Electoral College Breakdown 2004, April 14th Update

ECB 2004 ^ | 4/14/04

[Dales]

I Wouldn't Touch It With a 10 Foot Poll

Unsustainable Contradictions

The best national poll for my money is the Battleground Poll. Produced by a joint effort between Democrat pollster Celinda Lake of Snell, Lake, Perry and Associates, and Republican pollster Ed Goeas of the Tarrance Group, it avoids the partisanship that sometimes can slip into the sampling methods of other polls. The partisanship can come out in the strategic analysis each does for the respective parties, although the spin presented is usually substantive. This year's springtime Battleground Poll, released this week, is excellent as always.

Ms. Lake takes an optimistic look for the Democrats, saying “it is difficult to find a precedent for an incumbent with such anemic numbers who has gone on to win re-election.” However, Ms. Lake’s analysis contains a significant error which is both unusual for her and could possibly have impacted her optimism; she states “Consequently, voters are unhappy with the job Bush is doing; fully half now disapprove of his performance in office (50 percent disapprove to 45 percent approve)” while in actuality the polling numbers presented show that she has those numbers transposed. Her prescription for Kerry is “to minimize or neutralize Bush’s dominance on the critical dimension of security… and turn the agenda to the economy.”

Mr. Goeas starts his analysis by focusing on the partisan divide in America. One side “clearly identifies with President Bush as a strong, moral, decisive leader,” “views America’s economy on the rebound and credits President George W. Bush.” The other side “sees Bush as an ineffectual leader who has ignored the war on terrorism to pursue a vendetta against Saddam Hussein in Iraq” and “is largely focused on the economic downturn and job loss.” His conclusion is one that I have been asserting for weeks (but am now questioning): “This presidential election truly appears to be starting exactly where it left off in November of 2000… In that election, turnout (not polling) was the final determinant of the election!”

The poll has some interesting results. The unaided ballot question, which Mr. Goeas points out is one of the strongest predictors of the coming election, yields a 4-point Bush lead. However, when voters are given the names and are queried, “if you had to make a choice”, the gap closes to a 1 point Kerry lead (Nader is not a factor, scoring a meager 1%). The numbers are as close as can be here too, as both get 41% saying “definitely”, 1% saying “leaning”, and the remainder saying “probably.” Another way of looking at this is that voters who need to be reminded who the candidates are break 2-1 in favor of John Kerry.

The country is decidedly pessimistic. Well over half of all voters (57%) think that the country is off the right track, compared to just 38% who think we are heading in the right direction. Strikingly, most are not ambivalent about this question. Nearly three quarters of those polled feel strongly about their answer to this question, and those who do take the negative view twice as frequently (47% to 26%). With this in mind, it is very surprising that the President is running even with Kerry; one would expect that if that many people think we need to change direction, that the challenger would be winning comfortably, unless the challenger was viewed so negatively that voters would shun him. However, Kerry has a net favorable rating of +13. The current state of the electorate is contradictory.

Is such a disparity sustainable? There always is that possibility; if something is measured a particular way at one point in time, it can certainly be measured that way at another point in time. However, it is unlikely. As people focus more on the election, the contradictions tend to fade away. However, should this status quo be maintained, then Kerry has very little room for growth. A full 93% of those who think the country is on the wrong track support him, which is about as close to unanimity as one can get in a poll. He also would need to retain his two to one advantage among those who are currently so unfocused on the election that they need the candidate names given to them in order to name a preference. Further, if this status quo does somehow remain, then Kerry faces another challenge, for it would mean another election where turnout is everything. The Democrat base, which energizes the get-out-the-vote machine, is significantly to the left of the country and is angry. Howard Dean angry. Al Gore “he played upon our fears” angry. Moveon.com angry. But the public is not angry; only 10% said they are angered by the state of affairs. The overwhelming sentiment (33%) is that of worry, which is a much weaker emotion at driving turnout, and playing to the angry base is likely to turn off those who do not share that emotion.

Much more likely is that there will be a change, in one of three forms. Either the Bush campaign will manage to drive up Kerry’s negatives to where he is not a viable option for the pessimistic (or Kerry does so himself with some unbelievable gaffes), or people will decide that things are not going so bad after all, or Kerry will pull away.

Of these three possibilities, the least likely to happen is that voters will become so disdainful of Kerry that they would ignore their dour outlook of the nation’s outlook and vote for the President. Even should there be a 20 point swing in Kerry’s net approval rating, it still would unlikely be enough to overcome a 19 point gap in voter optimism, especially when the pessimistic feel so strongly about it. In all likelihood, this probably played into the calculation by the Bush campaign when they decided to decrease current advertising levels by 30%.

There is reason for the Bush campaign to feel optimistic about changing people’s views of the direction of the country. Merely 8% of those polled think they will be worse off financially a year from now. And on matters of national security, terrorism, and Iraq, Bush enjoys substantial leads over Kerry. Again there is a contradiction; people feel we are moving in the wrong direction, but do not think they will be worse of economically and think that Bush’s plans on foreign affairs and terror are right. It is possible that this dichotomy will remain, but much more likely that people will change one of these views.

Further, it is very unlikely that the current disconnect over the state of the economy is going to continue. Either the economy is improving, or it is not. If it is improving, then there will be many months’ worth of evidence to back up that perception, and fewer will believe we are on the wrong path. This would be a disaster for the Kerry campaign, which they clearly realize as indicated by their attempt to redefine the Misery Index, including in it components that cannot be changed by November. It is a valiant effort, but if the economy is truly improving, efforts to portray it as not improving will be fruitless. And if the economy sputters, then the President is in serious trouble.

Iraq is also going to be clarified by November. Bush has a timeline out which will either be made, or it will not. Things will have deteriorated as some fear will happen, or they will not have. There will be spin, and there will be some ambiguity, but by and large the direction will be more readily discernable than it is right now.

Which will it be? Will the delicate status quo, unbalanced and contradictory as it is, hold through November? Will things be better than they are now? Or worse? The quandary for Kerry is that he likely loses the first two cases. If things remain the same, he has to maintain his near-unanimous hammerlock on those who think the country is on the wrong track while simultaneously exciting the angry left base (for turnout) without alienating those who are worried, not angry, and who generally like the President as a person. And if things are better, the pool of those who think the country is heading in the wrong direction will not be large enough. His entire election hinges on the coming events of the next several months validating the pessimists’ view that the country is heading in the wrong direction. He has the unenviable task of having to hope for misery and for death.

For the past few weeks, I have been stating that I believed this election would play out much as 2000’s did. I no longer have that opinion, and am back to the stance I had at the start of the year. Things are close now, but are unlikely to remain that way. The contradictions that exist within the opinions of the electorate will be resolved, and the underlying issues that right now are so unclear (such as if the economy is recovering, and which way things will go in Iraq) will have clarified. The popular vote will probably never open up all that much due to the partisan divide of the country, but the bet here is that most of the battleground states, and possibly some others, will move together to one candidate. And since I believe that the rainy outlook on the economy is based on false beliefs-- fully a third of voters think we are currently in a recession according to a recent Rasmussen poll, when in reality we have been out of a recession for many months)—the money here says that by October it will be clear that President Bush will be re-elected.

---

This Week's Polling Updates Overview

For most of the week, it appeared as if the pollsters had decided to go on spring break, as no state polls came out until Sunday. We ended up getting a few, with the majority just reinforcing what we already knew. The biggest surprise was, ironically, just such a case, where New Jersey validated previous results showing that to be a horse race. New York opened back up for Kerry, but the gap is still about 15 points less than it was in 2000, which again validates the New Jersey result (since Gore won the Garden State by 16).

Just before publication, Rasmussen released a new result for Florida, showing it to be neck and neck.

---

	Oklahoma
	Electoral Votes: 7
	2000 Result
	Bush 60%
	Gore 38%

Background: Republicans have won every election here since LBJ.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
3/1/04	Wilson Research	NA	300 RV	5.7%	Bush	50%	Kerry	40%	Bush +10
4/??/04	Insider Advantage	Link	LV	?	Bush	47%	Kerry	35%	Bush +12

Punditry: Much to my surprise, Oklahoma is still relatively competitive for a southern state. The Insider Advantage poll may have an explanation: Governor Brad Henry's approval ratings are through the roof. Insider Advantage suggests that Kerry may want to look to Henry as a running mate. I think that would likely cause Henry's approval ratings to plummet, since he has been able to avoid many of the positions of the national Democratic party so far. Strong Advantage for Bush.

---

	Massachusettss
	Electoral Votes: 12
	2000 Result
	Gore 60%
	Bush 33%

Background: They like them liberal in Massachusetts. Reagan did carry the state twice (barely), and Ike took it twice, but that's about it since 1924. Most of the time it has not been very close at all.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
1/03	Mass. Insight	Link	457 Voters	4%	Bush	37%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +16
4/03	Mass. Insight	Link	457 Voters	4%	Bush	49%	Kerry	43%	Bush +6
12/03	KRC Communications Research	Link	RV	4%	Bush	38%	Kerry	56%	Kerry +18
4/5/04	University of Massachusetts	Link	400 RV	5%	Bush	32%	Kerry	54%	Kerry +22

Punditry: They love Kerry in Massachusetts. Safe for Kerry.

---

	Louisiana
	Electoral Votes: 9
	2000 Result
	Bush 53%
	Gore 45%

Background: Louisiana votes for southerners in Presidential elections. George Wallace won here. Carter beat Ford. Clinton beat Dole. And Clinton beat Bush (with a big help from Perot). All others since JFK were won by Republicans.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
11/9/03	JPI Polling	Link	RV	4%	Bush	50%	Unnamed Democrat	34%	Bush +16
3/29/04	DeVille and Associates and Southern Media & Opinion Research	Link	700 RV	3.8%	Bush	52%	Kerry	38%	Bush +14

Punditry: Even after the Kerry surge, Louisiana is sitting pretty for President Bush. One bright spot for the Democrats is that Jindal was leading Blanco by almost as impressive margins just a few weeks before losing the election to the current Governor. One thing to keep an eye on is the retirement of popular Senator John Breaux, who is looking to move into the private sector. Should there be a Kerry/Breaux ticket, then Louisiana may end up being not so comfortable.Strong Advantage for Bush.

---

	New Jersey
	Electoral Votes: 15
	2000 Result
	Gore 56%
	Bush 40%

Background: New Jersey used to be considered a Republican state. Those days have passed, although there are still some signs of life. In the last 10 Presidential elections it has gone 1-6-3 with the Republican wins coming in the middle, the last Clinton win and the Gore win were by such substantial margins that it is hard to avoid the feeling that New Jersey is trending leftward.

If New Jersey remains tight enough to stay in the battleground, it is a case of back to the future. ECB2000 started with it leaning Gore's way. The Democrats have 7 of 13 Representatives and both Senate seats, control both chambers of the state legislature, hold all of the important executive offices, and have a 25%-19% advantage in voter registration.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
9/8/03	Rutgers	Link	802 Adults	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	35%	Bush +8
9/15/03	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	36%	Unnamed Democrat	29%	Bush +7
9/25/03	Quinnipiac	Link	RV	3.1%	Bush	48%	Kerry	43%	Bush +5
11/10/03	Quinnipiac	Link	1,027 RV	3.1%	Bush	46%	Kerry	43%	Bush +3
1/11/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	600 RV	4%	Bush	40%	Unnamed Democrat	32%	Bush +8
1/13/04	Rutgers	Link	823 RV	4.2%	Bush	41%	Unnamed Democrat	38%	Bush +3
4/10/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	802 RV, Nader not an option	3.5%	Bush	47%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +1
4/10/04	Fairleigh Dickinson University/Public Mind	Link	802 RV, Nader an option	3.5%	Bush	48%	Kerry	44%	Bush +4

Punditry: Can we finally stop telling me how nuts I am to think that New Jersey is competitive? It is. Slight Advantage for Bush.

Now if it will be by election day is anyone's guess. But the decision to hold the convention in nearby New York City doesn't seem so nutty any longer, does it?

---

	F		New York
			Electoral Votes: 31
			2000 Result
			Gore 60%
			Bush 35%

Background: From 1960 onward, Republicans have carried the Empire State only three times. Nixon beat McGovern, Reagan beat Carter, and Reagan beat Mondale. Even Dukakis won here.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	39%	Dem +7
9/23/03	Marist	Link	RV	4%	Bush	32%	Unnamed Democrat	48%	Dem +16
10/28/03	Quinnipiac	NA	RV	4%	Bush	42%	Kerry	50%	Dem +8
11/19/03	Zogby	Link	LV	4%	Bush	41%	Kerry	46%	Dem +5
1/7/04	Marist	Link	617 RV	4%	Bush	34%	Unnamed Democrat	36%	Dem +2
4/12/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,279 RV, Nader an option	2.7%	Bush	35%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +14
4/12/04	Quinnipiac	Link	1,279 RV, Nader not an option	2.7%	Bush	36%	Kerry	53%	Kerry +17

Punditry: In March, I said "I fully expect the Empire State to move strongly to the left in the next poll for the state." I am originally from New York. I know my home state.

The most interesting thing to me about this poll is how unbelievably popular in New York Mayor Giuliani is. Sen. Chuck Schumer enjoys a 61-19 approval/disapproval rating split, indicative of a very popular politician. However, when he is matched up against Rudy? Mayor Giuliani beats Sen. Schumer 56 -- 36 percent.

---

	F		Florida
			Electoral Votes: 27
			2000 Result
			Bush 48.85%
			Gore 48.84%

Background: Despite the best efforts of the results-oriented Florida Supreme Court, Bush held on to win the state in 2000, just as every recount conducted afterwards validated. Did you know that since 1948, though, that only three times has Florida gone for the Democrat candidate? Johnson got 51%, Carter got 52%, and Clinton (2nd term) got 48% (with Perot taking 9%). More times than not, the Republican has come closer to 60%. Why Bush underperformed here to such a degree is something his campaign must rectify.

In the first ECB of 2000, Florida was listed as a battleground with a slight advantage to Gore. This time around, it is starting with a slight advantage for Bush. Florida has 6 Democrat Representatives and 18 Republicans. Both chambers of the state legislature are controlled by the Republicans. Republicans control most of the executive branch. However, both Senate seats are held by Democrats. As of Dec. 1, 2003, the state registration was 41.9% Democrat and 38.6% Republican.

Polling Data:

Date	Polling Company	Link	Type	MOE	Republican		Democrat		Margin
4/29/03	Mason-Dixon	Link	RV	5%	Bush	53%	Unnamed Democrat	38%	Bush +15
12/3/03	Schroth & Associates	Link	800 RV	3.5%	Bush	43%	Unnamed Democrat	37%	Bush +6
1/15/04	Rasmussen Reports	Link	LV	5%	Bush	47%	Unnamed Democrat	45%	Bush +2
2/27/04	Research 2000	Link	500 LV	4%	Bush	47%	Kerry	42%	Bush +5
3/4/04	American Research Group	Link	600 LV	4%	Bush	44%	Kerry	45%	Kerry +1
3/4/04	Schroth & Associates	Link	800 RV	3.5%	Bush	43%	Kerry	49%	Kerry +6
3/14/04	Rasmussen	Link	400 LV	5%	Bush	45%	Kerry	48%	Kerry +3
4/1/04	Mason-Dixon	Link	625 RV	4%	Bush	51%	Kerry	43%	Bush +8
4/13/04	Rasmussen Reports	Link	500 LV	5%	Bush	46%	Kerry	47%	Kerry +1

Punditry: Rasmussen says Florida will be 2000 redux. Seems fitting at this stage of the game. Tossup.

---

Summary Table

Effective National Popular Results: Bush 46.1%, Kerry 44.2%

Kerry E					F Bush
Safe	Strong	Lean	Slight	Tossup	Slight	Lean	Strong	Safe
DC (3)	DE (3)	CA (55) K53-B44 3/11/04	-	WV (5) B47-K46 3/24/04	PA (21) B46-K40 3/29/04	AR (6)	SC (8) B52-UD36 7/28/03	AK (3)
HI (4)	VT (3) HD50-B38 10/2/03	IA (7) K51-B41 3/23/04	-	NM (5) B46-K45 4/1/04	WI (10) B49-K45 3/31/04	VA (13) B48-WC33 12/3/03	MS (6) B49-UD29 12/22/03	ND (3)
RI (4) K53-B31 2/7/04	ME (4) K51-B38 3/4/04	MD (10) K48-B43 3/24/04	-	OH (20) B46-K45 4/2/04	NH (4) B48-K43 4/1/04	GA (15) B47-UD43 2/4/04	SD (3) B50-UD39 2/5/04	NE (5)
MA (12) K54-B32 4/5/04	IL (21) K47-B39 3/13/04	MN (10) K50-B38 4/2/04	-	FL (27) K47-B46 4/13/04	NJ (15) B48-K44 4/10/04	NC (15) B51-K43 3/11/04	KY (8) B57-K41 2/16/04	WY (3)
-	CT (7) K52-B33 3/28/04	MI (17) K51-B41 4/4/04	-	OR (7) B47-K45 4/7/04	-	NV (5) B49-K38 3/17/04	KS (6) B57-K39 3/4/04	MT (3) B52-UD27 5/16/03
-	NY (31) K49-B35 4/12/04	WA (11) K46-B41 4/5/04	-	-	-	AZ (10) B51-K42 3/18/04	IN (11) B52-K37 3/24/04	TX (34) B54-K35 3/6/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	TN (11) B52-K41 3/22/04	OK (7) B47-K35 4/04	ID (4) B55-K23 3/17/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	MO (11) B49-K42 3/23/04	LA (9) B52-K38 3/28/04	AL (9) B59-K27 3/18/04
-	-	-	-	-	-	CO (9) B49-K40 4/3/04	-	UT (5) B66-K24 3/25/04
Totals
Kerry States			Battleground States			Bush States
23	69	110	0	64	50	95	58	69
202			114			222

Discuss ECB2004 On Free Republic

---

Last week's quiz:

What two consecutive elections featured the smallest percentage of states that changed from voting for one party in the first but another party in the second?

Leaving out the Washington elections (I didn’t specify, but I meant after the change was made so that the electors were not casting two votes), the first, best answer was given by AuH2ORepublican:

Between 1884 and 1888, only 2 states (NY and IN) switched (both from Democrat Cleveland to Republican B. Harrison), which was only 5.26% of the 38 states then in the Union.

If we only looked at elections since 1912 (when there were 48 or more states in the Union), there were 4 sets of consecutive elections in which only 4 states (or 8.33%, since there were 48 states in ech of those cases) switched: 1920-1924 (OK and TN from R to D, KY from D to R, and WI from R to Progressive); 1932-1936 (NH, CT, PA and DE from R to D); 1940-1944 (WI, OH and WY from D to R, and MI from R to D); and 1952-1956 (LA, KY and WV from D to R, and MO from R to D).

Between 1992 and 1996, 5 states (or 10%) switched parties (MT, CO and GA from D to R, and FL and AZ from R to D). So close, but no cigar.

Give that man a cigar. This week's quiz: Which election featured the first independent media matchup poll, and did it get the election right?

[TomEwall]

I haven't studied these keys, but I do find them interesting, as I said. I was turned off a bit by their attempt to spin the election saying that Gore would have won (and so they would have been right) if black's votes hadn't been invalidated at twice the rate of whites. I hadn't heard that one before.

In the 2000 election Bush had a slight lead going into the weekend, and then, after the DUI thing, the race became a coin flip. So I suppose if the 13 keys were accurate, it should have predicted a Bush victory, unless one of the keys takes into account the DUI thing somehow, in which case it should have predicted it to be very close.

I've got the page bookmarked and intend at some point to look at it more closely. I'm all for trying to understand things better.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

That America has recently faced a 'Clinton-recession' is actually irrelevant, that business is now doing well is potentially irrelevant. What is important is whether people think that the recession was Clinton's, and whether people feel that things are getting better. Economic 'feel-good' is frequently a lagging indicator, indeed most economic effects are better observed in the past.

Indeed. In fact I would almost argue that Bush already has the economic perceptions game wired - the economy is almost bound to continue spinning out good numbers for quite a while, even if things were in fact turning bad right now. Not quite yet, perhaps - but give us good numbers for the next 3 months and it'll be too late for a Kerry-favoring recession to be perceived.

[1L]

Is there a key for voter fraud? In my opinion, that's the only thing standing between Bush and an assured victory.

[no dems]

Let me explain why the poll had Alf Landon beating FDR by a sizeable margin. The poll was done by telephone and the average working person who was an FDR supporter did not have a telephone.

[Tennessean4Bush]

but how do you explain Missouri? (Rasmussen shows a 7 point edge for Bush)

MO will only be competitive if Kerry nominates Gephardt for VP. Kerry will not resonate in the Midwest at all. I think MO is probably a 10-12% lead for Bush.

[no dems]

Do you really believe that Pennsylvania and New Jersey are leaning toward Bush? That's two states he lost in 2000. When I saw that in the poll I almost fell out of my chair. Does anyone out there really believe that GW has a chance of taking PA and NJ?

[BohDaThone]

As to the effect of a call 10 minutes before closing time.

1. I'd be interested in your source for "Dem pollsters saying it cost 8000 votes." I've never seen that.

2. To my knowledge, the "GOP pollster saying 11,000 votes" comes from a regression analysis by John Lott. I can't quarrel with every detail, but it's the same kind of regression that shows that everything causes cancer.

3. There are about 700 precincts in the Central Time Zone. The 11,000 figure would mean that 15+ people left the polls or didn't show in the last 10 minutes, on average, in EVERY POLLING PLACE. I have seen anecdotal accounts of one or two (like the anecdotes of the loons in Palm Beach who screwed up and vote wrong, they claimed), but no serious accounts of big numbers.

4. In 1980, a Dem congressman in California lost by under 1000 votes, when Carter had been called dead 2 hours before. No GOP analyst (or any non-partisan political scientist) believed that an early call ran Dems away from the polls. The panhandle area was no bigger than 2 CD's.

5. So, I don't excuse the networks, but I think it is just fantasy (and a fantasy based on really stupid Republicans -- no one forced them away from voting on all local offices, etc.) to think that thousands of republicans in Florida did not vote becasue of the early call. I ask you -- if it had been reversed, would you have been willing to conced that thousands of Dems were disenfranchised by a 10-minute early call??

[oldtimer]

Surely Kerry's record in Vietnam will finally bleed through despite the leftist media screening - 4 months, 2 superficial wounds probably self induced, followed by an anti American voting record as a Senator.

This leftist Kerry is dangerous to the future of our Country, as he hates our form of Government.

We better pray a lot for GWB.

[AGreatPer]

"Does anyone out there really believe that GW has a chance of taking PA and NJ?"

No way Bush will get either state..

I agree with you.

[no dems]

Do you think the Prez will carry Florida by a more comfortable margin this time or do you think it will be close?

[no dems]

O.k. I have another question: Suppose in October there is another terrorist attack on our soil, albeit not as severe as 9/11; does that hurt or help Bush?

[Tennessean4Bush]

No way Bush will get either state.

PA is in play, as several polls have shown Bush with a significant lead. NJ still has me scratching my head. I mean, if NJ is in play why isn't CA?

[DM1]

I doubt Bush can pick up WA however i have a bit of cautious optimism about PA being picked up. If we do this and retain OH (mighty big IF from what i am hearing) then Kerry will be in serious trouble

[Tennessean4Bush]

Both of the last 2 polls in PA showing Bush with a lead are of registered voters and not likely voters and typically you can add another 2-4% to a pub when likely voters are used.

[Tennessean4Bush]

The last 2 NJ polls also are of RV and not LV. But, like you, it is hard to see NJ going for Bush unless Bush is ahead by 5-7% nationally. If that is the case, then many dems will see the handwriting on the wall and vote for Nader and thus swing some of the typically "leaning Dem" states to Bush.

[kalt]

Actually, Hubert Humphrey (from Minnesota) carried Texas in 1968. But JFK was the last non-Southerner to get as much as 45% in any Southern state (including Kentucky and Oklahoma).

Sort of misleading, though, since the Democrats have only run four non-Southerners since then, and two were against popular incumbents, and a third was in a race with George Wallace in it.

[AGreatPer]

Your both are going to have to excuise me on this one. Why? Because I don't think Kerry will be nominee.

When the previious commanders of Kerry come out in unison saying they did NOT authorize the Purple Hearts, later this year, it is going to hit the fan. Kerry is going to be exposed for piece of (oh, shut me up already) that he is.

Hillary will be the person at the convention. She's getting too old and fatter to wait another 4 years.

With Rendell in PA, we have no chance. NJ with the Hildabeast is a shoo in.

That is why we will lose PA and NJ.

Hey, there is good news. Overall, I think she gets beat by a narrow margin. Yes, that stinkin Florida again.

[Marauder]

Bill Sammon ... "At Any Cost".

I bought and read that book and I remember that stunt. The damned utopian liberals are deviously anti-American. I don't understand why conservatives keep falling for their tricks.

[Ciexyz]

btt

[Lady In Blue]

Have you heard when they will Hussein's trial? Right away or maybe a few months down the road from June 30th? I hope it's in the fall myself!