Three reasons Bush will win

AFFBrainwash.com ^ | July 12th, 2004 | David Freddoso

[Remember_Salamis]

"Same-Sex Marriage: This issue will directly affect the presidential contest in two important states: Michigan and Oregon. Voters there will be deciding on state constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage. This will create a strong turnout on the social Right in two states where self-identified Republicans and Democrats are already near parity."

-- Good point for these swing states. Bush only lost Oregon by 0.44%.

[Lady In Blue]

Excellent and very encouraging thread. Thanks.

[LouisWu]

Being the eternal pessimist, I'm still not prepared to forecast victory...

however...

my inner child is sure grinnin' over the thought of a big ol' landslide.

[EGPWS]

Next to Kerry, Edwards looks positively hawkish.

LoL's! If the lib's are going to run on this as an agenda, after slamming the absolutely brilliant Dick Cheney the way that they have, they are going to follow the same track of self destruction that they have followed in the past.

[Reagan79]

While Bush may win there is no way he is going to take 56% - to 58%. I don't even think Reagan had that wide a percentage over Mondale and he won 49 states. Bush can really help his chances if he hits Kerry harder over his radical liberal voting record. No way that would play in most of those swing states.

[ChocChipCookie]

Are you looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney debate as much as I am? hehehe

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping - I think this will still work, right, guys?

Reason number two is the salient point here. I didn't even get to reason number three before pinging you all. I agree with the writer.

Let me know if anyone wants on/off this pinglist.

BTW, I *think* someone freepmailed me that (s)he wanted on the list. I *think* I forgot to add him/her. Just letting you know, if you are the one!

[summer]

Reasons #4 Why Bush Will Win

4. Kerry really is the most boring speaker on the planet. Some swing voters will simply vote against him being on tv for the next 4 years.

[summer]

Reason #4 Why Bush Will Win

4. Kerry really is the most boring speaker on the planet. Some swing voters will simply vote against him being on tv for the next 4 years.

[EGPWS]

Are you looking forward to the Edwards-Cheney debate as much as I am? hehehe

More so! For as Dubya has performed superb as POTUS, Dick Cheney would be a welcome replacement in Dubya's absence!

On the other hand, if JFK were POTUS, we would be in a quagmire, however in his absence, we would all be sued to remedy the situation,

[Remember_Salamis]

Reason #5:

Kerry doesn't meet the "threshhold of electability" needed to gain public office. Other candidates who haven't met this standard include: Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, and RFK wouldn't have met this standard if he weren't assassinated.

[Remember_Salamis]

Reagan had 58.77% of the vote. BTW, Reagan almost won 50 states; 3,700 votes in minnesota and Reagan wins all 50.

[Rooivalk]

If the lib's are going to run on this as an agenda, after slamming the absolutely brilliant Dick Cheney the way that they have, they are going to follow the same track of self destruction that they have followed in the past

Lets help Kerry lose. Its up to us to get out there and energize our base. We can do this. Lets win!

[McGavin999]

my inner child is sure grinnin' over the thought of a big ol' landslide.

Your inner child is a lot better behaved than mine. Mine has thrown itself on the floor, kicking and screaming "I want a landslide, I want a landslide"

[mhx]

And Nixon had 60.67% of the vote in 1972 and 49 states. And as we all know, no one voted for Nixon! :-)

[Susannah]

" Both Kerry and Edwards will complain about the war’s particulars, but Kerry has no right to do so. He’s the one who drew up the Bush War Plan, letter by letter, in a September 2002 op-ed in the New York Times—including the part about a unilateral invasion if the United Nations fails to act."

The New York Times September 2002 op-ed referred to should be dug up soon and distributed in the anti-war states.

I've heard a number of people being interviewed on local channels here in California saying that they are voting for Kerry because Bush sent the nation to war. Can you imagine the impact for the election if Californians are mobilized against Kerry?

[claudiustg]

Reason #6

I've been doing a lot of traveling lately. Every time I check into a motel and flip on the TV it's tuned to Fox News. I don't think people that watch Fox News are voting for Kerry.

[BJungNan]

The three reason Bush will win

One, Two and Three

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: Nixon 1972

From an Oct., 1972 "news" item by an employee of the mainstream media of yesteryear

"If Caddell's [Patrick Caddell, Senator McGovern's poll-taker] current soundings are correct (bear in mind that Caddell, alone among the pollsters, has been consistently correct this year), McGovern has a good chance to defeat Nixon in most, if not all, of the more populous states."

Uh.. McGovern won Massachusetts does that count? Nixon won the other 49.

Nixon's job rating was below 50 percent, his handling of the war was in the 30s. Earlier in the year he and McGovern were 41 - 41. Wallace had 18 but of course Gov. Wallace was eliminated by one Arthur Bremer.

Thirty percent of Democrats favored Nixon in Oct. (Part of the Democrat Party was still a traditional, patriotic political party in those days. It had not completely gone over.)

Nixon won 520 to 17 electoral votes. Bush over whatzhisname will be a little closer.

[Arnold Zephel]

Bush will win. I don't know if it will be by the wide margin predicted by David Freddoso in the article. People continually underestimate Bush, to their peril. I was one of those people. In 2000, I felt that Bush was way too moderate and too eager to compromise. Like many others I felt that Bush's extemporaneous speaking abilities, or should I say inabilities, would be his downfall in the debates in 2000, but he was himself and Gore was over prepared and Bush made him look foolish. While I don't agree with all of his policies, especially when it comes to spending, I have to say he ended up being more conservative and decisive than I anticipated.

I worry about this election, but not about the outcome, I am worried about the slash and burn tactics employed by the Democrats and there long term affects on our culture.

I have underestimated Bush in the past on several occasions and have been proven wrong. I won't make the same mistake with regard to this election. Bush's rhetoric is moderate and somewhat muted, but when he acts, he acts decisively and conservatively. Bush has a strong core of beliefs, that is what people consciously or unconsciously look for in a leader, and Kerry has no core.

Barring a devastating October surprise, Bush will bury Kerry