Replies

Another big difference is no Ross Perot this time... His game playing of dropping out and then jumping back in the race were designed to do nothing but hurt Bush 41 - and it worked.

The stock market is also booming, which it wasn't in 1992. The indices will likely be back to and above their post-meltdown levels by election day.

Another factor: the far left nuts! They were having orgasms for Dean.

Now they'll be stuck with yet another "typical Dem" like Gore that they think is a sellout and suck up and Kerry's record is way longer than Gore's ever was.

So they might vote Green no matter who it is. They don't need a Nader or a Dean to lead them, they are nuts, remember? They'll just need a Kerry to push them back to the fringe and give Bush a squeaker lead in a couple of states.

The only theory that they won't switch to the Greens is the "we hate Bush" attitude. But the more and more vocal they'll get about it as the election rolls around is going to really turn away the moderates and independents.

So if the far left hangs with Kerry out of Bush hatred, the middle will shift like in 1980 and give Bush the 52-54% popular vote (even 50% is fine) and more importantly, the electoral votes he needs.

If Bush just wins every state he won in 2000 he'll have 278 electoral votes (7 more than the 271 in 2000 because of population shifts). That 7 extra let's him lose either New Hampshire OR West Virginia where he barely beat Gore (Nader votes). But not both.

So all he has to do is hold and pick up one like New Mexico. But it would be better to pick up Michigan (he barely lost that one) with about 18 electoral votes or even better, Pennsylvania. But that will be harder. They are heavily unionized and stupid.

My worry is he could lose Louisiana or Missouri. But I doubt it. Also there is the black turnout. If theory holds out, the Clinton's aren't going to use their HUGE clout to turn out the black vote with threats and payoffs (as in the Lousiana Senate runoff in 2002 in, literally, a few hours of mobilization) because they want a clear field for Hillary in 2008.

AND, regardless of Dean or Kerry, they have a ready made excuse...the candidate was too far to the left while the Clinton's are (liars) "centrists". Plays well to the morons.

But they were really worried Dean would devastate the party with his loss and by 2008 there wouldn't be enough Dems to elect them. Thus, they put Clark out there to take away some of Dean's tin-foil hat people. Clinton fired the idiot, he knows he's a sucker and a fool and a moron.

Okay, I need to stop the theories at this hour! lol I'm even confusing myself!

Do you think there is any possibility that Dean will run as a third-party candidate?