Bush Has a Lock On These States (Vanity)

2/10/04 | Patrick1

[AmishDude]

VPs can sway their own state but usually no other (Lieberman excepted). Edwards won't even deliver NC and can't deliver the South. The last time this was possible was when LBJ helped shore up Kennedy in the South.

[TomasUSMC]

Do not forget that if the green party had not participated in the election, the lock would have been Gore's.

This year the greens are voting democrat. Ain't no lock. It would be nice but I don't think so yet.

[anniegetyourgun]

There are many here (see 36) on FR who enjoy projecting their wishes and dreams come true. You're just raining on their parade!

[OldPossum]

If Kerry chooses Mark Warner, it won't help him with Virginia. The man is not popular in that state.

Right now Warner is futilely trying to raise taxes in Virginia and failing miserably. But, hey, he's a Democrat. That's what they do.

[KantianBurke]

Care to point out how my analysis is incorrect? I guess anyone who posits the theory that Bush's re-electio chances are in doubt are ipso facto wanting him to lose according to you huh?

[EllaMinnow]

Let me add this about Florida. Four years is a long time when you are in your 70s and 80s. Many of the retirees from the Northeast who settled on Florida's Atlantic coast, will (ahem) not be voting again.
The latest group of Florida retirees, usually in their early 60s, are moving here from the Midwest, and trend more Republican than the older group.

In addition to not having a time-zone mix-up again, the west Panhandle cities of Pensacola and Panama City are always at their most bustling during wartime.

I feel much better about Florida since Jeb's very convincing win in 2002.

[Patrick1]

The point again is as follows. Bush has a lock on 223 electoral votes, Greens or no Greens. These states in post September 11th are the ones he will win no matter what. Can he still lose? Mathmatically yes, but the left would have to run a perfect campaign to do it. And they have a very imperfect candidate.

It isn't going to happen. By saying they will win with a perfect campaign we are giving these leftwing nuts way to much credit.

[reformedliberal]

We have donated to Bush-Cheney 2004 and on 2/16 will attend the campaign meeting closest to us. We are in business here and cannot go door to door or host parties, but we can stuff envelopes and drive people to the polls and free up those who
can knock on doors and talk w/folks.

No matter what policy issues I have w/the administration, I do not want to wake up in November and find Kerry is my President. No way.

[DameAutour]

The problem is if people think it's a lock, many won't show up if they are not motivated to vote for Bush. If many don't show up, while enough may vote to win it for Bush, a lot of tight Congressional races could go to the Democrats, who will be quite motivated to "get out the vote".

I'm afraid that with all of the focus on Bush, the Congressional races could slip under the radar. But the Democrats have not forgotten. They really have little chance of capturing the Presidency this year. But Congress is just as important!

If conservatives want to advance their agenda, two things are necessary and in my opinion more important than quibbling over George W. Bush.

1. Democrats must be kept out of power (this includes all 3 branches of government). This should be priority number 1. Conservatives cannot lose sight of this! This is how the socialists got their agenda implemented, by infiltrating one party and then keeping the other one out of power. They were patient, and ruthless. It is when they start fighting amongst themselves (for example, defecting to third parties like Greens) that they defeat their purpose.

2. There must be more conservatives in Congress. After Democrats are removed from power, it is paramount to replace "RINOs" like Arlen Specter with conservatives like Pat Toomey. It is because of RINOs in Congress that having a majority in Congress has not been enough to get the conservative agenda advanced.

[Solson]

I too am optimistic and agree about the rampant pessimism at FR. One note about that pessimism, some is sincere concern, some more is sincere hope Bush loses.

Here's what will happen... As we've seen today, Bush is already back on top of Kerry even though it has been 24/7 Kerry on the news and in discussions. Furthermore, Kerry only pulls in the 40's in Democratic caucuses. That means, unless Kerry veers further left, his base will stay home, especially the youth vote that Dean counted on so much. Dean lost in Iowa because his supporters didn't show...IMO.

As we move into the summer, the GOP will have a significant cahs advantage and will be able to spend primary $$ until their convention in September. The Dem convention is in July...way too early...and thus must start spending general election $$ as soon as it is done. That cash advantage, along with the capture of bin Laden, the transition to an Iraqi government and great timing on the economy will result is a nice safe 55% win for Bush.

This election, as much as some people hope, will not be close.

[Galactic Overlord-In-Chief]

I could see Kerry picking Bob Graham, since at least Graham, unlike Warner, is popular in his home state. But then again, Graham's poll numbers sank in Florida since his aborted presidential run. Plus the Dukakis/Bentsen ticket will have been recreated: Massachuetts lib/Old Southern Senator.

[Paulie]

"For example, we are worried about what Bill O'Reilly thinks"

Maybe, but as for me, I couldn't care less what he thinks.

[anniegetyourgun]

Not necessarily. But your consistent glee on FR over such things is transparent.

[quantim]

The only item that might pull one of the states out the "lock" column

I was thinking just the opposite!  I believe there will be surprises, but the "lock" is one for the dems going for the GOP this time.  Again, go to 2002 - that surprised even hardened optimists like me.  Why?  Because people vote for more than president.  People are going to go to the polls for reps, senators, state level candidates, ballot initiatives, governors and mayors.  I suggest firmly that many of these people have split tickets in the past but are going away from that trend, as republicans are slowly becoming the majority party in more and more regions. 

Take here in Michigan that was all but skipped by the dems in a huge electoral prize, big mistake.  The mush in the middle (but leaning left) probably feels a little put off.  Bush has a LOT of money to fight here, and I expect to seem here often this fall and force the dems to spend here making them weak elsewhere.  Republicans everywhere here, many just don't know they're republican - yet.

Besides, it has been 16 years since a republican has won here.  His name was Bush.

[reformedliberal]

Don't count on the cash advantage. Soros and Lewis and the Hollywood millionaires will give Kerry all the money needed. We will be lucky if we have an equal warchest.

[donozark]

Please remove 'D' after Missouri. No way will it go Democrat, IMO. Our Democrat Governor Bob "Holdup" was rated THE most unpopular Governor in America! I know Dems that can't stand him. His opponent in Gubernatorial race is Matt Blunt, son of Congressman Roy Blunt. He is sharp. Supports CCW Law which "Holdup" has vetoed and tied up in the courts.

This unpopularity of Dem. Governor, coupled with GWB's popularity should bring Missouri in for Republicans.

[GAGOPSWEEPTOVICTORY]

I agree with your analysis for the most part. I just think that Florida is going to be more in the "in play" category than the lock category, trending Republican. I think WV is more of a lock for Bush than FL. What will be most telling is what turf the Dims are allocating their resources to. If FL is not one of those states, it's going to be a grim year for Kerry and the Rats.

IMHO the Dims miscalculated by holding their convention in Boston instead of in a city in a battleground state such as Philadelphia. By contrast, the Republicans in holding theirs in New York was a stroke of genius.

Status quo, Bush should prevail. He has the power of incumbency, the economy isn't awful, the war on terror has resulted in no new terror attacks, and we should be getting out of Iraq come election day. Things could always change, but the gloom, doom, and panic about polls showing Bush down the first week in February makes me laugh.

[KantianBurke]

Those on FR who aren't bots, are able to see posts critical of Bush as just that. Criticism in his handling of certain issues. Those who ARE on the other hand, well...

Main Entry: blas·phe·my
Pronunciation: 'blas-f&-mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity
2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=blasphemy

[ANRCHTN]

he will win. _________________________ America loves those who love America.





._

[LincolnLover]

At a glance: why is Louisiana a "lock" for the GOP? It's gone the other way in 2 of the past 3 Pres. elections and have Democrat senators and governor.

Leads me to a question: do the Dems try to excite the Af-American vote in the south by naming a black VP candidate? Could be a way to get folks to the polls by using a "you can make history by helping to elect the first Af-American VP ever"-kind of campaign, making some southern states closer than they otherwise would be.