Kerry faltering in ex-strongholds for Democrats

The Washington Times ^ | 5/25/04 | Donald Lambro

[DM1]

Several states once seen as "solidly" behind Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, including Michigan and New Jersey, have turned into battlegrounds where President Bush is a serious contender.

Months ago, Michigan and New Jersey, which are heavily unionized and voted for Al Gore in 2000, were considered beyond Mr. Bush's reach. Now, despite the president's falling national approval rating for his handling of the Iraq war, pollsters say the economic recovery and perception of the president as a strong leader have turned both states in his direction.

[tnlibertarian]

Well, I think that, for the betterment of our country, I have decided to not vote for Bush as I previously planned and instead, I will be voting for John F. Kerry this year. Now wait, hear me out. This will be the fourth Presidential election I have been able to vote in. In 1992, I voted for Perot. In 1996, Dole. In 2000, Harry Brown. With that streak going for me, I figure if I vote for Kerry, he has no chance at all of winning.

[megatherium]

We'll be in for a white-knuckle campaign this fall. Kerry has a history of winning tough campaigns; he is a tenacious fighter.

Frankly, I think Gore's campaign faltered because Gore is not particularly bright. All the talk was about Bush's alleged lack of intelligence, but Gore's ineptitude as a campaigner (e.g., the frequent and insincere image changes) did his campaign in. Kerry, on the other hand, is not stupid.

[Terpfen]

I believe you meant...

"We'll be in for a white-knuckle campaign this fall. Kerry has a history of winning tough campaigns; he is a tenacious fighter whiner."

[Bombard]

Misunderestimation!!!!!!!!!!!

[hobbes1]

Hail to my genius ping.


It only took them a month to get on the same page.

[THX 1138]

We'll be in for a white-knuckle campaign this fall. Kerry has a history of winning tough campaigns; he is a tenacious fighter.

Thing is, he's been in tough campaigns in what is arguably the most liberal state in the country.

What's that tell you...?

[maryz]

Wasn't it a few weeks or a month or so ago that someone posted that Kerry was finding it advisable to spend on ads in California and Massachusetts?

[DM1]

at least vote for Nader instead

[tnlibertarian]

I thought about voting for Nader, but if whoever I vote for is destined to lose, I thought it better to jinx Kerry. I will still put the Bush bumper sticker on the ole Jeep and encourage others to vote for him, but I am afraid to be the cause of his defeat. Wait, maybe it's the bumper sticker on my car that causes my candidate to lose. Now I don't know what to do.

[Dan from Michigan]

He's had tough fights in Massachusetts, one of the three most democrat states in the union.(Hawaii and Rhode Island others)

He's never had to fight in the rust belt midwest, the Rocky Mtns, South, or West. It's all new ground to him.

And Kerry has a even more harsher personality than Alwhore.

[olde north church]

NJ doesn't have a high population of muslims, you just imagined you saw them dancing and laughing when the towers went down.

[megatherium]

Dan from Michigan wrote: He's had tough fights in Massachusetts, one of the three most democrat states in the union.(Hawaii and Rhode Island others)

Good point. Let us hope he does tank in the rest of the country. Perhaps a good sign is he's trying to reposition himself in the middle; that won't be very convincing.

[Chances Are]

You voted for Perot in '92?

And what was your rationale for that?

CA....

[JasonC]

Well, I like the news in the article, but in your graphic I see a 23 point slide for Bush among independents in the past year. With a strong economy and increased job growth recently. That isn't good, and Iraq and media coverage of it are clearly responsible.

[JasonC]

I agree that Bush will do better the more people see of Kerry. He will run under the banner "I'm not Bush". For the rest, he'd prefer to be a completely blank sheet of paper. But the election is more likely to be a referendum on Bush's Iraq performance than anything else. That is what Kerry wants, and it is mostly what he will get.

[Chaguito]

Think Torricelli

[colorado tanker]

It's not all about Iraq. The media have been lying about the economy and have a large percentage convinced we're still in recession. That lie is starting to unravel since the truth about the economy is now so good. So, I expect the indy numbers to stabilize and begin to pickup in the near future.

[JasonC]

An expectation isn't a reality. Jobs have been improving for 4 months. Bush's numbers haven't been. Clearly, there is no close time relationship between them. The obvious reason why is that news from Iraq dominates poll movements. I want Bush to win as much as anybody does. But mushy thinking does not help bring this about.

[colorado tanker]

Clearly, there is no close time relationship between them

Uh, no, there isn't. That's why it takes several months of good economic numbers before the poll numbers begin to move.

[small voice in the wilderness]

Ah, good news. Time for kerry to start panicking. Along with the rest of the dems. Meanwhile, W. is steady as she goes. Boston should prove the first in a REAL panick attack. what do they do?? how?when?where?who? ...can't breathe...need air...need savior,.where's hillary...BWHAHAHAHA!!!!