Lando 
Posted on 05/04/2004 8:59:52 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
A rapid-paced afternoon-long briefing for supporters of the Free Congress Foundation last week produced one "can you top this" presentation after another:
Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) reported on the latest developments in the effort to stop the Law of the Sea Treaty. He also told the group of his efforts to deny federal funds to extremist groups whose views are not based on valid scientific data. Right now he is working on so-called environmental groups.
Rep. Roy Blunt explained the strategy of the House leadership regarding the passage of appropriations bills. He believes that the House can pass all 13 appropriations bills before the election, but he also is sure that the Senate will not do so. Thus, he predicts that there will likely be a lame duck session of Congress.
Matt Schlapp, the White House Political Director, briefed the group on the unprecedented effort of the Bush-Cheney operation to build an organization that will be superior to the one that produced the surprising results in 2002. He also said that the President is not just concerned about winning himself but is lending extraordinary assistance to Senate and House candidates wherever needed.
In past re-election efforts, such as Richard Nixon in 1972, Gerald Ford in 1976, Ronald Reagan in 1984 and George Bush '41 in1992, the Presidential candidates concentrated almost exclusively on themselves even to the exclusion of Congressional candidates. Bush's effort is truly the exception to the rule.
Arkady Murashev, a key leader of the democratic forces in Russia, gave a rather optimistic view of what is taking place there. He believes that the Duma, now dominated for the first time by a party loyal to President Putin, will pass reforms that have been stopped by the Communists since the first semi-free elections in 1989. He said that almost everything we read about what is happening in Russia in the American media is erroneous. Murashev, a close associate of Free Congress for the past 15 years, has an extraordinary record of being correct when the rest of the commentators have been reporting the opposite of what he has predicted.
Vice President Dick Cheney captivated the group with a concise review of the Administration's foreign policy and what he believes it has achieved. He replied to questions in the same context for over half an hour. The group was very grateful that the Vice President would take the time to have a dialogue with them.
But it was pollster John Zogby who gave the most intriguing briefing. Zogby has to be taken seriously because he got it right when almost all the pollsters had it wrong in 2000. He also caught the slight tilt toward the Republicans on the eve of the 2002 elections.
What he told the group upset most of them -- but his message came through loud and clear. While most pollsters view this election as Bush's to lose, he believes this election is Kerry's to lose.
He said that usually at this time of year, 20-25% of the electorate is undecided, but this year there only 5% of the electorate is undecided. Finding such people when polling is becoming exceedingly difficult, he told us. Moreover, the soft vote, that is the people who MIGHT be persuaded to vote for the other guy, is only 10% -- a historic low.
Zogby believes that this election most resembles that of 1800 when John Adams was running for re-election. Thomas Jefferson was his opponent. He surprised the group by reciting some of the nasty things that were said by both sides in that election. Zogby said that when we hear that this is the nastiest election in history, it is not necessarily the case.
Zogby went on to detail his thesis that there really are two Americas. The social and political differences between the "blue" states, which Al Gore carried in 2000, and the "red" states, which Bush carried in that election, are profound in every category and becoming more so.
Thus, Bush is really trying to carry those states that he carried in 2000 plus a few others while Kerry is trying to keep what Gore carried. If he can just add a state or two to the Gore total...Kerry wins. Zogby suggested it might be possible for Bush to carry the popular vote but lose the election, the reverse of what happened in 2000 when Gore had more than a half million votes more than Bush.
Zogby told us that while this is Kerry's election to lose, he might just lose it. He absolutely dismissed suggestions that are coming up from both the left and right that Kerry is proving to be such a bad candidate he might be replaced. He thinks Kerry will rise to the occasion at the end of the campaign, when it counts.
Zogby said to remember Gov. Bill Weld, who was thought to be the favorite against Kerry but who lost a close election when Kerry came alive and beat him. He said Kerry, like Bush in 2000, is constantly underestimated. He thinks veterans will be crucial in this election and right now Kerry has an edge with veterans because he has emphasized them so much and because there is some dissatisfaction with the way that Bush is handling the war. That however, according to Zogby, could change.
While most re-election campaigns tend to be decisive, that is, we re-elect the incumbent overwhelmingly (think Reagan or Clinton) or we toss him out of office by a wide margin (think Hoover or Carter), Zogby believes this election, barring some unforeseen events, is going to be another nail-biter. He insists that Ohio is this year's Florida, although the White House disputes that. They believe they have an excellent chance to carry Ohio. No Republican in modern times has won the Presidency without Ohio.
After this daylong briefing, which began at noon and ended at 6 p.m., we adjourned to dinner, where the buzz was all about Zogby's comments. The participants in the briefing were all influential people. Zogby shook them to the core.
Perhaps that is a good development.
(Paul M. Weyrich is chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.)
Lando
I keep thinking this election more resembles 1864, where Lincoln was actually depressed that he might not even get re-nominated. Certainly he didn't think he'd be re-elected because of the negative war news. Yet in the fall, there were great victories at Atlanta and Mobile, and he won in a landslide.
The news from Iraq really can't get any worse: prisoner abuse scandals, the debate over whether or not to "take" Fallujah, "heavy" casualties (by Iraq war standards), bombings. At some point, the scales will tip overwhelmingly in our favor. If you look at, say, 1943 in the midst of WW II, Kursk had not been decided; we were still "bogged down" in the S. Pacific and hadn't really re-taken many Japanese possessions; the Italian offensive was going poorly. Yet within a few months, virtually all of it was decided.
Thus, Bush is really trying to carry those states that he carried in 2000 plus a few others while Kerry is trying to keep what Gore carried. If he can just add a state or two to the Gore total...Kerry wins.
He contradicts his own point. Bush just needs to hold those states he already won, and he’ll beat Kerry by more electoral votes than he beat Gore.
None of those states appear to be in great jeopardy. But there’s a few Gore states (Pennsylvania comes to mind) that are clearly tilting towards Bush.
The Republicans must get out all the facts about Kerry to all the people.
We here can list all the facts, but the bulk of the population only care about American Idol and the other mindless shows on TV.
Those people will make their decision based on their feelings and the limited info that they get from the liberal media.
That is why the true Kerry facts must be stated and debated so that the sheeple understand that we cannot afford a leader like this at this critical time of terrorists with the possibility of WMDs.
I understand why Weyrich is glad Zogby came along to scare some folks out of their complacency. However, as a practical matter, Zogby is talking out of his ideology more than the facts.
This part I agree with. I'm in the trenches here in what would normally be a moderate to conservative Republican area, and I've noticed "Kerry for President" bumper stickers popping up like the dandelions on my lawn recently. Not a good sign for the good guys, IMO. Kerry is clobbering Bush in OH on the outsourcing/trade/jobs issue, and the Bush team has yet to respond to it effectively, much less take the offensive. In fact, they seem to be doing the opposite, shooting themselves in the foot, sending dolts like John Snow and Gregory Mankiw out to run their lousy sewers about how "outsourcing is good for the economy", and how "unemployment is good for you, just shut up and take it". With "allies" like these, Bush has more than Kerry to worry about.
I don't think this statement is correct. Everyone was calling the 2000 race extremely close. Zogby missed badly on his state by state polls. In 2002, even the CBS/NYT poll caught the late and decisive shift to the Republicans (along with many others, such as Gallup). If I remember correctly, in 2002 Zogby thought that the Democrats were going to do better in the House and Senate races than just about everyone else. In sum, he's overrated.
Did Zogby forget that election was in Massachusetts, the home of Ted kennedy?
...Zogby suggested it might be possible for Bush to carry the popular vote but lose the election, the reverse of what happened in 2000 when Gore had more than a half million votes more than Bush...
Gore had more than a half million more of the tabulated votes. In states where the number of absentee ballots would not affect the total, those absentee votes remain uncounted. One cannot know the total of popular votes separating the two when "all the votes" are not counted.
As a PA Freeper, I hope that the Republicans in the state unite behind our party, instead of continuing to try to tear it apart. That would only work to the Democrats' advantage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.