No Democratic Tide in November

U.S. News & World Report ^ | 8/12/02 | Michael Barone

[eureka!]

Interesting article and comments here....

[#3Fan]

Today, amid much talk–cheerful talk by Democrats,...

I'm not one to put down people for their appearance, but in that video of prominent Democrats shown at McAuliffe's get together, the Dems in the video looked like a group that could audition for the villains in some kind of children's movie like "The Wizard of Oz" or something. LOL

[My2Cents]

I know what you mean...They look like the gathering of orcs at Isengard in Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring."

[My2Cents]

43-37-20...excellent analysis, and, I think, correct. The Democrats can always build on their 43%, which means the GOP always needs to get the lion's share of the independents in the middle. It suggests we cannot be too strident in our views, or as Ronald Reagan proved, you can win with a conservative agenda provided you put a smile on the face of that agenda.

[vaudine]

Sounds like Lincoln Chaffee. He is certainly a "little puke."--no matter how physically large he is.

vaudine

[jwalsh07]

FYI

[Torie]

Yep, corporate scandal turned out to be a big bust for the Dems. Apparently voters aren't quite a stupid as McAuliffe thinks, or maybe we think. Now the hope is that the stock market tank will hurt Republicans, after people get their quarterly statements showing how much money they lost. Apparently the Dems don't think folks know they lost money until they get their statements. That idea is even dumber than the last one.

Probably their best shot is prescription drugs. That one should be interesting given the huge price tag involved. That one should be interesting because the GOP will say we can't afford the full course spread, the Dems will say that is because of that evil tax cut, and GOP will say do the Dems really want to roll back the tax cut, and the Dems will say no, but we are mad as hell that you did it in the first instance, and that was mean spirited and imprudent. You with me so far? LOL.

[SunStar]

I hope Bob Smith loses. I remember the 2000 campaigns... (Isn't he an "Independent" now?)

[marajade]

McCain would never switch...

[Cacique]

It will be a staus quo election because Republicans are deadly aqfraid of showing even the slightest conservatism in themselves. There is little to differentiate them policy wise from the Democrats. The Republican Party simply represents a bunch of Liberals on a budget. Until that changes or we get a leader with the vitality of a Reagan or Gingrich not much will change and the downward slide of the country will continue.

[Timesink]

I suggest everyone compare this opinion piece, which obviously has been carefully researched by Barone and filled with evidence to support his position, with this opinion piece I posted earlier entitled "Confidence Men - Why the Myth of Republican Competence Persist", that contains only spin and distortions with not one bit of evidence to back any of the author's claims.

Republicans use facts. Democrats use slander. Ann Coulter is right.

[jdontom]

I am so poor you can't believe it, yet I sent $70 to Senator Bob Smith.

You must have been pressured by those Repub-Tellamarkerters, they can be brutal! Here in Kalif. I get 4 or 5 calls per election cycle.

[Timesink]

While I hope it's not timed for political reasons (although it may have to be), initiating a US military move against Iraq will stir greater post-9/11 fervor for the President that simply the anticipated remembrance.

Yup. And let's all keep in mind that if a Democrat were in the White House right now, he wouldn't even blink before deciding to perfectly time the war in order to create an "October Surprise." (Assuming the RAT didn't just cave in after 9/11 and decide it was all our fault in the first place.) They would have done it to us, and since this war has to be fought anyway, we might as well gain a little something out of it. As long as the president determines there's no legitimate military reason why the war should have to wait until after November 5th, it should absolutely start before that date.

[rightwingbob]

Perhaps the paper says this, but that's what everyone said in 1996, that Smith was toast, and he won by 49%.

Besides, if he doesn't win the GOP nod, he might switch yet again to his beloved Constitution party, split the conservative vote, and give Shaheen a 47% or 48% victory.

[jdontom]

concentrated air strikes on September 11th....

I'm jacked up now, I'm going to e-mail this to the big-house.

[Tailback]

Do you mean other than McCain?

[RISU]

Clinton and the Democrats so screwed up the works it will take three back-to-back Republican administrations to begin to untangle the knots.

[Common Tator]

It's more like 43% democrat ( That's what Mondale, Carter got in their landslide defeats and Clinton in 92) And 37% for the GOP ( that's what Bush got in 92 )

Nation wide about a third of the voters register as Democrats and vote in the primaries. About a third more register as Republicans and vote in the primaries. To vote in a primary race in most states you have to declare a party and vote that parties primary. About a third of the voters are registered but do not declare a party and do not vote in the primaries. That is on reason why the primary turn outs are always much lower than the general election. Usually by more than a third.

You quote your own opinion. That carries no weight with me. Information garnerd nationwide from the boards of elections does.

[sayfer bullets]

The concept of "the center", IMO, is oversimplified.

of the 20%....80% couldn't give a rip either way, and is more concerned with whether or not they can see the boobies between the lines on their unpaid showtime channel.

The "center" is more accurately described as the "detached".

again,...just my humble opinion.

[#3Fan]

They look like the gathering of orcs at Isengard in Peter Jackson's "Fellowship of the Ring."

I haven't watched a kid's movie in so long, "The Wizard of Oz" was all that I could think of. :^)