The South

[zachman]

The terrorists, like anyone, are capable of recognizing that Bush would do more to fight them than Kerry.  But given that their goal is to radicalize arabs they might prefer someone who would actually fight back in the White House to a pushover like Kerry.
 

Why do you all think Kerry will not fight the terrorists? I'm sick of this speculation, and he will do a very good job at it.

[zachman]

The answer is forcing cultural changes on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Those are the three danger spots, for terrorist friendly governments.

[zachman]

Amen.

[zachman]

The types who say "lets nuke them: are always so childish.

[zachman]

I think we should figure out a way to disarm the world.

[zachman]

Only the angry ones have an interest. They are mostly boys, and are anti-Bush. Teenage girls don't differ from their parents.

[zachman]

And what did Bush do before 9/11.

[zachman]

The real dot-com companies never exploded. E-commerce is growing.

[zachman]

Amazon, e-bay, and other big bussinesses are thriving.

[zachman]

Thats true but the South was really the democrats posession until Reagan, and since then Clinton was the only democrat to win the White House.

[zachman]

Thats a tough question. I think the democrats should certainly put resources into building upwards in NC, GA, TN, LA, and Virginia. The growing south that is home to fats growing cities, and technology jobs, needs to be part of the strategy. On the contrary, a Western strategy of building up in NV, NM, AZ, CO, and more work in CA and OR would give the democrats an edge.

I would prefer the second strategy because it gives the Democrats more lee-way on social issues, and I like the West better than the South. Although work in Virginia and Florida should definetly be part of the democratic strategy, because they are on the urban side of the urban vs. rural power struggle.

[zachman]

McCain would destroy every electoral trend. No other Republican would.