the party by the tail and won't let go including FemiNazis, radical pro-aborts, Hollyweirdos and tree-huggers, to name a few.
I see your point, and perhaps there's someone we don't know right now.
I'm just thinking that the sooner we groom someone for 2008 the better off we are.
Point taken, however.
FWIW....my take is that there are two possible scenarios.. One is that Bush/Cheney decide on a hands/off policy for 2008..that is they do NOT meddle in the primaries, or, the other is that after the 2006 elections..especisally if the GOP gains a few more seats in the Senate, then Cheney could retire..allow Bush to name his VP..it'd then be a fairly easy confirmation...and that person would have a leg up for 2008..
I could see Marc Racicot getting the VP nod if Cheney retires.
He'd be OK, but not my number one choice.
Who knows??
I wouldn't mind seeing Bill Owens as VP....
Oh Schadenfreude, Oh Schadenfreude, da-dah da-dah da da daaahhh...
Someone pointed out that Hitlery can overcome this problem if Bill wwere to die about 2 months before the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.