Posted on 07/17/2002 1:02:42 AM PDT by hawaiian
Edited on 05/07/2004 9:08:20 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
(Excerpt) Read more at argusleader.com ...
How could these people have their head so far up their a$$? Its astonishing, really. A loss of words.
I work with a Catholic but is pro choice and pro socialist. I just dont understand it. No facts back up his reasoning besides not wanting to disappoint mommy and daddy (he is in college).
Regarding VT, many other states rebuked Bush much worse than it did. Besides, the Green Party candidate is guaranteed to win at least 5% of the vote for president-- which helps Bush.
Such as what? AR and LA maybe? I would bet serious money that NC is in the sights of Edwards backers. GA and NC were in Gore's sights until maybe a month or two before the election, when his camp finally gave up and sent the resources elsewhere. (I'm aware of NC's Presidential history, by the way.)
By CHUCK RAASCH
Gannett News Service
published: 7/17/2002
WASHINGTON - Though nicked by financial worries that have hit the United States in recent weeks, President Bush still remains a formidable candidate against likely Democratic challengers in 2004, even in their home states.
Only Sens. Joe Lieberman and Chris Dodd in Connecticut and John Kerry in Massachusetts had advantages over Bush in their home states, according to nine state polls released Tuesday by the political Web site Hotline, a feature of the National Journal.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle trailed Bush by 18 percentage points in his home state of South Dakota, and Al Gore had a 16-point deficit in Tennessee, according to Hotline polls taken in late June and early July.
Hotline editor Chuck Todd said the results were not surprising, as "it is quite common for home-state pride to take a while to kick in for a favorite-son candidate."
But Bush's lead was so large in some states that it graphically showed the uphill road faced by potential Democratic challengers.
Bush's approval rating was at 70 percent or more in most recent polls. But respondents have begun looking less favorably on his handling of the economy.
Here is a look at the state-by-state results and the Hotline analysis of each. Except where noted, the margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points:
South Dakota: In a survey taken July 9 and 10 of 400 South Dakotans, Bush led Daschle 56 percent to 38 percent. It's similar to the margin of 60 percent to 38 percent Bush ran up over Gore in the state in 2000. "The Bush folks will no doubt gloat in the fact that they have such a big lead over the No. 1 Dem(ocratic) nemesis in his home state," Todd wrote. "Daschle folks would point out that of the entire potential '04 field, only Daschle has seen negative ads run against him in his home state.
"Considering the power with which Daschle wields over much of the Dem field, we'd be surprised if any of the other '04 candidates try to take great glee over these numbers," Todd added.
The South Dakota sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The results don't surprise Bob Burns, political science professor at South Dakota State University.
"You have to remember that George McGovern lost the presidency in 1972 by a wide margin and came back to win the Senate seat in 1974. We have to go back to 1964 to find a Democrat carrying the state in a presidential election. So I don't see this as a sign of erosion of political support for Senator Daschle," he said.
Tennessee: Bush had a lead over Gore of 55 percent to 39 percent in a survey of 601 taken June 25-27. This was just as Gore was preparing to have fund-raising and strategy sessions in New York and Tennessee.
Although Gore had a commanding 83 percent to 3 percent lead among blacks, he trailed Bush 61 percent to 34 percent among white respondents, according to the Hotline poll. Bush had a 21-point lead among men and an 11-point advantage among women in Tennessee, Hotline said. Gore lost by more than 80,000 votes to Bush in Tennessee in 2000.
Connecticut: Lieberman's 45 percent to 42 percent lead was within the error margin in a survey of 600 taken June 28-July 2. Lieberman's advantage came from an 8 percentage point lead among independents. Bush led Dodd 43 percent to 40 percent in another mock-up, also within the margin of error. Todd said that, compared with results in other states, this was good news for Connecticut's favorite sons. "The numbers also might quell any worries Lieberman's folks have had over the recent press they've received locally that the senator's focused too much on his national agenda," Hotline's Todd said.
North Carolina: A July 3-5 survey of 604 voters had Bush at 55 percent and Sen. John Edwards at 38 percent. "The Daschle and Gore deficits certainly provide (Edwards' supporters) some cover," Todd wrote. "Still, look for some glee to be spread by Edwards' foes, who will try to claim that this poll is evidence that the Southern candidate strategy is flawed."
Wisconsin: At 38 percent, Sen. Russ Feingold trailed Bush, who got 52 percent, in a poll of 598 taken July 1-3. Said Todd: "Feingold's never had an easy election in Wisconsin, and it appears that even as a national candidate, that trend would continue for Feingold."
Vermont: A poll conducted June 6-10 for the Rutland Herald and WCAX-TV showed Bush leading Gov. Howard Dean 45 percent to 40 percent. Todd said "compared to the rest of the '04 candidates, this
5-point deficit is not so bad."
Missouri: In a mock race with House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, Bush won 53 percent to 39 percent, according to a July 1-3 poll of 599. Because Gephardt is a member of the House, he never has run statewide in Missouri, Hotline pointed out.
Georgia: In a 600-person survey taken July 8-10, Bush led 54 percent to 37 percent over Gov. Roy Barnes. Bush led nearly 2-1 among white respondents, but Barnes won 82 percent to 4 percent among blacks.
Massachusetts: One of the most Democratic states gave its favorite son, Kerry, a convincing 58 percent to 35 percent lead over Bush in a poll taken July 8 and 9. Sample size: 498; the margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Bush lost to Gore 60 percent to 33 percent in this state in 2000. "Is anyone really that surprised?" Todd wrote. "Remember, it's Massachusetts."
Argus Leader reporter David Kranz contributed to this article.
While this type of poll is really just an exercise, it may instill the futility of challenging W (for now at least) in the minds of donors. Regardless, always interesting nonetheless....
Such as what? AR and LA maybe? I would bet serious money that NC is in the sights of Edwards backers. GA and NC were in Gore's sights until maybe a month or two before the election, when his camp finally gave up and sent the resources elsewhere. (I'm aware of NC's Presidential history, by the way.)
If NC is in the plans for Edwards backers, they are even stupider than I thought. Any Southern state Dole carried in 1996 is Bush Country now and forever. Period. Marvin Bush would win NC. The old standbys of WV and KY would be better bets than NC and, yes, AR, TN, LA, and FL should be competed for by Edwards. GA is up for grabs only if the economy really sucks. If Gore wasted money in NC, he was a fool. More of a fool than Bush who spent money in CA and Jim Rogan still lost his congressional seat. North Carolina's down ballot races didn't really need Gore's help if that was his reason.
What a horrible thing to have said about a state. Can you even imagine being part of a group that is so mindnumbingly predictable? All good republicans living in Massachusetts ought to get out of there as soon as possible. After all, there was a reason the terrorists chose Massachusetts as their jumping off place.
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.