This I agree with. I believe the democreeps are still angry and bitter about the 2000 election and will make it increasingly harder in 2004 for us but I think they and the media have also forgotten while "feeling sorry for themselves" that Republican who get riled up like we did in 2000 can be a formidible force to deal with.
How many more actions can he take that fly in the face of the once traditional conservative Republican base before enough of them decide to "sit it out"? If the election will be as close as this author suggests I am glad I am not in charge of the Ouija board when recommending which bed rock conservative values to trash for votes from the moderate (lack of core principles) middle.
2) From the get-go, if he only won what he won in 2000, Bush would gain an additional 7 EVs and the Dem would automatically lose 7 EVs purely from redistricting. That starts Bush at 278.
2) Bush lost four states, if I'm not mistaken, by fewer than 30,000 total votes (NM, IO, WI, and OR). He lost NM by fewer than 5,000 votes---enough to demand a recount, which he did not do. Given a (even if slightly) growing economy, and the Dem alternative, I think Bush easily wins these four, giving him about 30 additional EVs, bringin his total to 308.
3) He has now nearly buried the Dem and not had to win one single truly contested state, such as PA, MI, or MN. Many observers think he will win two of those three. Add 40 more EVs to his total.
4) Now you come to the states where Bush can win, but where it would take a great deal of work and a little luck---NJ or MD, for example. These are not out of reach, and should one or two of these fall Bush's way, he is in the 350-370 range.
This is blowout territory. Note I'm still handing over to the Dems CA and NY, neither of which is a sure lock. And I'm throwing into the Dean column WA and VT.
In short, the math says that no matter who the Dem is, Bush destroys him or her. But wait!
Dean is a kook. When the American public starts to really listen to him, he will come off more like Pat Buchanan did on our side than a Dukakis, who didn't excite anyone. I think Dean will scare a number of people who aren't in love with Bush, and give him the 30 additional EVs Bush needs to cross the 400 "landslide" barrier.
Actually, unemployment is and will always be the most important economic measuring stick for most people. I had two engineering degrees from two very prestigious major public universities (and had high grades). I worked hard and had great performance evaluations from my employer. I even went back to school and earned a third engineering degree. In spite of these things, I spent a year of the 90's unemployed and 17 months in a worthless, unsafe, dead-end job. "Consumer confidence" is just fluff. A strong stock market is nice. However, neither of these things has value if I can't find a good job in my field. Technical people are typically not good in sales or retail management. If I can't work as an engineer, I'll never be good enough at something else to live much above the poverty level. I can survive a bad stock market. It just means that I'll have to work longer before I retire. I can't survive a complete breakdown of jobs in my field.
I don't think that the jobs issue should work to the advantage of the Democrats, but the Republicans must make this argument effectively. One of the biggest threats to our jobs is over-regulation by the government. The Democrats are the party of over-regulation. Another huge threat to our jobs is lawsuit abuse. The Democrats are the party of trial lawyers. Neither party is willing to endorse protective tariffs in principle right now, but President Bush protected the steel industry for the past couple of years. He's lifted the tariff now, but I think that action speaks well of his willingness to take steps that must be taken sometimes.
The Democrats are not the party of better jobs or more jobs. The "rich didn't get richer" while the "poor got poorer" during the 80's. However, the "rich did get richer" while the "poor got poorer" during the 90's. Americans need to understand that voting against Democrats is the best way to protect their jobs.
Can Dean win Penn, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Florida, and Washington State besides the dem leaning states(Including Illinois)? That's enough right there and doesn't include swing states like Arkansas, Oregon, Louisiana, Arizona, Nevada, New Mex, West VA, New Hampshire, Missouri, Ohio, and Colorado?