Talk Elections

The most recent poll in Minnesota that I could find was done at the end of January, with Bush getting 41% of the vote, Kerry getting 43, and 16% were undecided.

I think Bush is going to get Minnesota. With the election of Coleman into the senate, I think that may give Bush some votes.

the only time since the 50s' Minnesota went rep was in 72' with Nixon landslide. If bush wins there it's a 350-380 ev for him at least, but he will not.

Gore only won by two points in 2000.

Brambilla,
Coleman is a good man.  He was st paul mayor before he was Senator.  Back in the 90s Mayor Coleman made a major change for job growth, education, and security.  He became frustrated that the Democratic party he had been a part of from his youth had assumed the role of defenders of the status quo, he switched to the Republican party because he felt it held the best opportunity to bring about job growth.

But he will not be a guarantor for Bush, who may just win MN for other reasons like national security, terrorism, and Kerry's perceived lack of direction.  Minnesota is more 'Big River' than 'Farm Belt' for the moment, but that could change quickly.  Coleman should certainly campaign for him, as any help is a good thing, but it would be more like Arnold campaigning for Bush in Alameda County, I'd think.  

im absolutely amazed that bush has a shot at winning minnesota.

perhaps someone with some expertise can enlighten us on what is going on up there.

ive always thought of minnesota as a bastion of liberalism, or prairie populism.  how did republican candidates suddenly become competitive there?

dont read so much into norm coleman getting elected.  1.  he is a moderate, 2. the dems turned the wellstone memorial into a political rally.

we know what happened to rod grams in 2000.

Most of my extended family live in MN.  They're all Democrats and are at least as scared of Bush as they were of Reagan.  Prairie populism describes it pretty well.  I gave a long rant a few nights ago and posted this moveon.org mailing that my Uncle, who was in the MN state legislature for about 12 years, sent to me.  They are all fairly concerned that MN may be a target for the Bush campaign.  The northern part of the state, where my parents grew up, is definitely Wellstone Country (even though he's from down around Little House on the Prairie land).  The southern and western parts of the state are more like Iowa.  Schools are pretty good statewide, and teacher's unions have a fairly powerful voice there.  I wouldn't think it's likely either that Bush will win, but the polls are close.  And the election results have been getting less and less one-sided over the years.  The GOP has a strong message, and if Bush can articulate it, he may have a shot.

It was 2.5 and Nader got 5+

Pretty good?  Pshaw! ;) :)

Minnesota has a good, progressive base. Wellstone's numbers actually went up after he cast a supposedly controversial vote against the war in Iraq. If MN is expected to be close, the base will turn out for Kerry.

how the hell is Coleman going to help Bush at all? He didn't even get 50%. In fact, NO Republican statewide office holder has gotten over 50% of the vote, the only statewide office holder to do so is Democratic Attorney General Mike Hatch.

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. 41% for an incumbent is very poor, especially when the poll was taking early and before Kerry campaigned here. I do not see Bush winning Minnesota, but sadly he'll try and I'll have to deal with his worthless lies and load of crap ads.

edit: originally said "more popular than Bush" which is about as untrue as you can get.

It's nice to see another Democratic Minnesotan here! (sorry if I didn't catch you earlier)

Anyway, these upper-middle-class/high-class 'burbs I live in are Bush country.  However, when I went to my precinct's caucuses, there were maybe 20+ people... I was surprised!

Also, for another indicator of how liberal Democrats here, just look at the caucus results-- Dennis Kucinich got 16.83% of the caucuses.

I know people from the St. Cloud and Duluth area- it seems like they have a fairly good education system.

those are both Democratic cities, especially Duluth. It usually votes over 2/3 Democratic.

Yes pretty good, according to Morgan Quinto, who considers many factors, including revenue, graduation rate, test scores, among other things.  MN ranks 12th of 50.  Not bad.  By comparison MA is first; VT and CT are next; OH is near the middle; TX is 31st; FL is 40th; CA is 44th, MS and NV are tied for next-to-last; and NM is dead last.  My point about the schools was to suggest the power the teacher's unions in that state, most of whom support ABB.

Brambilla, as you can see from the posts, it's a longshot, but take a look at the 2000 map.  People will bring up the amorphous 'nader factor' but remember local girl winona laduke may have helped Nader, and in any case, the best estimates (38/26/36) nationwide suggests the 'nader factor' is overblown by bitter gore supporters.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

Well... at least you said may...

VP's don't matter for traditional third party candidates. They are a one man show.

Lets hope that imbecile Nader doesn't get on the ballot again.

a map proves nothing. It doesn't show the population density of the counties and in this case the margin of victory. Therefore doesn't show that over 1.6 million out of the state's 5 million residents live in Hennepin and Ramsey counties which went heavily for Gore, and that Bush only won several of the suburban counties that when added in probably make up over half the state by only a few points, usually with the Nader vote taking up over twice the margin of victory.

And I still don't see how Coleman means anything when about half the state (basically everyone who didn't vote for him) absolutely hates him.

If anyone would just drive through Minneapolis, you can just tell how much people hate Bush there. There was a joke earlier that city law required all houses on the corner of the block to have an anti-war sign up. Bush is so hated there you'd be lucky to not get a rude honk or flipped the bird several times if you had a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker.

Sounds like fun : P

Why do people in Minnesota hate Bush so much.  Your description kind of sounds like New Haven or New York City, where you cant walk a block without seeing anti-Bush grafiti.  But you could understand those two cities because they are in the northeast with high minority populations.

I think it's a bit of an exaggeration ;)

We're like that in NH too.

hmm.

it's hard to believe that any state that would elect bob freakin' smith to the us senate, would be upset about the conservatism of bush.

gimme a break.

Oh.  N/M.

Our state has a terrible democratic state organization. But we have hated Bush since Fall of 1999!

your state has hated bush since the fall of 99?  then why did yall vote for him in 2000?

not only did yall elect (and reelect) bob smith to the us senate, but pat buchanan won the 92 primary.

now either yall have had a sudden turn leftward, or you are exaggerating nh's hatred of bush.

im voting for the latter.

a bit of an exaggeration, but Bush is extremely hated, and last year you could definately see where the sign joke came from. For the most part, large cities in the Midwest aren't much different from large cities in the Northeast or West Coast, regardless of what the surrounding regions are like, unlike the South, where the overwhelming conservatism seeps into cities like Dallas and Birmingham. The Twin Cities as well as Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago, St. Louis, ect. aren't really much different from San Francisco or NYC. Culturally they're about the same. Another huge reason is the University of Minnesota, which is notoriously liberal and responsible for lots of activism that spreads throughout the area. Nader got 10% in Minneapolis in 2000, the largest in any major city. He'll be doing a lot worse this time though, with the good chunk of that going to Kerry.,

Minnesota has been the land of disappointments in recent years, with Republicans winning at least 3 major statewide elections since 1994 despite trailing in pre-election surveys.

If you want a state where Democrats usually end up doing as well as the pre-election polls say, try Wisconsin.

As for NH, Bush does not represent the NH republican, who is from the fiscal conservative wing. We are not wild about war, trade as an issue, and are moderately socially liberal. As for Bob Smith, unfortunately he got beaten in the primaries, but he was a true independent ultra-conservative. As for Pat Buchanan, NH hates the favorites.

That's interesting.  Then I guess the only difference between the midwest and the northeast is that here the suburbs are just as liberal if not more liberal than the cities.  Because usually what you have is the cities filled with poor minorities that just vote up and down democratic but aren't really that liberal on a lot of issues.  And then you have the surrounding suburbs that are usually lily-white that tend to be mixed because most of the people are very liberal but also pay a lot in taxes.

well the suburbs here are a mixed bag. Most of the very inner ones are also extremely liberal, the more middle ones are liberal on social issues but far more conservative on economic issues, so the voting is pretty mixed. and the way outer ones are even more conservative than the rural areas, mostly because they aren't as poor and are full of the type of people who work in the metro area but consider the city to be "evil" or something and like to live far away from it.

People compare Nader to Ross Perot. I'm sorry. Ross Perot was very different. Nader got less than 5% of the vote, while Ross Perot got like 18%. Bush Sr. would have won if Ross Perto got 7% less. Perot also did a similar thing to Dole. Though statistically Clinton would have won, I think in the long run if Perot had no run we would have easily won the 1992 and 1996 elections.

Perot took away votes from both sides. He did not cost Bush I the election. This is yet another one of the almost uncountable number of right wing lies: http://www.leinsdorf.com/perot.htm

Perot clearly took away votes from both sides.  It would be hard to tell who would have won.  Bush was very unpopular around the time of the election.

Wheras Nader clearly took away votes from Gore.  I VOTED FOR NADER, there is no way on Earth I was going to vote for Bush... and I always vote.

Not a right wing lie.  That's the accepted view from a lot of reputible political scientists.  Just read about it.  But as I have often said, the reason Perot cost Bush the election is because he forced Bush to take on two opponets where Clinton only had to deal with one.

read the analysis. Perot clearly took away votes from both sides. Even the Center For Voting and Democracy had an article on Perot about third party effects on elections, but they admitted that while Perot may have cost Bush I some states, he did not cost him the election. Bush I was unpopular, and thrown out because of that.

If Perot had somehow disappeared from the ballot a week or a month or two months before the election, Bush would have lost by approximately the same margin as he did.
The question of what would have happened if he'd never run is a different one altogether, one that is hard to answer exactly, but yeah, if Perot had never run Bush would have done a good bit better. My guess is it would have been extremely close, kinda like 2000, or maybe a narrow but clear Bush win.

Perot was conservative. I don't see how liberals would vote for him.

Perot took away from both sides, as nader did, just slightly more from one side than the other.  I have a colleague that voted for gore and will vote for kerry, but told me he voted for Perot in 1992.  I knew someone back about 12 years ago who could make a good argument for perot being a 'liberal'  I know it's weird that a multi-billioinaire could be described as liberal, but the fact remains that he supported many, many positions that are now assigned to that rather arbitrary label.  Perot's biggest problem was that he claimed that Government was a business and "...should be run like a business..."  Bushies will all claim Perot 'stole' votes away from Bush in 92 just as the Gore people will claim Nader 'stole' votes away from him in 2000, if good campaigning can be called 'stealing'  

Perot I once read a survey took about 2.5 to 1 from the right

Perot…was a fiscal conservative not at all in line with the modern day republican party which as increasingly tacked to the right on social issues while his positions on these issues (to the best of my knowledge) were traditionalist he was not one for imposing his beliefs on others and was in favour of allowing a significant of personal freedom of life style rather like a democrat like Lieberman is…

Just because Liberals would not vote for Perot does not mean that Democrats would not…self identified Liberals account for 21% of the US electorate while Democrats (and republicans for that matter) account for about 40-45% of the population…now all of these people are obviously not liberals…I’m a democrats who leans to the left on economic issues and things such as welfare (despite my belief that they are largely a state responsibility) yet I’m fairly traditionalist on moral issues and pretty much singing from the same hymn sheet as Jo Lieberman or Scoop Jackson on foreign Policy (despite opposing the Iraq war), so I don’t think you can really call me a liberal yet I am a democrat…

Amongst economic conservatives (worried about the deficit) hand moderate independents (turned off by Clinton’s alleged transgressions and Buchanan’s appearance at the GOP convention) Perot’s polices must have resonated well and as a result this large group of independents must have been the group which formed the bulk of Perot support… that most of is supporters where independent is born out in how they voted further down the ticket….

Governors races
GOP Candidates: 18%,  Dem Candidates: 56%, Ind Candidates: 17%

Senate Races:  
GOP Candidates:27%, Dem Candidates: 24%, Ind Candidates: 23% and did not vote 24%

House Races:
GOP Candidates: 22%, Dem Candidates: 19%, Ind Candidates: 18% and 40% did not vote…      

I’ll now quote from the site that “setyourselfonfire” gave a link to…

If Perot cost Bush the election, the proof must lie somewhere else. On a statistical basis, it's essentially impossible to make a case for Perot costing Bush the 1992 presidential election. The election results show that Perot took many voters from Clinton among his supporters who demonstrated a low interest in politics by voting only for President and Governor, while taking marginally from Bush among those who demonstrated more commitment by casting ballots for Congress.

This analysis can be further confirmed by comparing the 1992 and 1996 results where Perot's vote dropped by 10 million compared to 1992. By comparing the vote totals for Clinton in both years with Bush's and Dole's (assuming Dole voters and Bush voters were the same voters) it is possible to conclude that in 1992 Perot's presence on the ballot cost Bush: Montana, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia. However, Perot cost Clinton: Florida and Arizona in 1992. So, in 1992, Perot cost Clinton 32 electoral votes while costing Bush 37 electoral votes. Bush lost by 100 electoral votes, so 5 more would not have given him victory.

This same analysis shows that if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1996, Dole would have carried Nevada instead of Clinton. So, by any measure, even admitting that Perot's presence may have cost Bush a few electoral votes in 1992, it was no where near enough to change the outcome of that election, nor the Clinton - Dole contest in 1996.


Personally I’ve always said that Perot was far less of a spoiler than many republicans have argued…I’ve always seen him as a candidate who naturally appealed to the centre and moderates from both parties and independent voters…unlike either Nader or Buchanan both of whom appeal to the extremes of both political spectrums…                      

Wait a sec...North Carolina? North Carolina went for Bush.

Bush's chance in Minnesota depend on Nader, who counts on Minnesota as one of his best states.

If Nader is not on the ballot, Kerry will win.
If Nader gets more than 5%, Bush will win.
Anything in between makes the state a toss-up.

Nader could do even better in Minnesota this year than 2000, since MN has a history of liking Independent candidates.  On the other hand, Nader's running mate in 2000 was from MN, and I imagine Nader will choose someone different, because LaDuke is a hard-core Green.

Nader won't do better in ANY state, assuming he's even on the ballot. Minnesota may like third party candidates, but doesn't have much of a preference for independents over third parties. With much less funds, organization, no homestate running mate, and a good chunk of his 2000 voters voting ABB, there is no chance of Nader getting more than last time.

As for Perot, he wasn't really a conservative, at least not in the same way as Bush. He was pro-choice and pretty much a social liberal. However, his primary issue was opposing NAFTA and free trade. This primarily appeals to organized labor. So since Clinton was a free trader, the union guys voted for Perot. If Perot had not run, they probably would've voted for Clinton since Clinton was better on other labor issues.

Also, if you simply add the Perot total to the Bush total, Clinton would've lost in a 47 state landslide, losing everything except DC, his home state of Arkansas, and would've won with narrow pluralities in New York and Maryland. How could such an unpopular Bush do so? Also what about the Dukakis states? Why would they vote for a rather weak Dukakis over an at the time rather popular Bush, and then supposedly turn around and vote for a far more unpopular Bush over a much stronger candidate?

I actually calculated that even if you add the Perot vote in splitting 2/3s to Bush, 1/3 to Clinton, Clinton would've still won.

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.

I don't buy for a minute the notion that Perot votes came from anywhere other than conservative voters.  Here are Perot's best states in 1992:

1 Maine 30.44%
2 Alaska 28.43%
3 Utah 27.34%
4 Idaho 27.05%
5 Kansas 26.99%
6 Nevada 26.19%
7 Montana 26.12%
8 Wyoming 25.65%
9 Oregon 24.21%
10 Minnesota 23.96%
11 Arizona 23.79%
12 Washington 23.68%
13 Nebraska 23.63%
14 Colorado 23.32%

Of those 14 states,  states, only 3 of them are consistent Democrat territory.  And in the case of Oregon and Washington, it was the conservative eastern part of those states - the Republican parts.  Seven of these states are probably the seven MOST Rebublican states in the union!   Perot's conservative support in Montana was so strong as to swing the state to Clinton!

Now, does all this mean that Perot cost Bush the election?  That is hard to say.  Clearly, Perot tapped into conservative anger against Bush.  Bush angered his conservative base, especially in the West, by going back on his "no new taxes" promise.  This was Bush's fault, not Perot's.

But what if Perot hadn't run?  What would all of these Perot voters have done?  Clearly *not* voted for Clinton.  They either would have voted Bush, or stayed home.  Clinton may have still won, but it would have been a lot closer.

I agree

If Perot votes would have gone 2.5 to 1 for bush (as I read in a some poll back then) the EV would be - I check that nationally even - instead of 370-168    207-331 (for Bush). in case of only 2 to 1 it would be 255-283 Bush. and in both cases a big win in PV

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.


well take a look at Nader's best states. Alaska was his best, Montana was top 5, and he also did very well in Colorado and Utah. So it means that there was appeal to a certain type of voters in the states, but not neccesarily voters who are like the overall political climate of the states.

Now those states also have the interesting tendency of none being in the south. And in fact except for DC, all of Perot's worse states were in the South. This means that he appealed to a certain type of conservative voter, but not other types. Perot clearly had little appeal to the religious right, probably more libertarian-minded folks. However, I'm sure that in Maine and Minnesota, as well as states like Ohio, the support mostly came from the union voters. These are the only states where Perot made a difference. On the states on the list, Clinton won 7 of them, and he probably would've won 4 of those (Maine, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon) without Perot. 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.

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

Nader did best in Alaska last time, but no-one would argue it came from Bush voters.

Texas gained 2 electoral votes last election, but no-one would argue that rise came from an increased amount of republicans to the state even though it is a republican state.  The increase in population came from hispanics, that tend to vote democrat.

You need to separate people within a state from the state itself and note that not everyone in a state votes in uniform.

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

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.


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.

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.

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

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.

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.

"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

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.

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?

republican is a dirty word in nyc?

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

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

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.

Where did I bring up Norm Coleman in my post?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

It is not.  Former Mayor Ed Koch (a Democrat) also supports the re-election of the incumbent president.
http://www.thevillager.com/villager_22/whatshedoin.html

Maybe he really has a raging hard-on for GWB, or maybe he just can't stand the Dems (I certainly wouldn't hold that against him):
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/18/132439.shtml

The no spin zone version is also telling:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109858,00.html

Care for a sample?

O'REILLY:  The Democrats are taking an internationalist tact.  You know that.  I mean Kerry and...

KOCH:  Isolationist.

O'REILLY:  I don't think it's isolationist so much.  They want a consensus before they act overseas.

KOCH:  Let me just say the people who are against Bush -- I mean they're running for president, these people, so they have to be critical, but I believe that the people who are against Bush and the major sector of the Democrats who favor Kerry and the others do it because they hate Bush.  It has...

O'REILLY:  No, they...

KOCH:  I mean it's like they hated Reagan.  I didn't vote for Reagan, and I didn't vote for Bush, but the lack of respect for the country, for the presidency -- it offends me.

O'REILLY:  It offends me, too.  The lack of respect for the Office of the Presidency...

KOCH:  Yes.

O'REILLY:  ... calling him a liar and all this other stuff.

KOCH:  I think it's an outrage.

Give me a break...  since you are all about anecdotal evidence.  I challenge you to walk down any street in NYC and see how many anti-Bush posters, graffiti or flyers you find.  I could almost guarantee that there is no street in Manhattan that doesn't have some kind of anti-republican literature somewhere.  Not even Wall Street.  

If you think that because some former Mayor that was more popular on the people's court than he was as mayor's, opinion is relevant then you're dead wrong.  Like I said, Bush won't get 20% of the vote in New York City even though he will try to exploit 9-11 hard.  

What is Bush going to run on in NYC?  The fact that he hates gays and people who have abortions or the fact that NYC has a 10% unemployment rate?

Now wait a minute here.  I've worked in NYC for a while now and see it differently.  First, how can you assert that Koch wasn't popular?  To be elected to 3 straight terms, someone had to like the guy.

Also, yes NYC is anti-Bush and anti-GOP, but no more so than any other big city I've been to.  I rarely see any anti-Bush posters or graffiti on the streets, I think you are exaggerating about that.  I see an occasional negative poster in the subways but that's about it.   By the way, not all of NYC is liberal.  Republicans still do well in Staten Island.

As for Bloomberg, he wasn't elected because of a backlash of Hispanic voters against Green.  These traditional Democratic voters just stayed home, they weren't out voting for Bloomberg in droves.  Bloomberg's campaign really took off when he started airing commercials in which Giuiliani endorsed him.  Without those ads Mark Green would be mayor today.

President Bush has probably conceded New York to the Democrats in 2004 because of his poor showing in upstate New York. Unless polls state otherwise, Bush will spend his money in a state that he more of a chance to pick up.

A good thing, too, since we need him as congressman :).

http://www.house.gov/markgreen/

Go Packers!  Do you expect Mark Green to be a serious US senate contender in '06?  This is exactly what we ought to be saying:  "My deepest sympathies and condolences go out to the Spanish people during this time of great tragedy.  As Americans, we know all too well the pain and sorrow that accompany these ruthless acts of terror, and we stand in solidarity with Spain as they seek those responsible."

No one is suggesting that the GOP should spend money trying to gain the 31 votes from New York.  I just consider Ed Koch one of my personal heroes lately and I wanted to share the good news.

Oh dear.  We have a problem.

That was in the past.  Now, we have the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul... pretty much the deciders of the election.  It may come as a surprise, but we're actually cultured.

Kerry may not resound with church-goers here... but Bush doesn't either.  Most Minnesotans are Lutherans, IMO.  We're not as religious as Bush.  Religion isn't a factor.

CTguy seems to be full of hatred.  Even in the darkest days of the Clinton presidency, I never hated him.  Also, just because you are for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage doesn't mean you hate gays.  I am for the amendment, but I don't hate gays, and I don't think GWB does either.  Same with women who have abortions.  

You noticed this, too.

Look, I started that.  On behalf of only myself I do not think you're full of hatred; just letting off steam over all the bs thought-police emotional brutality of the new authoritarian Left.  Don't go away or invite me to.  Or others.  An who may follow my poor example of immediately attacking all Democrats.  This was a civil forum, as has been pointed out, but on stomping grounds such as Minnesota, people sometimes get nasty.  Expect more negativity as the months progress.

I'll admit that I've gotten angry beyond what I should have over the past month, but I just get p*ssed off over all of the double standards.  For one thing, I hate it when the Dems accuse Bush of being negative because it is clear to any fair-minded person that the Dems have been going negative on Bush for the past three months.  When we try to fight fire with fire, they just jump on us and call us names.  That's the way it is when conservatives express there opinions on most issues and I get sick and tired of it.  

CTguy has almost raised it to a whole new level with his rants and when I try to fight back he (like his DNC counter-parts) accusses me of going negative.  I'm all for honest debate, but I don't see much of it going on at the moment.

Note:  there are some forum members on both sides who are commited ot fair-mindedness and that deserves to be pointed out.

When you're dealing with liberals, everything is a double standard.

I have found in real life, and seen here too, that some liberals are among the most mean-spirited, bigoted and intolerant people around.  And yet they think it's OK, because supposedly they do it all in the name of tolerance, kindness and condemnation of bigotry.

Northeastern liberals in particular tend to be very condescending, confident of their superiority over other people, and openly bigoted against southerners and people who have any type of religious faith.

Northeastern liberals are particularly noxious on the race issue.  Because of the traditionally town-based school districts in the northeast, as opposed to county-wide school districts down south, the northeast has the greatest degree of racial separation among students of any section of the country. [I don't use the word "segregation" because I don't want to add to politcally correct corruption of the language -- Segregation is racial separation imposed by the government, not individual choices.]  

The same is true for the towns and cities of the northeast, particularly the New York and Boston metropolitan areas.  There is a deeply entrenched separation of the races that could not be any greater if it were imposed by law.

And believe me, these liberals would be screaming bloody murder if anybody tried to merge these separate school districts in order to bring about greater integration.  There was an attempt by black groups to do this in Connecticut, and it got ZERO support.  Rich liberals would support it if involved integrating blacks with working class whites, but they would fight it tooth and nail if it involved them.

This is what happened in liberal Boston.  Federal courts ordered busing in the city, basically between poor blacks and poor whites.  Liberals in the suburbs supported it, while the whites in the city were incensed and reacted with violence.  New York City, another liberal bastion, never integrated its public schools because the fear of violence was so great that it scared off the integrationists.  To this day, NYC has a neighborhood based school system at the elementary level, and that is as it should be, in my opinion.  But it means that schools in certain sections are lily-white, while others are entirely black or latino.  And believe me, the NYC liberals mean to keep it that way if it involves their children.

So all the liberal pontificating about tolerance, and against bigotry, ring pretty hollow to me.

Angus, I just wanted to tell you that I forwarded your apologies to Michael, and he accepted them and also apoligized for his overreaction and asked me to forward that. Just so you know... :)

sorry, but if you support amending into the Constitution permanent second class status for gays, I don't see how can say you don't hate them. Besides, I doubt anyone who supports such an amendment would have many gay friends, simply because no gay would hang around them.In my opinion, anyone who supports the Hate Amendment is a homophobe, end of story. You sound like "I'm not racist, I just think races should remain seperate and interracial mixing is against nature, blah blah blah..."

aside from that, anyone who thinks Bush has a snowball's chance in hell of winning New York should lay off the drugs since whatever they're on is so strong they probably would be dead by the election

Spread the love, man.  :)

Always, always... :)

Exactly, these conservatives are trying to pity themselves saying liberals are the true evil ones and blah blah blah...  but give me a break, they are the ones that support discrimination in the law.

These are the same people who 40 years ago would have been fighting tooth and nail to keep schools segregated...  yes in the SOUTH where it was politically correct to support segregation... yet they pretend like it's a northern phenomenon.

Mega Dittos on that.  :)

Do you know anything about the modern south?  The modern south, especially places like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia is probably one of the most tollerant places when it comes to race in the country.

Do oyu know where Klan membership is the largest?  It's not in the south.  It's in places like Pa, Mich, and New York.

whoe cares about 40 years ago, we were talking about 40 years ago, we were talking about today.

And by the way, your right, I'm such a rampid racist, that's why almost half my friends are non-caucasian.

Speaking of 30 or 40 years ago, one of the ugliest spots in the nation with regard to desegregation of schools was good old liberal Boston, Mass.  However, please don't let your "facts" get in the way of your good story.

CT, you might want to review your history before you start mouthing off about the racist South.

I'm against desegregation of schools for no reason other than desegregation. To explain, I don't think white kids on one side of the city should be forced to go to a school 30 minutes away in a black neighborhood just to desegregate that school, or vice-versa. They should simply go to whatever school is the closest. It's way too much of an inconvenience to the kids, it's simply not fair to force kids to get up 30 minutes earlier and make it a lot more difficult to participate in extra-curriculars because of something that's not their fault. quit screaming racism, the bottom line is that forced busing is not the answer.

The SPLC like pointing out that there are more Cross Burnings in Pennsylvania than Alabama.

Virginia elected a black Governer in 1989, BTW

How many times more? Considering that PA has 3 times Alabama's population, I mean...and a larger percentage of whites ;)