I borrowed the photoshop pic from Freeper farfromhome:
Kerry: "I want to kiss you, Johnny."
Edwards: "Go for it, Johnny."
Posted on 07/06/2004 4:33:22 AM PDT by djf
NBC breaking says for sure it's Edwards for veep
I provided you with 37 polls provided by Real Clear Politics presenting results of George Bush Job Approval Rating (I excepted the La Times poll at your request)taken since May 1,of which 7, repeat 7, had him at 50% or better. All the rest had Bush underwater. I do not know how optimists do arithmetic, but pessimists do not think that losing in 30 out of 37 is "winning in most."
Of the 20 polls asking whether the country is on the right track since May 1, precisely 0 had a majority of that view. How do optimists characterize this disparity, "our side second, other side second from last?"
My optimism rests on the fact that 80% of Bush's base (that would not be you) STRONGLY supports his reelection, while Kerry's 'base' consists of Bush haters and not Kerry supporters.
I tend to think you have it right here but I do not know that Bush's base is energized and Kerry's is not because you offer nothing to support your view but optimism. You might review Steveegg's posts on this thread where he persuasively argues that Bush is in fact in danger of losing his base.
My optimism rests on the organization and hard work going on in the Bush grassroots campaign
Since you know all about my private emotional states you will no doubt be aware of my many public posts on this subject. In reality, we know that you have no more idea about the latter than you do the former, so for the record I will repeat that I am much encouraged by the extensive, ground up, precinct by precinct ground game being constructed by the party and have frequently so posted. But I caution that this will have effect only if the game is close.
And my optimism rests on the fact that it is early July, the economy is strong, and improving, Iraq is settling,
Agreed. And I have so posted many times. I even agree that it is early July. I do point out that the national perception about the economy is not sanguine and Kerry is more favorably regarded on this subject than is Bush. But this in to the good because, as I have more than once posted, Bush can make gains here as perception catches up to reality. Heretofore, the Bush campaign has done a terrible job in selling its performance on the economy - his performance compares favorably with Clinton's performance at this stage. The campaign's breathtaking ineptness on this issue, which decides more votes than any other except active war, is a principal reason for Bush's present dilemma. Here, by way of example,is my post of July 2,:
The economy is where Bush can make gains because the general perception is anomalous and, with deft exposure from the bully pulpit, must become rationalized to reality. And this is already happening. Bush has stopped bleeding as the perception of the economy has moved into sync with the facts. But, contrary to Morris, there is still room here to gain.
Bush has a good story to tell on the economy: He saved it from Clinton's recession with his tax cuts and Kerry will kill the recovery and jobs with tax hikes. This always sells and it will throw Kerry on the defensive. It changes the subject from Iraq where Bush is hostage to events, although less so in perception terms since the hand off.
More, the folks who vote the economy, and most folks do absent an overarching event like 9/11, must be reassured at least enough to stay home if they trend left.
the President is campaigning with vigor, strength and humor, while maintaining the dignity of the office of the presidency
So did his father.
That, plus the fact that Kerry is a dweeb, and eventually the American people will find that out no matter how hard he tries to hide it, and that Edwards is a positively stupid choice for a VP.
I think you are right and only Kerry's lack of charisma and his liberalism have kept Bush alive in the horserace polls. Our problem, to state the gravamen of my pessimism once again, is that a majority of Americans have already decided to fire Bush but have not yet decided it is safe to hire Kerry. That means Bush must fight uphill against an organized and malevolent media, to unpersuade those who would fire him or he must at least scare them off Kerry. That explains the Bush ad blitz which has held the decision to hire Kerry off for now. But the challenge is daunting. Consider the debates, here is what I posted before:
Posted by nathanbedford to ShandaLear On News/Activism 07/06/2004 9:18:30 AM EDT #546 of 1,000
Bush's negatives suggest that the´middle of the electorate, the part that decides elections, has decided to fire Bush. That means they will check Kerry out, mostly in the debates, to see if it is safe to hire him.
Only if it is not safe to hire Kerry will they revert to Bush.
Kerry need not beat Bush in the debates, he merely must avoid career ending gaffes. He merely has to appear Presidential. Boring is good. "Wrong" on the issues doesn't matter. Charisma is nice but optional. All Kerry has to do is not look like a fool in the eyes of a politically illiterate undecided.
Our best hope is the ground game and to energize the base
I'm not sure why I neglected my main reason for optimism in my previous post. It's the most important factor in this election......
God's faithfulness.
HIS servant is in the White House, and HIS people are praying.
Amen and I count myself among those praying that God will see fit shape these events. I refer you to my response to Barlowmaker which he found persuasive when he mounted criticism of me as opposed to my opinions and was gracious to so post. You might note my references to Bush's Christian character:
Are the "red states" in jeopardy for Bush? Posted by nathanbedford to Barlowmaker
On News/Activism 05/27/2004 1:21:27 PM EDT #121 of 235
Barlowmaker:
Yes this way is much better. We know where you stand. I tell you your judgment is hasty. I have posted 1509 times. I am a confirmed Bush supporter despite my reservations about his immigration and domestic spending policies. My complaints have generally been about tactical election mistakes I believe he has made like failing to exploit the Estrada nomination to gain the Hispanic vote for the party for a generation. But always, I have made clear my unwavering support for his reelection.
That does not mean that I will shade reality as I see it to maintain a charade which is false. If Bush is losing, he is losing and the disloyalty is not in saying so but in so condescending to our fellow FReeper that we lie to protect them from the truth - less the the poor folks become discouraged. I may not be speaking the truth, but I am speaking the truth as I see it.
My criticisms have usually been accompanied by positive suggestions which I think his campaign should take. You may despise the suggestions but you cannot say they are consistent with an anti Bush agenda.
If you review my posts you will see pieces praising his Christian character, his honesty, his lack of corruption.
If you do review my posts you will discover a conscious effort throughout to avoid the ad hominin because I think it undermines the reputation of the forum. I like to ask myself, if a Democrat reporter were reading my post would he find fodder to attack FreeRepublic and conservatism.
Yeah, but it takes two to tango. The Post should have thought it over before rushing to put their "scoop" on the cover.
So now the Dims have a ticket of Traitor and The Ambulance Chaser? Sounds more like some sick cartoon series to me, than a Presidential ticket.
The two Johns.
I borrowed the photoshop pic from Freeper farfromhome:
Kerry: "I want to kiss you, Johnny."
Edwards: "Go for it, Johnny."
I said PERSONAL approval, nathan, PERSONAL. Read more carefully before you insult me further.
I don't have time to read your essay right now, but will try to get by and wade through it later.
Oh.....I did catch that you think that George W.'s father campaigned with vigor, strength and humor as his son is doing, and I believe you will find very few people who agree with you on that (including me).
In the mean time, let us suffice it to say that you will always be able to find the negative, but the bottom line is that God is in control, so all your pessimism is meaningless.
Have faith, nathan. And pray without ceasing that God once again has mercy on this nation because of the faithful who are praying for repentance and a return to godliness.
LOL! Forward this one to Rush. It's a great one.
I await your next passive aggresive post.
Perhaps you could muster the intellectual honesty to provide quotes for your assertions So that it is easier to deal with your assertions:
I said PERSONAL approval, nathan, PERSONAL. Read more carefully before you insult me further.
Have a care, you attacked my analysis and now you want me to defend it with only those polls you like. Is this condition genetic with optimists?
I think the Post was given the wrong information from a source they had learned to trust. Why would Kerry say he was going to have a little fun if he had not set this up? Compassionate liberals.
Too bad you're so defensive about everything and that your feelings are so easily bruised. It makes healthy conversation difficult. But your combined defensiveness and condescension made the decision NOT to bother reading your tome much easier, so thanks for that.....
One thing good about being a hopeless pessimist, though........you're never disappointed.
Have a great day, nate! Keep smiling! :o)
Talk to you after the BIG BUSH win in November. You won't mind if I gloat a bit, will you?
All true, but Post reporters have to realize that as far as the Dems are concerned, they are the enemy.
The fact that there is no explanation this morning in the Post of how this happened leads me to think it was from a source that they cannot reveal. I'd love to know how this happened.
Not that journalists actually have ethics, but I believe if your source lies to you, you're allowed to reveal who the source is. Why cover for the source? What better way to get back at the Kerry campaign than to say such and such person from the campaign fed the Post this inaccurate information? At the very least, it would take the spotlight of scrutiny off the Post and put it on the Kerry campaign.
I'll leave you alone, for I fear you are not well.
It is what I think. It is how I feel. It is who I am, through Jesus Christ.
If my teasing caused you such great anger, I apologize, because it obviously crossed the line into sin. It was my intent to make you see the bright side, and not the dark, but I obviously failed.
Be well.
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.
