Posted on 10/19/2004 3:37:24 PM PDT by Oakleaf
CHATTING WITH A LONGTIME GOP OPERATIVE
I wish Bush supporters who feel pessimistic or jittery could listen to the phone conversation I just had with a longtime GOP operative. This gentleman, who has been in politics longer than I have been alive, states:
* If the Washington Post/ABC tracking poll gets any more separation in the coming days, and there’s one or two good state polls for Bush, this race is over.
* The University of Cincinnati poll showing Kerry up by 2 is “garbage.” It’s conducted over an entire week. The internals show Kerry leading among men 50 to 46 (what?) and leading 47 to 46 among women. Also note they have Kerry getting 95 percent of the African-American vote, when a national poll showed Bush getting 18 percent. Also note that Kerry leads among Democrats 88 to 7, independents 55 to 26, but still leads the overall poll by only two points.
* In any given cycle, the polls show about five or six GOP Senate candidates in competitive trailing who end up winning. This year, there are about six GOP Senate candidates leading in competitive races.
* In the past week or so, we’ve seen Team Kerry go after Mary Cheney; the candidate himself charge that Bush is going to bring back the draft; the citing of a disputed New York Times quote to allege that Bush is going to privatize Social Security; Kerry assert that if you get the flu this winter it’s George W. Bush’s fault; and that George W. Bush is lying when he says he wants the generals in the field to get what they need. (From the man who voted against the $87 billion!) What is this a sign of? Not a confident and aggressive campaign, but a desperate and flailing campaign.
The timing of the Social Security attacks were particularly baffling to this veteran of GOP campaigns. “Way too early,” he said. “If they did this the last weekend of the campaign, it would reach seniors, and the Bush folks wouldn’t have time to make a response. But instead they do it now.” The Bush team is responding already, and the attacks will be old news by the time Election Day rolls around.
Why would Team Kerry go so negative, so fast, so hard, and so outlandishly? They sensed a serious drop in the polls, this operative suspects. They expected to come roaring out of the debates, and instead, they’re acting as if things have really started to go south.
I don’t know if this operative is right about everything, but I sure as heck respect his instincts and his assessment.
[Posted 10/19 03:22 PM]
They can't do it so easily in Ohio.
This about all you need to know about where the election is going. Add to that an additional 5-10% of the black vote sitting at home (not at all enthused about Kerry) and Kerry simply cannot demographically win in close states.
Also remember that the last debate was less than a week ago - polls still haven't quite caught up.
That 18% doesn't really amount to much, unless you can convince me otherwise. Blacks represent about 12% of the population. In 2000, they cast about 10% of the ballots, meaning they voted less than their numbers would normally suggest.
If Bush goes from 8% of the black vote to 18% (a huge increase, to be sure), that suggests about a 1% shift in the popular vote.
That sounds great, but since most of the black vote is located in the south, states that Bush will probably sweep anyway, its effect is even further diminished.
First off, I said "[t]wo separate factors could give Bush a landslide victory." Meaning the Christian vote and the black vote. In addition, the get out the vote efforts by both the Dems and the GOP have been quite significant this time around. So there will be more Americans voting overall and therefore, more black Amewricans voting too.
>>>> ... but since most of the black vote is located in the south, states that Bush will probably sweep anyway, its effect is even further diminished.
According to 2003 data from the Census Bureau, southern states contain about half of the entire US black population. So everything considered, I believe if Bush doubles the amount of total votes he garners with black America, that will be a big plus in his overall election victory.
Barring no major problems these last two weeks, I think you can count on that the largest evangelical and conservative Catholic turnout for a Republican in modern history.
More than half of the Gore voters in Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana were blacks, states which he lost quite handily.
I'm not meaning to diss your post. More than doubling black support for Bush in this election could signal an end to plantation politics in this country.
But I can't find a single state where it would make a difference in the electoral outcome.
As of July 2003, Florida was second among states in black population, at 2.8m. Ohio is 12th at 1.4m and Pennsylvania is 14th at 1.2m. I think Bush garnering 18% of the black vote is a substantial overall pickup. Especially in the three states I highlighted.
In 2000 there were roughly 106 million votes cast for POTUS. About 10% of that 106m were from black voters. Bush recieved 9%, or 954K. If he doubles his take this time around, Bush will get 1.908m. That's all based on 2000 voting stats. Get out the vote efforts will increase the total votes Bush receives in 2004. Bush could garner 2.5m. Substantial.
NO Democrat has EVER been elected without winning a single southern state!
If not, let's drop the discussion. I think we've both agreed that the news about increased black support is quite welcome.
I just gave you three. Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
NONE. Drop it. Let this thread die, or put up a lot of statistical evidence to prove your contention. You can't. It doesn't exist.
"...unprecendentedly large (20%? total) of black vote for Bush because of his pro-marrage views.."
I think you are right on here. I have a good friend (black guy) who goes ballistic over the fact that the Dems farm blacks like plantation slaves. He thinks that telling a young black person that they "need" special handling by the do-gooders is the biggest impediment to their getting ahead. I think he is right.
If significant blacks go for Bush the side benefit is they will be looking for opportunities (personally and politically) rather than looking for proof they were "disenfranchised."
If a large number of minorities (I include hispanic Texans as well) give Bush/Republicans a chance they will be rewarded and we will too. Best deal is always one good for both parties!
First, I am not wrong - my source is also a longtime GOP "operative" and has direct access to the Bush campaign. If I disclosed his past role with the campaign, you would know that what I say has merit.
Second, the WashPost/ABC poll backs this up - Bush up 5 nationally, but down 3 in Ohio.
You are just h*&# bent on labeling me a Kerry supporter. You couldn't be more wrong. In fact, as I sit here, I am looking at pictures of me with John Engler and Bob Dole and others, not a single Democrat amongst them - all surrounded by my Republican memorabilia and Impeach Clinton bumperstickers.
I just am not a pollyanna (sp?) when it comes to politics. Having won and lost, been polled up and down, I know that when a good friend, who knows, tells me that there is a problem in Ohio, he's not bs'in me.
You don't want to believe, I frankly don't care. Live in your little fantasy world.
Just so you know - out of curiosity I searched my source's name on this website and it appears repeatedly. Believe what you will, however . . . I could not care less.
|
|
fromunda
Since Oct 19, 2004
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||||
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.