Not to beat a dead horse, but I hope the President's win is so strong the RATS won't consider a protest. His winning by 10-15 percentage points and 30-40 EVs would be perfect.
Posted on 10/10/2004 9:07:43 PM PDT by conservativecorner
Back on August 26, I put up an article about the weight and history of demographics, as they’ve played out in Presidential elections. It’s not a bad idea to look again at the numbers, to see if and how things stand, with just over three weeks to go.
By the way, here in Texas early voting starts October 18. I plan to get my vote in early, just in case E-day is crazy. You might want to make sure you’ll get your vote in, also.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the White House with just 41% of the Men’s vote. In 2000, Bush took 53% of the Men’s Vote. In August Bush had 49.0%, Kerry 42.2%. Right now Bush as 51.2%, to Kerry’s 43.6%, which favors Bush.
In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House with just 43% of the Women’s vote. In 2000, Bush took 43% of Women’s Vote. Kerry in August had 49.0%, Bush 40.8%, to the present average of 48.6% Kerry to 45.0% Bush. Again, the trend is moving towards Bush.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the White House with just 39% of the White vote. In 2000, Bush took 54% of the White Vote. In August Bush had 54.0%, and Kerry had 40.0%. Now, it’s 53.5% Bush to 41.5% Kerry.
In 2000, George W. Bush won the White House with just 9% of the Black vote. Kerry had 84% and Bush 12% of the Black vote in August. now, it’s 82% Kerry, 14% Bush, which is very good for Dubya.
In 2000, George W. Bush took 22.8% of the non-White Vote. In August, Kerry had 73.1% and Bush 24.1% of the non-White Vote. Now it’s 66.3% Kerry to 26.7% Bush, another sign of growing support for the President.
.In 1980, Ronald Reagan won the White House with just 86% of the Republican Vote. In 2000, Bush took 92% of the Republican Vote. In August, Bush had 88.4% of the Republican Vote. he now runs at 91.9%.
In 1992, Bill Clinton won the White House with just 82% of the Democrat Vote. Kerry had 85.4% of the Democrat Vote in August. He now runs at 76.4%.
In 2000, Bush won the White House with 10% of the Democrat Vote. In August, Bush was polling 8.3% of the Democrat Vote. He now claims 9.8%.
In 1960, John F. Kennedy won the White House with 5% of the Republican Vote. In August, Kerry was polling 6% of the Republican Vote. He now is getting 4.2%.
All in all, the numbers speak loudly. If you listen closely, you can make it out:
Four More Years Four More Years Four More Years…
Link to story mentioned above:
http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com/2004/08/indicators-and-demographics.html
But that was about his proportion of the total vote. It was a three-way race.
By the end of this week the media will start turning on Kerry. The guy is a flake and they know it deep down and they will start distancing themselves from him very shortly
Nice looking graphs.....
The problem with using the Clinton '92 numbers is that that was a 3-way race with a serious 3rd party. There is no serious third party this time.
Not to beat a dead horse, but I hope the President's win is so strong the RATS won't consider a protest. His winning by 10-15 percentage points and 30-40 EVs would be perfect.
NO WAY! dream on
In almost every Poll, Bush leads Kerry by 15 to 25 percentage points on who would be the stronger leader....... On November 2nd we are electing who best to lead.... KERRY ISN'T IT!
I believe this election will be a landslide similar to Reagan's win over Mondale
"The guy is a flake and they know it deep down and they will start distancing themselves from him very shortly"
From your keyboard to whatever the frequency is, Kenneth!
No thanks. I'd like to make sure it has at least an even chance of being counted. I'll vote using my regular machine on Election Day.
I haven't and I remember when JF Kennedy was the POTUS. John Kerry has no central message other than he is not George W. Bush and he criticizes everything he does. We are electing a leader not a policy critic. Kerry offers ZILCH, absolutely ZILCH
"By the end of this week the media will start turning on Kerry. "
I respectfully think you're wrong about this. The media is pushing him along until Nov 2nd and is still trying to get him elected. Think about it. If the 'NASA bunny suit' photo had been on CNN, NY Times, WaPo, CBS etc, Kerry would be a dead-duck candidate already. If these same media outlets had given fair coverage to the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, Kerry would be toast. Or if they highlighted his lack of released miltary records, or flip-flops in the same speech, or headlined his gaffes like they do President Bush's, do you think Kerry would still be in contention? The answer to all this is 'no'. The MSM want Kerry in the WH and will do anything to get him in. If it wasn't for right-wing radio and internet news blogs to help us communicate and coordinate, President Bush's re-election efforts would be at a big disadvantage.
Exactly right. The Democrats have done a great job at getting out the fraud this election.
Kerry is gonna lose this election big simply because he doesn't stand for anything. By the end of next week we will hear about the first election results ever for Afghanistan, and Moqtadar Al Sadr will have surrendered his arms and agreed to work with the Iraqi Government. The news is breaking against Kerry and his doom and gloom campaign. He will lose big..........
"the most important demographic isn't mentioned: The fraudulent voter."
Exactly. If Bush doesn't have at least an eight point lead by election day, he's toast. And I won't feel comfortable until it's ten points. Yeah, I'm a cynic. Grew up in Jersey, where everyone gets two votes if they're alive and three if they're dead.
Well, I'd like to be able to answer your question, but even at age 46 I think I am too young & stupid to do so.
But I really do think that John F'in Kerry is a particularly bad candidate and his election would be a great disgrace. Yes worse than Clinton, although I got slapped a bit on this today, but worse as a candidate, that I will maintain.
Jimmy Carter ran as a "new broom" after Nixon and the feckless Ford. Bill Clinton ran as a "new democrat" and actually lived up to it, albeit with help from a pubbie congress. Those are the only two dems elected POTUS in my adult memory. They both may have skirted issues, but I don't know that they ran against their records to the extent Kerry did.
Bottom line is: it ain't the flip-flopping, it's the treason, and the soon-to-come appeasement.
The comparisons to Bill Clinton in 1992 are invalid. We had a three-party election that year, so it is reaosnable to expect Clinton's numbers to be lower across the board as result.
By the end of this week the media will start turning on Kerry. The guy is a flake and they know it deep down and they will start distancing themselves from him very shortly
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If will if they see the tide turning - they will do just that. These socialists always turn on each other when the going gets tough
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.