Why Kerry Will Win (Joe Farah wallowing in the fever swamps of kookery)

41 posted on 04/21/2004 3:21:12 PM PDT by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)

To: AfghanIraqVeteran

What history? I will include you in my Rosary this week.

42 posted on 04/21/2004 3:22:37 PM PDT by Burkeman1 ("I said the government can't help you. I didn't say it couldn't hurt you." Chief Wiggam)

What one wants to be true and what one suspects will be true are two different things. He may well be right. I never believed the country would elect Clinton, but it did (twice)! Now there's no Perot in this race, and Pat Buchanan isn't involved either, but it will be a very close election, and come down to a handful of states. Those who think President Bush is wildly popular because they like or admire him are deceiving themselves. Bush's ace in the hole is that people will get fed up with Kerry before the election, but if the economy and Iraq look bad, he may well lose.

43 posted on 04/21/2004 3:23:40 PM PDT by x

To: Radio_Liberty

For the question of whether Kerry or Bush will win, it's not necessary to speculate on the more sensationalist allegations and anomalies. As a Republican "conservative" (or whatever), Bush has been a disaster as a president. Potentially he will unravel everything that those of us who worked many years to elect Ronald Reagan managed to accomplish.

We will have Kerry Supreme Court justices, Kerry tax policies, Kerry socialized medicine, and Kerry-Kerry-Kerry on the news every night for at least four years. A lot of things could happen between now and November. However, either these oil mafia boys in the White House are the biggest morons ever to carry the "conservative" mantle or...worse.

None of this had to happen.

44 posted on 04/21/2004 3:24:22 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

To: Radio_Liberty

This is real minor stuff compared with the serious problems we face in the world in the war on terror.

A war BUSH WILL WIN and

KERRY WONT FIGHT.

Easy choice: Bush.

45 posted on 04/21/2004 3:25:51 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - I salute our brave fallen.)

Unfortunately, I believe he is right.

He's nuts, but who'd expect you to recognize it?

46 posted on 04/21/2004 3:26:14 PM PDT by Southflanknorthpawsis

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

Bush tax cuts and Bush pro-life legislation and Bush defying ICC, Kyoto, etc. G W Bush has been the most Reagan-like President since, er, since Reagan.

KERRY IS ANOTHER JIMMY CARTER.

47 posted on 04/21/2004 3:30:43 PM PDT by WOSG (http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com - I salute our brave fallen.)

Because if we let it fester it goes right back to rule of the jungle and becomes a breeding ground for terrorists again. We've got to beat the them in Iraq. If W doesn't get elected they're going to come at us, hard. If he does they will quietly fade away.

48 posted on 04/21/2004 3:30:46 PM PDT by johnb838 ("I really don't care; they're all gonna die," US Marine in Fallujah)

Hey Joe, the RATS just threw the kitchen sink at Bush and he gained 5%. I think you should be put out to pasture with the rest of the libs in the media for blatant stupidity.

49 posted on 04/21/2004 3:36:02 PM PDT by John Lenin

To: HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

---We will have Kerry Supreme Court justices, Kerry tax policies, Kerry socialized medicine, and Kerry-Kerry-Kerry on the news every night for at least four years.---

And that will be the good stuff!

50 posted on 04/21/2004 3:43:05 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)

They're coming to take me away, HA HA
They're coming to take me away, HO HO HEE HEE HA HA
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I'll be happy to see
Those nice, young men
In their clean, white coats
And they're coming to take me away, Ha-haaa!

51 posted on 04/21/2004 3:46:52 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (I am in school, studying and working 10-12 hours a day. So you might not get a response quickly.)

Well, with a little luck, and judging from the mileage Mommy Theresa is tacking up on the campaign trail, Kerry will probably start pronging a few interns and deliver a good ol' liberal Democrat sex scandal or two.

Keep in mind, even WITHOUT the controversies of a weird Middle East war directed by oil corporation alumni, the U.S. voters ushered in sleazeball Bill Clinton TWICE. We had eight years of collective national insanity.

52 posted on 04/21/2004 3:48:20 PM PDT by HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity

To: Sans-Culotte

I believe Worldnetdaily will be removed from my "favorites" list. I always thought he was a religious nut case anyway.

53 posted on 04/21/2004 3:50:45 PM PDT by fuzzycat

To: Radio_Liberty

Wilson on the war....carry on with the same policies as their predecessors but avoid the blame.

OK, I'm game. What was Taft's policy on WWI?

54 posted on 04/21/2004 3:55:29 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin

good analysis. reminded me of how to look at the numbers. thanks.

55 posted on 04/21/2004 3:58:05 PM PDT by King Prout (poets and philosophers should NEVER pretend to Engineering... especially SOCIAL Engineering!)

This is what Dicky Morris has to say:

POST OPINION

Classified	</tr
Classroom Extra
Comics
Coupons
Games
Home Delivery
Horoscope
Lottery
Newsletters
Post Store
Post Winners
Special Sections
Traffic
TV Week
Weather


	Win A Trip On Queen Mary 2

	MTA Subway Centennial

	Mardi Gras Events Schedule


Listings & Features

The Rhythm of Latin New York

Search Sale & Rental Listings

Every Tuesday

Search Archives

DUBYA IN TROUBLE

Email	Archives
Print	Reprint

April 20, 2004 -- BOTH of the polling organizations that track the presidential race in daily surveys have concluded that the contest has settled into a stalemate. Scott Rasmussen reports that for eight of the last nine days, President Bush has gotten 45 to 46 percent of the vote, while Sen. John Kerry ranged from 44 to 46 percent. John Zogby shows Kerry ahead by three and reports little movement either way.

This "tie" is terrible news for the Bush camp.

One of the (very few) immutable laws of politics is that the undecided vote almost always goes against the incumbent. Consider the past seven presidential elections in which an incumbent ran (1964, '72, '76, '80, '84, '92, and '96) - that is, look at the final vote versus the last Gallup or Harris polls. My analysis shows that the challengers (Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Mondale, Perot, Clinton, and Dole) got 85 percent of the undecided vote. Even incumbents who won got only 15 percent of those who reported that they were undecided in the final polls.

So . . . when Bush and Kerry are tied, the challenger really has the upper hand.

More bad news for Bush: Democrats usually grow 2-3 points right before Election Day as downscale voters who have not paid much attention to the election, suddenly tune in and "come home" to their traditional Democratic Party moorings. Remember, virtually every poll (except Zogby) showed Bush slightly ahead of Al Gore as the 2000 election approached - yet Gore outpolled Bush by 500,000 votes.

I had thought - and hoped - that Bush could open up a big lead in the two months after Kerry locked up the Democratic nomination. After all, Kerry is, in fact, way too liberal for the average American voter. But Bush's negative ads - though good, plentiful, and on target - lost their impact in April.

What happened? Iraq. The surprising casualties of this disastrous month let Kerry skate by the avalanche of attack ads relatively unscathed. And by now, Bush may have lost the ability to define Kerry

Lying behind the bad news for Bush is his inability to appeal to women in the campaign. His "stand firm" press conference last week was entirely male-oriented. His tough words and determination to defend the cause of the "fallen" resonated well with men but crashed among women.

The genders see the War on Terror in totally different terms. Rasmussen reports that men, by 51 percent to 36 percent, say that the U.S. is safer than it was before 9/11. But women are evenly divided, with 41 percent feeling more safe and 42 percent, less.

Women disagree with the entire Bush strategy of fighting terrorism. Offered a choice between "letting terrorists know we will fight back aggressively" and "working with other nations," men opt for fighting aggressively by 53 to 41 percent while women want us to work with other nations instead by 54 to 36 percent - a gender gap of 30 points.

To bounce back, Bush obviously has to staunch the bleeding in Iraq. But he also has to appeal to women voters as he did in 2000.

Then, he was a "compassionate conservative" committed to leaving "no child behind." Now he needs to speak of the human toll exacted by Saddam Hussein when he ran Iraq. He should speak about saving the children of that beleaguered nation. At home, he has to explain why a democratic - or at least a stable - Iraq means more safety for our families. He should discard the military-macho rhetoric and the bureaucratic references to American "credibility" and focus on values, human beings, children and hope.

If Bush permanently alienates women by his words and tone in the War on Terror, he'll throw away the issue that he needs to carry him into a second term.

Breindel Award 2004 | Competition Criteria | Entry Form

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc. Copyright 2004 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

56 posted on 04/21/2004 4:06:57 PM PDT by COURAGE

President Bush is now leading 51.5% to 41.5% (in the most favorable poll for JFK) over Senator Kerry in those states that Gore lost in 2000.

Are you stating that President Bush has at least a 10 point lead in every state that he won in 2000? If not, is President Bush ahead in every state he won in 2000?

57 posted on 04/21/2004 4:17:17 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin

I can't do that. I won't do that. I won't cast a vote for a candidate who doesn't really support the Constitution of the United States, even though he takes an oath to uphold it. I will not vote for a candidate for president who increased spending — not just defense spending, but all spending — so dramatically. I don't believe we'll ever get real political choices as Americans if we keep making the mistake of supporting the lesser of two evils.

Sounds like he belongs to the Constitution Party that some on this site have been promoting. So flame me but looks at the poll on FR that showed the percentage.

58 posted on 04/21/2004 4:19:19 PM PDT by BushisTheMan

Democrats will ramp up their hype and scare tactics to the max before the election. You know, the whole 'Bush causes end of world, squanders everything' fear factor crap.

I was browsing DU where there is quite a bit of uncertainty as well as the usual hateful stupidity lately. They were discussing whether Bush or Kerry had the lead in the Hispanic vote. And I paraphrase:

"Everyone knows that Hispanics who are new to the US vote overwhelmingly Democratic. It's only the Hispanics who have been in the US for a few generations that vote Republican."

Now think about that statement for a minute. Poor, disoriented, unemployed, non-English speaking folks run to the Dems in droves for a quick handout. But once they adapt and become Americans, they run the other direction.

59 posted on 04/21/2004 4:32:05 PM PDT by Sender (Gorelick Knew!)

"Kerry is a dangerous man – and I think he's going to be the next president."

You're right, Farah, Kerry's a dangerous man. But he won't be president.

60 posted on 04/21/2004 5:02:23 PM PDT by Dark Glasses and Corncob Pipe (14, 15, 16...whatever!)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794