Minnesota

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Just because Perot took votes from Republican states, does not mean he took votes from Republican *voters*

Not necessarily, but let's compare Clinton's 1992 performance in these Republican strongholds to Gore's 2000 performance:

State... 1992 ... 2000
Alaska... 30.3% ... 27.7%
Utah... 24.7% ... 26.3%
Idaho... 28.4% ... 27.6%
Kansas... 33.7% ... 37.2%
Montana... 37.6% ... 33.4%
Wyoming... 34.1% ... 27.7%
Nebraska... 29.4% ... 33.3%

In four of the these seven states, the Democrat candidate actually LOST votes in the absense of Perot.  Clearly, the presence of Perot did not take away from Democrat-leaning voters.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, but the numbers above indicate, quite starkly, that Perot got his votes from Republican voters.  At least in heavily Republican states.  I have not looked at Democratic states such as Rhode Island, where Perot also did quite well, but I would suspect that even there, he still got primarily Republican votes.

If this was due to conservative anger at Bush, which I suspect it was, Perot probably didn't cost Bush the election - Bush cost Bush the election by failing to appeal to his base.  But all of this talk about Perot taking votes from both sides is poppycock.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

So the Perot voters made no difference in most of his top states. The question is did Perot swing enough states to Clinton to tip the victory to him? He tipped some, but it's hard to argue it was enough.

It's a good question, worth exploring.  I would suspect that without Perot, Clinton still would have won, but had Bush's opponent been Tsongas, Bush would have won in a landslide.  Here are the states that would have switched to Bush if half of the Perot voters stayed home, and the other half voted Bush:

Colorado *
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia *
Iowa
Kentucky
Lousiana
Maine *
Michigan
Montana *
Nevada *
New Hampshire *
New Jersey *
Ohio *
Oregon
Wisconsin *

The states with * by them Bush would have won *resoundingly* in such a scenario, and I suspect that these states almost certainly would have gone Bush without the presence of Perot.  They would have gotten him up to 251 EV.  Still not enough, but a heck of a lot closer.  Throw in a few more, and he's over the top.

[CTguy]

Bush would have never won Connecticut.  He barely even won fairfield county which is the only part of the state that is republican.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Coleman's victory was pretty much a fluke (had Wellstone not died or the media made a big deal about the memorial which wasn't a big deal at all the Democrats would've held the seat

I think the memorial was an EXTREMELY big deal.  So much so your idiot governor had enough sense to get up and walk out.

Did you even watch the thing? Al Franken's latest book has a whole chapter on how the media completely distorted what happened. They basically took a speech by one guy (Rick Khan), did nothing but play that over and over and tell some blatant lies and distortions, such as that certain people were booed. It's true that Lott and Ventura received some boos, but they were barely audible, and there was some blatant lies that Boschowitz was booed, when he was not.

Even if all the media lies were real, I don't see how that would make Coleman a more qualified Senator. It's a red herring, but people fell for it.

[CTguy]

I saw the memorial and I was pretty offended.  They seemed to turn a funeral into a campaign rally.  I was even offended by his son who was chanting we will win.  

I found it to be as offensive as Bush using the 9-11 attacks to establish an emotional connection with voters to get votes.  

Both of these ploys will fail though.  It failed in Minnesota and it's going to fail in November 2004 when Bush loses re-election by a landslide.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"I feel used. I feel violated and duped over the fact that that turned into nothing more than a political rally ... I think the Democrats should hang their heads in shame," Governor Ventura

[CTguy]

I feel violated when the Republicans make ads about 9-11.  I lived about 10 blocks from the World Trade Center when they were attacked.  And Bush feels the need to take advantage of that for political gain.  It is just as shameful as the campaign rally in Minnesota, if not moreso.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I feel violated when the Republicans make ads about 9-11.  I lived about 10 blocks from the World Trade Center when they were attacked.  And Bush feels the need to take advantage of that for political gain.  It is just as shameful as the campaign rally in Minnesota, if not moreso.  

Bush's leadership in the wake of 9-11 is certainly a valid campaign topic.  But is a slight tad different that turning a funeral into a partisan rally.

[CTguy]

He shouldn't have put images of dead firefighters in his ad.  That was crossing the line.  A poll showed 54% of Americans thought the ad was in bad taste so I am not alone in thinking this.  

We'll see what happens when Republicans hold their rally in NYC this year (again exploiting 9-11).  Republican is a dirty word in NYC and there will likely be huge protests.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

He shouldn't have put images of dead firefighters in his ad.  That was crossing the line.  A poll showed 54% of Americans thought the ad was in bad taste so I am not alone in thinking this.  

We'll see what happens when Republicans hold their rally in NYC this year (again exploiting 9-11).  Republican is a dirty word in NYC and there will likely be huge protests.

Do you have a link to that poll?

[WalterMitty]

republican is a dirty word in nyc?

remind me what party has won the last 3 mayoral elections in nyc.

[CTguy]

Give me a break, Bloomberg's entire platform was that he has been a registered democrat his whole life.

[WalterMitty]

bloomberg may be a liberal, but it reflects poorly on the democrats when they have lost the last 3 mayoral elections in a city as democratic as new york.

bloomberg has endorsed bush, that's all im worried about.

[MN-Troy]

In my little corner of southern Minnesota anti-Bush bumper stickers outnumber pro-ones at least 3:1 and if you go to the metro area it's more like 20:1 and you'd have a tough time finding someone LESS popular than Bush in the Twin Cities.

Spare us such antidotal evidence.

If President Bush is hated across Minnesora as you suggest than why get worked up about Bush since according to you he has no chance of picking up Minnesota.

Because most of these arguments are pretty weak and I've heard them too many times in the past. The only really valid one is 2000 was close. Coleman's victory was pretty much a fluke (had Wellstone not died or the media made a big deal about the memorial which wasn't a big deal at all the Democrats would've held the seat), and we've had GOP senators in the past. For a fairly long time BOTH are Senators were Republicans (Boschwitz and Durenberger). I don't think Coleman's victory is proof of anything. And the fact is an incumbent polling 41% is always bad news, regardless of how well his opponent is doing.[

Where did I bring up Norm Coleman in my post?

[CTguy]

Bloomberg is also probably the most unpopular mayor in the history of NYC.  The only reason he won is because there was a very nasty democratic primary where the hispanic community got pissed off that Green won and voted for Bloomberg in protest.  

NYC politics are tricky because you have a lot of different groups that can go either way in local races based on local issues.  But in a national election they all unify against Bush.  Bush won't even get 20% of the vote in NYC.

[they don't love you like i love you]

In my little corner of southern Minnesota anti-Bush bumper stickers outnumber pro-ones at least 3:1 and if you go to the metro area it's more like 20:1 and you'd have a tough time finding someone LESS popular than Bush in the Twin Cities.

Spare us such antidotal evidence.

If President Bush is hated across Minnesora as you suggest than why get worked up about Bush since according to you he has no chance of picking up Minnesota.

Because most of these arguments are pretty weak and I've heard them too many times in the past. The only really valid one is 2000 was close. Coleman's victory was pretty much a fluke (had Wellstone not died or the media made a big deal about the memorial which wasn't a big deal at all the Democrats would've held the seat), and we've had GOP senators in the past. For a fairly long time BOTH are Senators were Republicans (Boschwitz and Durenberger). I don't think Coleman's victory is proof of anything. And the fact is an incumbent polling 41% is always bad news, regardless of how well his opponent is doing.[

Where did I bring up Norm Coleman in my post?

you didn't, but the people i was replying to originally that you replied to me about did.

what did Bush do during 9/11 that was so special? tell me how any other president would've been any different. I also think I saw a poll showing that 80% of NYC residents think his ads are innapropiate.

[MN-Troy]

In my little corner of southern Minnesota anti-Bush bumper stickers outnumber pro-ones at least 3:1 and if you go to the metro area it's more like 20:1 and you'd have a tough time finding someone LESS popular than Bush in the Twin Cities.

Spare us such anecdotal evidence.

If President Bush is hated across Minnesora as you suggest than why get worked up about Bush since according to you he has no chance of picking up Minnesota.

Because most of these arguments are pretty weak and I've heard them too many times in the past. The only really valid one is 2000 was close. Coleman's victory was pretty much a fluke (had Wellstone not died or the media made a big deal about the memorial which wasn't a big deal at all the Democrats would've held the seat), and we've had GOP senators in the past. For a fairly long time BOTH are Senators were Republicans (Boschwitz and Durenberger). I don't think Coleman's victory is proof of anything. And the fact is an incumbent polling 41% is always bad news, regardless of how well his opponent is doing.[

Where did I bring up Norm Coleman in my post?

you didn't, but the people i was replying to originally that you replied to me about did.

I only quoted  little segment from the original post  about your assertion that President Bush won't pick up Minnesota because he lacks the "bumper sticker support" in the state.

I'm going to leave it has that and move on.

Good Day

[CTguy]

That poll is just further evidence that Republicans are disliked in New York City...  the same way gays are disliked in Rhea county Tennessee.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bush would have never won Connecticut.  He barely even won fairfield county which is the only part of the state that is republican.

Total 1992 tally:
Clinton: 682,318
Bush: 578,313
Perot: 348,771

If half of the Perot voters voted Bush, and half stayed home:
Bush: 752,698
Clinton: 682,318

Even if a sizable chunk (70,000 or 20%)  of those Perot voters who didn't vote Bush actually went to the polls and voted Clinton, Bush *still* would have won.

Or, if all of the Perot voters went to the polls, and favored Bush by a 2:1 margin (probably it would be more like 3:1), Bush *still* would have won, 810,827 to 798,575.

Why is this so far-fetched to you?  It was a Reagan-Reagan-Bush state, after all.

[zachman]

Yes, but the Democrats have built far more support since 1992. I'd say they are a politically bigger form of Vermont.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes, but the Democrats have built far more support since 1992. I'd say they are a politically bigger form of Vermont.

The topic at hand was the 1992 election: would Bush I have won CT without Perot in the race.  My point is it was definitely a possibility.

Bush II?  Not unless it's a Bush landslide.  What's happened since the Reagan years is the collapse of the Rockefeller Wing of the Republicans, and the takeover of the party by social conservatives.  That, and the rise of "White Liberal Guilt" among upper-class Northeasterners.

[TheOldLine]

Yes boys and girls, Minnesota is a toss-up State in the 2004 election.

If you don't believe me, just ask John Kerry who listed as one of the 10 closest "toss-ups" in today's LA Times.   Indeed, John Kerry didn't even include Pennsylvania on this List.  
 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-map19mar19,1,3632076.story?coll=la-politics-pointers

The trend to watch in this election, presuming that John Kerry is able clear the minimum-standard on national security (and so far these past two weeks he has definitely *not* cleared that bar), is cultural issues vs. economic issues.  

I know for a lot of people it is hard to understand, but issues like abortion and gay marriage motivate a lot of conservative voters.   Even moe importantly, it must be remembered that the average voter picks a candidate predominantly on the basis of "gut feeling" rather than any deep analysis of the "issues."   George Bush has shown a demonstrated ability to "speak" to church-going voters in the 'language' of religion that they understand.   John Kerry, on the other hand, despite publicly attending Mass last week really doesn't strike down-to-Earth Midwesterners as "being one of them."   Kerry doesn't seem comfortable in the language of religion that they are so used to.  

While States like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa definitely have a long tradition of "prairie populism" that has caused them to lean Democratic - Al Gore barely won these States in part because he was such a wholly unconcinving populist.   John Kerry, the Boston Brahmin who divorced and married a rich hieress, and keeps chateaus in various places around the world is going to struggle even harder to be a convincing populist, let alone to make a "connection" to the down-to-earth, church-going Midwestern voter.

If Kerry can manage to clear the "national security" minimum bar that Dukakis never managed to clear, and keeps this election close, a bold prediction is that Kerry wins Ohio, but Bush takes the trifecta of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to win the election.

And all those pop-analysts repeating how "no Republican has ever won without Ohio" can take that home and chew on it.

The Old Line

[CTguy]

Bush wouldn't have won CT in 92 even without Perot in there.  

And I think the main reason MN and WI were close was because Nader did so well in those states.

[zachman]

Yes, Kerry is not a "prairie populist," but Bush is not a moderate Republican to anyone. He is not a radical, but his issues do not speak to the upper midwest.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

If Kerry can manage to clear the "national security" minimum bar that Dukakis never managed to clear, and keeps this election close, a bold prediction is that Kerry wins Ohio, but Bush takes the trifecta of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa to win the election.

And all those pop-analysts repeating how "no Republican has ever won without Ohio" can take that home and chew on it.

meh.  From every poll I've seen, Ohio is all about the economy.  If Bush is weak enough on the economy to lose in Ohio, the working folk of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa aren't voting for him neither.  Social issues *will* help Bush, but if Kerry has "cleared the national security bar," people around here will vote with their pocketbooks.