Why Bush will win

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

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

I still think Dean's shaky, to say the least, position on Iraq and foreign policy would have done him in worse. And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

[© Tweed the Younger]

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[jravnsbo]

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[© Tweed the Younger]

Why should we have to do anything for them?  Their radical views are the ticket to nowhere.  It's like saying the Republican party should cater to the views of the Constitution Party.

[Dave from Michigan]

 
 

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.

Michigan will not go clearly for Kery. Kerry may win but it will be close.
 
 
 
 

[jravnsbo]

no but allt he dems do is blame them for THEIR loss.  If i was a green I sure as h*ll wouldn't vote for a Democrat that was chastizing me all the time.

Constitutiona dn Libertarian parties are not costing GOP anything.  Simply B/c GOP is growing and controls all facets fo gov't by winning.

Why should we have to do anything for them?  Their radical views are the ticket to nowhere.  It's like saying the Republican party should cater to the views of the Constitution Party.

[Gustaf]

 
 

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.

Michigan will not go clearly for Kery. Kerry may win but it will be close.
 
 
 
 

It depends on the defintion of clearly. I am thinking 53-47 or something similar, that's clearly to me, but no landslide of course.

[Gustaf]

That's interesting, being pro-environment is very unusual for a right-winger, which isn't really logical though, btw.  

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[jravnsbo]

I am pro environment , but not pro RADICAL ENVIRONMENT.  You must have balance not extremism.  The radical environmentalists groups we have int he US don't ever give any credit to the GOP and want EVERYTHING There way to protect a shrew.  Hello move the darn thing.  Oh no it has always lived here.  geez!

I grew up on a  farm and the midwest thrives on the beautiful and love of the land.  We get very offended by coast groups that come in and tell us they know better than we do about our own lands.  hello!

Case in point Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) has a very good environmental record.  He has founded a committee that has grown to be bi-partisan int he senate to study and develop alternative energy resources.  He has pushed legislation through that Bush signed for a ton of extra money there.  He is big in developing solar energy programs and setting aside lands in his own state of Colorado.  However int he 2002 elections the radical groups demonized him, if you didn't know better you'd think he was grabbing kids and feeding them pollution.  It was reprehensible.  They then went and hen picked bills they were for and showed his record to be like 15% and didn't give him any credit for the environmental things he was doing, completely distorting his record.  Luckily he won easily.

Bush has done a lot for the environemtn but the media will never let you know it you have to research for it.  He repeals some act or eases it like the brush clearing legislation and its front page news.  Talk about bias.  Yeah lets let the trees have useless brush so we can have ALL the trees burn up in forest fires.

That's interesting, being pro-environment is very unusual for a right-winger, which isn't really logical though, btw.  

Not just b/c I'm GOP but I continue to ask what have dems done for Greens, nothing but blame them.  I'd be p*ssed too if I was them.  But I also am very pro-environment.  I would have voted Nader after Bush.

And I also think that most of the Bush-hating Deaniacs will vote for the Dem nominee anyway, b/c they want to get rid of Bush.

Check out a left-wing message board and they're saying "GREEN if not for DEAN!"  Here's one:

http://www.gwbush.com/forum

[Dave from Michigan]

It depends on the defintion of clearly. I am thinking 53-47 or something similar, that's clearly to me, but no landslide of course

I think it will be closer.
 
 
 
 

[jravnsbo]

California Opens Arms to GOP, for Now

LOS ANGELES — In the 2000 presidential election, President Bush got clobbered by Al Gore in California, 53 percent to 42 percent.
 
And although the Golden State is perceived to be chock full of mostly registered Democrats, a recent poll shows that Bush's performance approval rating in that state is now at 52 percent. That means for this year's presidential election, California may be a key state for the GOP — the first time since 1988.

Democrats and Republicans surveyed said Bush is favored for three reasons: Saddam Hussein is in custody, there's more money in their pockets after Bush-imposed tax cuts and actor-turned-politician Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, is in the governor's seat in Sacramento.

Democrats acknowledge there's a bit of a honeymoon period with the Terminator but they believe that will soon wear thin and Bush will have to stand on his own.

State GOP leaders aren't sure if Bush's uptick is an aberration or a turning point, but, to use a California term, they're getting their boards waxed and ready to ride.


--not ready to say Bush will win California, but an encouraging sign if he is running strong there.

[opebo]

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

Kerry is stronger only in one way - he seems very reliable, predictable, reassuring - a member of the 'establishment'.  I know he's a liberal, and by definition it is dangerous having a liberal in charge of anything - but particularly national defense and foreign policy.  I'm just saying that he gives the *impression* of someone who is more reliable than Dean for example - or even Edwards for that matter.  I don't think this will win him the election, but I do think it means he wins a few more 'leans Democrat' states than Dean would have.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.

Kerry is stronger only in one way - he seems very reliable, predictable, reassuring - a member of the 'establishment'.  I know he's a liberal, and by definition it is dangerous having a liberal in charge of anything - but particularly national defense and foreign policy.  I'm just saying that he gives the *impression* of someone who is more reliable than Dean for example - or even Edwards for that matter.  I don't think this will win him the election, but I do think it means he wins a few more 'leans Democrat' states than Dean would have.

Pretty much sums up my argument. I still think a war vet who supported the Iraq War will carry more weight than a mad doctor who dodged the draft and went skiing. But I COULD be wrong I guess...