[Happy2BMe]

To all RATS, READ IT AND WEEP:

"Well, yes. But the Marist poll also found Bush beating any Democrat matched against him."

[Happy2BMe]

2004 won't be good a good RAT year ping!

[Happy2BMe]

Thanks, Geist for a great find!

(We all need some good news about now.)

[AmishDude]

OK, I have a question: Did Bush win any close state other than Florida? WI, MN, NM, IA all went for Gore. You can only pull off voter fraud when it's close. 2004 looks awful for Democrats because they really can't win any new states and are likely to lose all the close ones.

[DoctorMichael]

I hope and pray that this trend continues and that this is not merely a high-water mark.

[sourcery]

Why is it happening?

Fox News. The internet in general. FreeRepublic in particular.

[AmishDude]

The Dems really have no shot. If Dean is nominated, he will pull zero swing voters because he's humorless, angry and has a bulbous neck. (His issues are an even bigger turnoff.) If Dean is not nominated, no Democrat is sufficiently liberal to keep Nader from getting upwards of 5-8% of the vote. There's only one other person who could save them . . . and she doesn't want to run this year because she's likely to lose to Bush.

[Sunshine Sister]

Party affiliation won't mean squat unless they go to the polls and vote! That is going to be critical in the next election!

[crv16]

A state that is divided evenly between Republicans/Democrats will be a win for the Republicans, because Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats.

[One_American]

Great article. Terry McAuliffe is doing an excellent job leading the Democratic Party right over the cliff. Keep up the good work Terry.

[Fee]

GWB in 2000 was leading Gore until the last weekend when the independents had to ask themselves one question - "Is everything so bad under Clinton Gore that we will vote for an unknown (GWB)?" If Gore did not gaffe, had Clinton legacy and gun control as an issue, he should have won the election (he narrowly lost his home state TN and traditional Dem state West Virginia, either state would have given him the win without FL). Fast foward to 2004, independents are going to ask themselves the same question - "Is everything so bad under GWB that we will vote for an unknown (Dem nominee TBD)?" As things stand, the answer will be NO.

[Uncle Hal]

If these voter registration numbers are true, this is really good news for the GOP. We will need all the help we can get. The Bush haters are absolutely irrational in their hatred of Bush. The 04 campaign is going to be butal. I have never seen the country so deeply divided and I have been following politics for 50 plus years.

[Tacis]

Of course, on the dem side are 95% of blacks, all of Hollywood, most faggots, most criminals (some dificulty voting), most illegal Mexicans, Jamaicans, Haitians (very heavy voting groups), lots of Chinese cash, most college/university professors (unless there is a communist or socialist on the ballor), most union members/officials making more than one million dollars a year, most traitors, all America-haters, and all those who believe there are already too many Roman Catholics on the federal bench. This vast support will not be adequate to unseat Bush or the Republicans.

Alas, this power base is what will asure that the party masters can not let any of the nine dwarfs be the dem candidate for president. Any one of them will be a disaster. Thus, PanderAl Gore will probably be appointed dem candidate. But, there is always Hillie. She and her sewer dwellers may decide the risk of losing against Bush in 2004 is less than trying to salvage enough of the party to even make a try in 2008 against a new Republican>

Have I forgotten any of the major constituents of the great party of Torricelli, Dashole, and Clinton?

[VRWC_minion]

First, the number of electoral votes are greater for the same states. Second, if the underlying voters are switching from rat to GOP this means the old polls may not reflect this new mix. Third, this assumes static numbers. If there is movement from one party to another it may continue and be even larger by next year.

[Califelephant]

All we have to worry about is Soros giving so much cash to the Dems.

[JustAnAmerican]

Actually what this means is that Independents will decide who wins the next race/races. Core voters are still neck and neck numerically speaking, while most Independents are made up of disgruntled Republicans and Dems. I would be willing to bet that Independents will outnumber both Parties within the next decade. Politicians would do well to remember that.

[Redbob]

"As the Democrat party gets smaller, it becomes more liberal, elitist, and angry," Gillespie wrote."

And shrill.
Don't forget 'shrill!'

[Redbob]

Among other things, we need to really get out the vote here in Texas.
Three years ago, there were large numbers of Republicans here who didn't bother to vote because it was obvious that Dubya was going to carry his home state - and because the election is NOT DECIDED ON THE POPULAR VOTE.

I've seen estimates that he could easily have gotten an additional half million votes here, possibly many more.

[Dan from Michigan]

In Michigan, Democrats used to enjoy a 33-26 advantage. Now it's 31-29 in favor of Republicans. In 2000, Bush lost the state by about 217,000 votes out of 4.2 million cast.

I'm confused here.
1. Michigan does not register votes by party(since around 92). That was ruled unconstitutional at the state level and why we have either caucuses or open primaries.

2. Did all these votes come from new registrants or donor rolls? I know we had a voter registration signup at the GOP booth at a county event.

3. Did they take this estimate from the Cox and Land races down the ticket in 02?

Anyone know the answer?

[watermen]

I've wondered recently why the republicans are red and the democrats are blue. ( as seen in election results )
It seems that the republicans were always blue on the maps.
Have I not been paying attention or are they switched now and then?
I always thought that when I saw a democrat win a state and it turned red that it was appropiate, commie red.

[David1]

Shouldn't it be the Republicans who are blue and the Democrats who are the reds? Red fits nicely with the Democrats.