Kerry faltering in ex-strongholds for Democrats

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

[Alberta's Child]

Swing state ping.

[cyncooper]

Ping!

[Howlin]

But to hear CNN and ABC reports, all that's left for Kerry to do is pick up the keys to the White House and start picking out drapery!

Heck, he's already got the plane with his NAME on it!

[Coop]

but in your graphic I see a 23 point slide for Bush among independents in the past year.

So? Independents are least likely to vote. Bush is running very strong among his base, and his base is more motivated than Kerry's. And he's raised over $200 million from over one million contributors.

[tnlibertarian]

You voted for Perot in '92? And what was your rationale for that?

Did you notice that was my first election? Hey, I was young and naive. At least I learned to ignore the little general by '96.

[JasonC]

Great, he's got money. A second term however hinges on votes not money. There aren't enough votes in the base of either party to win a national election. Independents decide elections. If they split roughly 50-50, then sure, how motivated the base is matters. If they aren't, then that doesn't help. Don't get silly here. Bush needs around 50% of the independent vote.

[Coop]

Not if his turnout is sufficiently larger.

[gathersnomoss]

Well, his plane indicates that he is President you know.

[gathersnomoss]

Saving for rear-widow car poster. Hope you don't mind.

[38special]

That's an easy one! Kerry advocates more tax on gasoline and higher mpg standards for all autos by 2015. That spells death to SUV's , muscle cars, and luxury cars.

[The G Man]

Please do.

[JasonC]

Sufficiently? If he gets 48% of independents maybe, but that is exactly the "close to 50" I said. If he gets only 30 or 40 percent of independents, no achievable turnout differential is going to win him the election. The base groups on both sides are close in size and both are highly motivated this year. Better turnout might bring a few percent overall, a margin of victory. But 90-95% of the variance in "winner" will be explained by "percent of independents". That is just how these things work. Swing voters decide elections.

[Chances Are]

You voted for Perot in '92? And what was your rationale for that?

Did you notice that was my first election? Hey, I was young and naive. At least I learned to ignore the little general by '96.

Well, in that case all is forgiven!

What's your take on the current state of things?

CA....

[tnlibertarian]

What's your take on the current state of things?

That's a little bit of an open ended question, but I assume you are talking about voting for non-mainstream candidates. I did not vote for Bush in 2000. I disagree with much of his domestic agenda. I can't stand the increases in the size and cost of government that we have seen in this administration. I think that the majority of Republicans in power, including those in the White House, have an open contempt for true conservatives. (Just think Toomey) I get frustrated over the people on this forum who, when confronting someone who disagrees with the President, respond by saying, "You aren't going to find someone who agrees with you 100% of the time." I would settle for more than 50%.

That being said, I am a one-issue voter, this time around. That issue is the safety and sovereignty of our country. My opposition to Medicare Drugs or the Department of Education, etc. doesn't matter a whole lot when a nuke is detonated in Manhattan. Therefore, the only choice is to support our current Commander-in-Chief and do anything in our power to make sure that Bush stays in that position.

[Chances Are]

An intelligent post intelligently thought through. I agree with much of what you say. These are difficult times, and the future is fraught with danger. One of my fears is the Ronnie came 20 years too soon, but there's not much we can do about that, is there?

CA....