1984 Flashback: Convention bounce puts Mondale even with Reagan.
Actual results after reagan and mondale being tied after the democratic convention:
Posted on 08/04/2004 8:17:17 AM PDT by bertmerc1
Current status: Kerry 224 Bush 187
How bout a little more information before we all quit and go home?
No point in voting now. (sarcasm)
As somebody on this board posts, the only poll I'll believe is the poll on election day.
After the 70% vote against gay marriage in Missouri, I'm beginning to think he's got the right idea.
From what I was reading they expected the vote to be in the mid 50's to 60 percent against gay marriage. The result was much better than they had hoped.
I don't buy this poll AT ALL. This guy has Louisiana, my state, leaning strong Kerry. Bush is up about 15% here. There were 50 protesters when Edwards was speaking in Baton Rouge. Sorry, but this poll has no credibility in my book.
Ooops. My bad. I just realized blue is the Bush color.
"From what I was reading they expected the vote to be in the mid 50's to 60 percent against gay marriage. The result was much better than they had hoped."
Ah HA! You're catching on. There are a whole lot of other dynamics at play in this election than what the polls are saying. I think the media is overlooking other indicators that will give Bush a wide margin win in November. I don't think it will be a landslide victory but it will be wider than the media expects.
He has Lousiana strong for BUSH.
It also shows Michigan firmly behind Kerry but none of the polls show that to be true.
Bush is going to win in a landslide.
Welcome to FR!
LOL, if they are only giving Kerry a slight advantage in NJ this race is over.
John Kerry is a poor campaigner, Teresa Kerry is a walking, talking bomb, and John Edwards adds little to the campaign. Given that the Kerry lead is marginal even in reliably Democratic states like MN and NJ, the electoral map is unreliable. My guess is that Bush will win 53-54% of the popular vote and receive about 350 electoral votes. He will carry all his 2000 states and add PA, IA, WI, (surprisingly) MN, OR, and NM to the total, and maybe even MI and DE.
Did you read the column in the NY Daily News this morning? One of the bigtime dem's said you read it hear first. Kerry is going to lose.
This estimate looks pretty close to actual. The only states that I have problems with are Ohio and West Virginia. If you look at most current polls on Ohio, they seem to have this state at least slightly leaning to Bush. And West Virginia is at least a toss up if not a slight lean to Bush. I have the race as - Bush 274 and Kerry 264. I have given Bush West Virginia, Ohio, and Missouri. What I think is essentially going to happen is that you have Bush winning every state he won in 2000 except New Hampshire.
http://www.nydailynews.com
Why Bush is going to win
Wednesday, August 4th, 2004
In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon." I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November.
It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the Red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland.
This alone might be enough to put Bush over the top in a tight race. But despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves. Since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate.
John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.
These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans.
Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972.
Kerry now has 90 days to convince voters that a Bush victory in November would be, as his wife put it in Milwaukee on Monday, "four more years of hell."
The problem is, most Americans don't regard their lives as "hell" or Bush as Satan. The economy, after all, is not really in a Great Depression. In fact, it's doing pretty well. Iraq isn't Vietnam, and won't be unless there's a draft. The Islamic jihad against America isn't Bush's fault, either. A candidate who insists otherwise is bound to strike voters as detached from reality.
Kerry ought to know this, and he may. But his party is dominated, as it was in 1972, by people who talk only to one another and who are convinced that everybody despises Bush. They will judge Kerry by how hard he goes after the Crawford Beelzebub.
Right now the polls look even. But that's an optical illusion. The President has a Republican convention coming up and the power of incumbency to shape events between now and November. In other words, he's way ahead.
Kerry is a weak campaigner. Barring some kind of national disaster, his best shot is the debates. Democratic true believers think he'll kill Bush, one on one. That's what they thought about Al Gore, too.
Calling a presidential race in August is risky, especially a race that's supposedly close. But no guts, no glory. Bush will beat Kerry in a walk. If I'm right, you read it here first. If not, well, even Pauline Kael got it wrong once in a while.
Kerry is viewed as an excellent closer.
(IOW he has good conections for vote fraud)
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.