Bush takes lead in New York

[ShapeShifter]

It makes perfect sense....The Democrats could come to NY and grandstand and blame everything on Bush and blame the deaths of Sept 11 on Bush.  

If you think 500,000 or more anti Bush protesters that are being held away from Madison Square Garden by police are going to remain peaceful than you havent been in enough Democratic protests.  Its fine if you want to go out and hold up signs or whatever, but dont fool yourself...you know it is going to get out of hand.

Your rhetoric assumption is getting tiring.

[Rococo4]

During the anti-globalization protests there was a great deal of civil disobedience and a consistent presence by anarchists. You had the peaceful, lawful protestors, usually forming the majority, and you had the people trying to break into areas they weren't allowed, who got the most coverage, and then you had the anarchists. That was back in 1999-2001.

During the anti-war protests, there were only a few major ones. One in November 2002, one January 18, 2003, and the mother of all February 15, 2003. Millions of people showed up for this last protest, but there was not a significant deal of violence, as was seen in the '60s protests or the anti-globalization protests. Later on in March you had some civil disobedience with people trying to block roads but this was a tiny minority of activists. Unfortunately anarchists and radicals usually just use protests as a cover to commit crimes, and end up undermining the message of the entire thing. This time, at the Republican convention, it will be so political that Republicans will have an incentive to pay anarchists to go in and destroy property posing as convention protestors. If not the party itself at least some Bush supporters.

There are two ways such a protest could go.... peaceful, police-friendly protest, or debacle. However I think the people of New York are calm enough to handle this. They handled the blackout after all. In '77 during the blackout there were riots. In '03 even though it could have been a terror attack, the sudden return to a Hobbesian state of nature did not produce chaos. Quite remarkable.

Yeah, but now with the election coming and the spotlight on them, these protesters wont be able to contain themselves.  Probably 98% will act fine, and though I disagree with them, ya'll are free to do whatever you want.  The other 2% will ruin it for the rest of you.

I see you are already planting the seeds for a new conspiracy....that Bush will plant protesters to make you all look bad.  He wont need to do that.

[ShapeShifter]

The more protesters there are, the better for Bush.  This kind of thing was what gave Nixon his 1972 landslide - hippy backlash.

this has nothing to do with hippies. those days are over. just in case you forgot, the year is 2004.

[Rococo4]

It makes perfect sense....The Democrats could come to NY and grandstand and blame everything on Bush and blame the deaths of Sept 11 on Bush.  

If you think 500,000 or more anti Bush protesters that are being held away from Madison Square Garden by police are going to remain peaceful than you havent been in enough Democratic protests.  Its fine if you want to go out and hold up signs or whatever, but dont fool yourself...you know it is going to get out of hand.

Your rhetoric assumption is getting tiring.

I dont even know what you mean.  I am just telling you what I think is going to happen.  Serioulsy, go protest.  I want you to.  Thats your right.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only thing I'm worried about is that this protest is centered around a meeting and some protestors may try to disrupt the convention. I agree that will look very bad if the convention is functionally set back because of some people violating the law. The other thing is that, since the convention is spread over a number of days, thus the potential for getting out of hand is increased. Overall though, the nation is a lot calmer now than it was in the '60s and '70s. We have had countless smooth, peaceful protests. And the NY police are the best in the country at crowd control.

[MN-Troy]

According to new numbers released by Quinnipiac and Zogby, Bush now has a narrow lead in New York: 44%-42% in the Quinnipiac poll, 45%-40% in the Zogby.  Meanwhile, Kerry has made great strides in Mississippi, with both polls showing a dead heat at 47% to 46% in favor of Bush.

Links:

http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=210

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x10758.xml

Date: 1st of April 2004...

Though oddly enough the most recent poll done in Mississippi (in December I think) DID have Bush tied with a generic Democrat...

I thought about something more outlandish, like Bush leading in Mass. and Kerry leading in Wyoming, but this seemed like just enough within the realm of reality to make people do a double-take.

Regarding that Mississippi poll, maybe they still await the return of the Dixiecrats??

I doubt the dixiecrats are waiting for John Kerry

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

I Think Bush Has a good chance of Carring New York in November Becuse of The GOP Convetion in Late August

Had the election been held on Nov. 2, 2001, Bush would have taken New York handily.

Timing.  It's all about timing.

[angus]

Sometimes I wish elections were held on April 16.  

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

And how can a democrat exploit 9-11 that just makes ZERO sense.

Democrats can exploint 9-11 by demonstrating that the Bush administration was more concerned with Cold War relics like missile defense than it was with terrorism, and weren't vigilant to the threat of Al Quieda.  (Ignoring the inconvenient truth that the Clinton administration also failed in this regard.)  They can also point to the fact that OBL is still at large, and that Iraq could devolve into yet another terrorist state, making the world *more* safe for terrorism, and making 9-11s *more* likely to occur.  They could even exploit the 3-11 attacks as evidence that Bush is losing the War on Terror.  (I don't believe that, but that's the strategy I'd use if I were a Democrat advisor.)

Only ONE REASON, why Bush is even popular, and that is 9-11. I guess the terrorist got what they wanted. Someone who will polarize the nation and the world.

Bush is not popular directly because of 9-11.  Bush is popular because of how he handled the situation, and his refusal to back down when the interests of national security were clearly at stake.

[angus]

And how can a democrat exploit 9-11 that just makes ZERO sense.

Only ONE REASON, why Bush is even popular, and that is 9-11. I guess the terrorist got what they wanted. Someone who will polarize the nation and the world.

Think Cynthia McKinney.  (Or shapeshifter, for that matter.)  

[ShapeShifter]

And how can a democrat exploit 9-11 that just makes ZERO sense.

Democrats can exploint 9-11 by demonstrating that the Bush administration was more concerned with Cold War relics like missile defense than it was with terrorism, and weren't vigilant to the threat of Al Quieda.  (Ignoring the inconvenient truth that the Clinton administration also failed in this regard.)  They can also point to the fact that OBL is still at large, and that Iraq could devolve into yet another terrorist state, making the world *more* safe for terrorism, and making 9-11s *more* likely to occur.  They could even exploit the 3-11 attacks as evidence that Bush is losing the War on Terror.  (I don't believe that, but that's the strategy I'd use if I were a Democrat advisor.)

Only ONE REASON, why Bush is even popular, and that is 9-11. I guess the terrorist got what they wanted. Someone who will polarize the nation and the world.

Bush is not popular directly because of 9-11.  Bush is popular because of how he handled the situation, and his refusal to back down when the interests of national security were clearly at stake.

okay, let me make it clear, Democrats cannot exploit 9-11 and really gain a lot of political ground like Bush. Bush is popular because 9-11 made national security an issue. And Bush will continue to exploit 9-11. He wanted to become a war hero. 9-11 is the best thing that happened to Bush and to the republican party.

[opebo]

The more protesters there are, the better for Bush.  This kind of thing was what gave Nixon his 1972 landslide - hippy backlash.

this has nothing to do with hippies. those days are over. just in case you forgot, the year is 2004.

By hippies I meant anti-war leftists, particularly 'spoiled youth' types - the embarrassing children of the upper middle class.

[zachman]

Opebo, you mean the Deaniac types.

[ian]

There is no way this will hold, but I would trade Mississippi for  New York any day of the week.  

You've been had!  Nice work beef.  

Thanks!

I must admit that was a good one.  I actually followed the links and found nothing.  Then I figured it out.  Good work.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Bush WAS popular because of 9/11. He isn't popular now. His approval ratings are below 50

[ShapeShifter]

Bush WAS popular because of 9/11. He isn't popular now. His approval ratings are below 50

good point

[zachman]

Bush WAS popular because of 9/11. He isn't popular now. His approval ratings are below 50

To be fair Bush's approval ratins are slightly over 50%. In a polarized electorate this is winning. The other factor you seem to forget is that maybe 80-90% of Bush's supporters are tightly held. The actual amount of fluctuation is about 5%, and Bush has probably already gone through about the toughest scrutiny he will go through.