Posted on 09/03/2004 5:08:34 AM PDT by SJackson
Look at Reagan's first landslide and then his more resounding reelection. Look at the fall of the Soviet Union and what is now happening with democracies being established in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most observers who believe they are the most tuned in, miss a really big events due to their preconceived notions and tunnel vision to these notions.
I am beginning to think that the talking heads are missing something really big right now.
Morris can turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. He did it with Clinton. Lets be thankful that he isn't working for Kerry.
kind of a surprize
Is Dick Morris jewish?
Anyhow, interesting article. I didn't hear all of his speech yet. I taped it, I'll watch it soon.
I WAS kinda hoping Morris would predict a Kerry landslide though.
Think you are right; no one can be immune to the effects on ones 'in the middle, perspective'; so to speak and so missing the overview; at least not, day after day of being there. Or just suffering from the so called 'inside the beltway syndrome' as well.
I am wondering also; if the outside attacks of 'fair and balanced' are not 'getting to them'; seems there is almost a reluctance to 'wax enthusiastically' or to 'go there'.
And so the unusually 'sonorous sounds' of Britt saying 'whaddothink'???. . .hiding just below viewer level; some genuine excitement or appreciation. (I hope. . .)
Began to feel last night; that the Fox team was 'flatlining'; right before my eyes!
"One of his big problems is that Morris has an opinion on everything. As such, he is both right and wrong about more things than most pundits."
"I'm so tired of Morris. I think he's a know-it-all-know-nothing who changes his opinions like a hysterical woman. And like a stopped clock, he's right twice a day."
Maybe "Dick Morris" is a pseudonym for John F Kerry!
Yes
Interestng. I did not know that.
Anyhow, he's a brilliant analyst. He just can't get his predictions right.
But as I said, he was not talking to me, he was talking to those people who may be sitting on the edge, the "moderates" who don't want to hurt anyones feelings! Good, let's win this thing and get started on the big list. I cannot decide, the lawyers or the IRS first.....
I think Peggy Noonan wrote Pataki's speech. I heard that on several shows.
Karen Hughes has been involved with Dubya's speech and he has some great speechwriters on staff.
Methinks they went to Peggy Noonan.
Does anybody know who Peggy Noonan is working for this year "
I saw recently that Peggy was taking time off from her column to work on the re-election campaign.
Well it may have fell flat for you.
"He is correct. If you take a close look at the demographics, the US is running out of white people and the people of color prefer the Demoists."
Non-whites do prefer the Democrats; you are right about that and it is something someone should inform the GOP leadership of sometime soon. But you and Morris are wrong about the GOP reaching a point where there are no more white people for them to reach out to.
Again, Bush the elder got 59% of the white vote in 1988. Reagan got 64% in 1984. W Bush got just 54% in 2000. Since the share of the electorate that is white has dropped (though it is still about 80% -- well above their share of the overall population), then if Bush had matched his father's absolute performance, then his percentage support from whites should have been larger, not smaller.
The simple fact is that if W had repeated his father's performance among whites then he would have won in a landslide in 2000. If he managed to do it this year then he would win going away.
The GOP and their talking heads make a big deal about their goal of increasing their share of the Hispanic by 5 points to about 40%, saying that would equal victory. While a laudable goal, the stated benefits of such are really quite ludicrous considering that if they increased their share of the white vote by that same percentage ( a task that would probably be easier than doing so with Hispanics) then it would reap much greater electoral benefits this year and for some time to come because whites still dominate the electorate.
Eventually this will not be the case -- if current trends fueled by unending mass legal immigration and repeated amnesties for illegal aliens continues -- but if the GOP did something that the public supports, like reducing immigration levels into the country, then the GOP might be able to survive the massive pro-Democrat demographic shifts taking place.
But right now, the simple fact is that the GOP still performs quite poorly with non-whites; a fact that the Repubs, Dems, and media never fail to point out. But what is hardly ever mentioned is the fact that the GOP has lost support from whites, and that they should put at least as much effort in winning back lost white supporters and gaining new white supporters as they do for non-whites.
That they don't is a sign that they have surrendered the moral high ground to the left by accepting their politically correct notion that it is somehow unseemly for the GOP to actively and openly court the people who are most naturally inclined to vote for them.
Points well taken and noted.
Maybe she was including teenagers. Some that I know think that Gore is the Vice President since Bush won the 2000 election.
That's a little closer to "vacuous pit" than "Peoria," isn't it?
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.