Posted on 07/22/2004 12:09:08 PM PDT by COURAGE
Mermaid, go back to DU already.
Fiscal leftism follows social leftism. You can't create a Thelma and Louise climate in a state without the Democrats coming, sooner or later, to claim it.
Live, learn, get right with dads, and try to go conservative again. Most singles vote Democrat, while most marrieds vote Republican.
"I hope Rove have something up his sleeves,"
If he does, its probably a cyanide capsule so he's not captured alive.
I think Rove has been an unmitigated disater, that he has manoevered Bush into positions on various issues like illegal aliens, gun control and campaign reform which were neither in Bush's nor the nation's best interest, and his campaing assistance thus far has generated a very poor showing.
He could be pulling his punches, waiting for the last minute to hit Kerry with a series of Zingers but knowing the Dems, they are doing the same thing - and still fighting now, but the Repubs are apparently just holding down the fort.
Naw.
You want worse? Think 1992.
As for money - You are forgetting 527's - when they are added in GWB will lose the money race by over $150 million - Again, facts matter. - That doesn't mean GWB will lose....but it does mean we can not sit back with a false premise that we have more money then Kerry - we do not. (as of today that is).
I quit taking the KC Star five years ago do to its hard left slant. The President will win Missouri by five or six points. BUSH 2004!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dole was worst, but this may break them both if it continues.
I'd love to wager with you, because I play the odds. However, your meager attempt to try to back up your weak claims does not relate to our discussion. If you can come up with a way to prove in November that Bush cannot [nobody has used the words "will" or "will not"- it's all about the realm of what's possible] win without MO, then by all means I'll put up some money.
I'd be happy to watch you tap dance. :-)
I'd love for you to back up your claim that Rove yanked money out of FL, WI, etc.
I'd love for you to back up your claim that Rove yanked money out of FL, WI, etc.
Now Coop - I am the one who said originally....that if you were just playing the advocate (to Courage) for the purpose of playing the advocate....that was one thing - But if you were seriously trying to suggest that GWB will win without MO - that is complete different thing - (and I made that point clear) -
So again, I will make the statement - if GWB does not win MO he will not win in NOV - All those who are following the this race with the least bit of intellectually honest will say as much - If MO were to go Kerry - well then whatever "winds" that would cause Missourians to push toward a Kerry Presidency (and away from GWB) would most likely (almost certainly) cause a shift throughout the Midwest as well - (again, simple history tells us this - in fact Dales as a whole segment on this within his site) -
Courage was never suggesting "mathematically" it was impossible for GWB to win without MO - he was just trying to have an intellectually honest discussion without have to give an * at the end of each statement -
And his words ring by far more accurate then yours -
Courage says - GWB needs MO if he plans to win in NOV -
Coop you say - GWB does not need MO and he'll still win in NOV -
If GWB doesn't carry MO - he won't win - Now there is nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact - that doesn't make one a pessimist ....
You know, the WORST about the Bush campaign failing is not the possibility that Kerry will be the next president, direful as that may be.
No, the WORST part will be the cries from the Republican left - the McCains, the Tom Keans, the Chrissie Whitmans, the Olympia Snowes, the Lincoln Chafees, the Rudy Giulianis, etc. that a conservative agenda will not sell to the American public and that , nect time, they should nominate a Democrat Light - like one of them - somebody who approves of baby-killing, opposes school vouchers, dosen't support the Second Amendment, supports Judicial activism, opposes the death penalty, supports bi-lingualism, supports open borders, opposes tax cuts, supports atheization of the American way of life, opposes school vouchers, and wants to cuddle up to the U.N., the Frogs and the other degenerate Europeans.
THAT'S the WORST consequence of a Republican defeat in 2004.
COURAGE: but Bush must take Mo.
Coop: No, he mustn't.
See? It's really quite simple. Bush does not need MO to win. Will I be worried as heck if he loses MO on Election Night? You bet. But I'm just weary of all these "Bush has to win [xxxx] or he loses the election!" proclamations. OH has been the favorite "terminal" state this year, followed by FL. So at least now we've got some variety with MO. And then we have a lot of folks giving us the "must win two of these three" - usually FL and the Midwest states.
Maybe I'll start posting "Kerry must win Rhode Island!" everywhere.
Meanwhile I'm looking at the electoral map from 2000 and today, looking at polling numbers, fundraising, etc. President Bush has many more options than John F'in Kerry does.
But for anyone willing to be intellectually honest - the case is clear...if GWB were to fail to win MO or FL the likely hood of him winning is about zero -
The SAME could be said for Kerry - if Kerry loses NY,CA or PA - the likely hood of him winning is Zero! -
Now that isn't being pessimistic...that is being a realist -
For you to have suggested on another post that GWB doesn't need FL - it is just too silly -
That's just wrong.
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.