Minnesota

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Schools are pretty good statewide,

Pretty good?  Pshaw!

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

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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.,

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

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

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.

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.  

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

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.