Bush Seen Strong in States He Lost in '00

Mercury News ^ | 5/18/03 | Will Lester - AP

[NormsRevenge]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The nation's close political balance has shifted at the top of the ticket, pollsters say, as President Bush shows surprising strength in many states that will be crucial for Democrats in 2004.

While Bush clearly has been dominant in national polls, a look at his position in states that are crucial to the Democratic support base makes clear the difficulties Democrats face.

[Reagan is King]

Let's just hope for strong coattails. We desperately need a wider margin Republican Senate to offset the RINO's.

[Mister Baredog]

If public attention should shift from terrorism toward the economy, it remains unclear whether the Democrats will be helped automatically

Of course it was pretty CLEAR in the Nov 2002 elections, that's the "elephant in the room" that was a HISTORICAL break with conventional wisdom, what's changed, oh yea, BUSH won a war since then, the economy slugs along, and we're gonna get a TAX CUT, hooray. LOL!!!

[Russ]

If the Dems have to spend millions in New York, California and New Jersey they're toast. The last time they could take those states for granted which allowed them to pour more money into the swing states. They just won't have enough dollars to win many of the states they will need.

[EggsAckley]

What worries me is that they will have had almost four years to implement massive voter fraud, which then they could launch in 2004.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[Drew68]

The potency of the economy as an issue for Democrats may require a shift from public worries about the economy to worries about their own personal situations, said Zukin.

The dims are going to have trouble using the economy as an issue. The economy is improving and people feel it. People are starting to spend more. The "Help Wanted" section of the classifieds is getting thicker. People are starting to find work.

Furthermore, no one blamed the President for the economic slump in the first place and the dims know all of this.

The dims are praying for a repeat of 1992. It is going to be a repeat all right, but a repeat of 1984.

[rwfromkansas]

I doubt it will be a change for very long.

We can't get arrogant here. I view 2004 as more of a conventional election than 2002 and why we will have to fight harder, especially on the economy.

[ClearCase_guy]

The nation's close political balance has shifted at the top of the ticket

This is an interesting way to begin the article. Is this journalist attempting to say that the election results will be different in 2004? That, this time, George W. Bush might actually WIN the election?

[altura]

Don't worry about worrying.

Conservatives are either naturally pessimistic or we've had pessimism thrust upon us.

[ALS]

[Mister Baredog]

What worries me is that they will have had almost four years to implement massive voter fraud, which then they could launch in 2004.

You're right but they've been using this technique forever, however REPS are watching them CLOSER than ever, that's a "good thing".

[CyberAnt]

I read somewhere that some liberal organization was stunned to find out the GOP might pick up 7-8 seats in Senate. It's been a few weeks since I read that, and I haven't heard anyone else saying anything about it. If the GOP thinks that too, they're not saying. I've only heard the GOP say they have a good chance of getting 4-5 seats.

[AmericaUnited]

Bush WILL win NY!! Take it to the bank.

[Arpege92]

I might be getting ahead of myself but I do worry about the 2008 elections.....who are some strong Republicans to keep an eye on?

[NormsRevenge]

Your guess is as good as mine.

Some say Condi may be the answer, I like her. Or Bush#3 Jeb? Or Rudy G?

Politics is fun , huh?

Who do you "like" on the demRat side of things?

[rhinohunter]

Hillary-0

A little over optimistic.

Hitlery would win at least a few dozen counties. (eg. Cook Co, Il; Los Angeles Co, Ca; Montgomery County, Md; King Co, Wa; San Francisco Co, Ca; etc.)

However, she would carry no states -- only DC. So Bush would slaughter her 535-3 in the Electoral College.