Can Kerry Win Over the Southern States?

[Mattius_]

I predict Bush Will...

Lose the election!

 

[member 5645]

Are you going to expand on this?

 

[Mattius_]

I as hoping to generate discussion by keeping it open ended.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
I as hoping to generate discussion by keeping it open ended.

Give me your reasons on why you think he will lose, and I'd be happy to respond

 

[Zero]

He could lose, he could win, and it all depends on how the media coverage goes. If he gets a free pass like he did against Gore, he'll have an easier time winning.

 

[member 5645]

Bush will win -

Kerry is peaking too early.
He's laid everything on the table, and is giving 8 months for people to find where he is contradicting himself, or lying.

Here's an example:
"We do not need to divide America over who served and how."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004646
Yet, today Kerry questioned Bush on his military service.


I predict that this sort of show is goign to continute on, eroding him. This is all very reminiscent of Dukakis and Bush. Kerry even admits it, al beit Kerry says he won't make the same mistakes.
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2004/02/07/dukakis/
He is already makign the same mistakes. He has people in his own party labeling him "a republican", he's peaking earlier, and by november he will be burnt out in many people's minds.

The only saving grace for Kerry is if Bush has really touched enough buttons that people will vote for Kerry just to get rid of Bush. Unfortunately for Kerry though, I do feel that to win that vote he'll alienate the rest of the democrats that would support him. He's already alienated the south by proposing he doesn't need us to win

I'm calling a Bush victory in November.

 

[NateTG]

The amount of 'anyone but Bush' sentiment is ... disturbing. Bush has strongly polarized the US voters, and even people that would normally vote 3rd party are telling me that they're looking for the credentials "not Bush" in the coming election.

The Democrats are already circling the wagons, and whomever wins the nomination would be idiotic not to go after Bush on traditionally Republican issues that Bush is lousy in - like fiscal responsibility and civil liberties - and the economy.

 

[Njorl]

He's already alienated the south by proposing he doesn't need us to win

He alienated the South by being from Massachussets. He might as well not lose votes elswhere by pandering to the archaic attitudes so common to the South. The conservatives of rural Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are the only ones Kerry needs (just a few at that), and they don't appreciate being lumped in with southerners. Florida, of course is different.

Kerry needs none of the "Southern Strategy" states, nor can he win any. Kerry only needs to take the states Gore took, and flip Florida or Ohio - both are quite possible.

Njorl

 

[Monique]

So can someone give me a quick run down of the voting events? Right now it is about the candidacy, when will the actual big voting day be?

 

[Njorl]

Early November of 2004 is the general election.

The Republicans have their candidate - Bush.

Democrats are picking theirs. Each state has an election or caucus to assign delegates to a candidate. These are primaries. They are spread out for about 3 months. It is likely that the nominee will be determined to be John Kerry as early as February 17th. If Kerry is found to have engaged in cannibalism, or worse, received oral pleasure from an intern, the trend in the later primaries could change.

In the summer, each party has their convention. They officially pick their candidate, adopt their platform, and pick vice-presidential candidates. Then we get the onslaught of negative poitical ads and insipid debates moderated by reporters even more clueless than the average voter, after which pundits tell us what the candidates just said, even though it doesn't seem to match what we just heard them say. With this excellent preparation, a good 50% of registered voters - about 35% of the population - will go to the polls to decide who will be president.

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by NateTG
The amount of 'anyone but Bush' sentiment is ... disturbing.

I'm not so sure that's not normal. When Clinton was in office, I had an 'anyone but Clinton' point of view. Every incumbent has their share of it.

 

[Mattius_]

Current statistics show that if there was an election TODAY, Kerry would end up with 43% of the vote, and bush with 47% 3% margin of error. However, if Kerry gets Edwards on his ticket as vice president(which is a serious possibility), he gains the entire south, because people from the south only vote for people with a southern accent. Truth!

 

[selfAdjoint]

I noticed an interesting poll analysis this morning. Bush's popularity has fallen under 50%. But that's not the interesting part; it fell 10 points in just a few days, and that happeneed to be the few days when Kay's report that ther weren't any WMD was big news.

All through the Fall of 2003, pundits marveled that the US public still believed that Saddam had a direct connection to 9/11. Finally, it appears, they have accepted and internalized the insight that all that was just a story. Once the aura of wartime leader is lost to Bush, he can never get it back. When they think about it, they are going to come to see him as a faker. The general reaction to his interview with Russert last nigh is another straw in the wind.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Kerry's peaked?

Bush peaked two and a half years ago. And he's been falling since.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
He alienated the South by being from Massachussets. He might as well not lose votes elswhere by pandering to the archaic attitudes so common to the South.

Great, someone who thinks all intelligent life lives on either coast

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Current statistics show that if there was an election TODAY, Kerry would end up with 43% of the vote, and bush with 47% 3% margin of error. However, if Kerry gets Edwards on his ticket as vice president(which is a serious possibility), he gains the entire south, because people from the south only vote for people with a southern accent. Truth!

Yes, but let's remember Dukakis and Bush...Dukakis led Bush all the way until Deep into election season...

Bush v. Dukakis (1988)

Evenutal results: Bush 52.3%, Dukakis 44.7%

Some of the polling:

The Toronto Star, 5/19/88:

A CBS/New York Times poll released Monday said Dukakis leads Bush 49-39 per cent and would beat the vice-president in all regions of the country if the election were held now. A Lou Harris poll Sunday gave Dukakis a 50-43 per cent edge.

WaPo, 6/30/88

In the Gallup poll of 1,210 registered voters conducted last weekend, Dukakis held a 46-to-41 percent lead over Bush, compared with a 52-to-38 percent lead he held in a similar poll in mid-June. The poll found Dukakis losing ground among most key voter groups, particularly self-described Democrats and independents, a key swing group.

The ABC News-Money Magazine poll gave Dukakis a 3 point margin, essentially a dead heat under the margin of polling error. In the last Washington Post-ABC News poll at the end of the May, which used the same methodology as this one, Dukakis had an 11 point lead.

The ABC-Money poll of 1,013 adults was taken June 22-26 and showed Dukakis dropping from being the choice of 52 percent of the general public to 45 percent. Bush gained 1 point, rising to 42 percent; those with no choice increased 4 points.>


NYT, 7/26/88

In the aftermath of the Democratic National Convention, the party's nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, has expanded his lead among registered voters over Vice President Bush, the probable Republican nominee, according to a Gallup Poll. This was among the findings of a national public opinion poll of 948 registered voters conducted late last week for Newsweek magazine by the Gallup Organization. The telephone interviews took place on July 21, which was the last night of the convention, and on the night after that.

Fifty-five percent of the 948 registered voters interviewed in the poll said they preferred to see Mr. Dukakis win the 1988 Presidential election, while 38 percent said they preferred to see Mr. Bush win. The poll had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

This represented a shift in Mr. Dukakis's lead from the 47 percent to 41 percent advantage he held in the last pre-convention Gallup Poll, taken by telephone July 8-10. In that poll, 1,001 registered voters were interviewed.

The more I read, the more eerie the similarities get! Dukakis and Kerry follow most of the same issues, they are goign against a Bush who is strong in a war time environment, and Dukakis was even from the same state! Couple that with Kerry peaking so early in order to win the Democrat bid and we've got a good ol' fashion repeat of history

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
Kerry's peaked?

Bush peaked two and a half years ago. And he's been falling since.

When I say peaked, I'm not talking about poll numbers.
I'm talking about getting issues out. Kerry has to lay everything out to get the nomination - He's leaving little left to challenge Bush with except 8 months of repeating the same thing while others have 8 months to sift through his statements.

 

[Mattius_]

9 months is a long time for kerry to screw up/wear out, but it is also a long time for bush to remain popular. The trend for bush's popularity can be described in one word, declining.

Also, anyone here that Ralph Nader might join in the race? Nader cost Gore the election last time in florida by taking 90,000 votes(majorally gore vote) and he might just do the same thign to kerry this time!

 

[NateTG]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not so sure that's not normal. When Clinton was in office, I had an 'anyone but Clinton' point of view. Every incumbent has their share of it.

Well my sample is obviously skewed, but the people who I hear this from did not have the same attitude about Bush the elder or Reagan. This is the first time (since '72) that people in my family are actively going out and encouraging others to vote. Maybe I'm just more involved this year, but I expect that the Democratic electorate is going to be much more mobilized than it has been in the last few elections.

There is certainly some anti-incumbent sentiment, but the country is much more polarized than it has been in my memory.

 

[Mattius_]

Being 18 sucks in some respects, I have no idea if all current hype around election year is normal or not... Up until a few months ago i didnt even realize that candidates get that energetic! geez, they sure can move for old guys!

 

[motai]

Not quite sure that this was going to turn into a campaign debate, my first instinctive answer to the original topic "I predict Bush Will..." would be "choke on another pretzel"

 

[skywise]

Originally posted by motai
"I predict Bush Will..." would be "choke on another pretzel"

I'm inclined to agree. ... I am reminded of the strange pattern of US presidents who die in office..

PRESIDENT-------YEAR ELECTED------CAUSE OF DEATH

William H. Harrison 1840 Pleurisy, pneumonia

Abraham Lincoln 1860 Assassinated

James Garfield 1880 Assassinated

William McKinley 1900 Assassinated

Warren Harding 1920 Pneumonia

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940 Cerebral hemmorage

John F. Kennedy 1960 Assassinated

now... the pattern may have been broken with Regan. This, we have yet to see..

It may go something like..

Ronald Regan 1980 Nearly assassinated

George W Bush 2000 Choked on a pretzel


Jeez.. I feel weird predicting that the prez will die in office... should I be worried about men in black showing up at my door? *knock knock*

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by skywise
I'm inclined to agree. ... I am reminded of the strange pattern of US presidents who die in office..

PRESIDENT-------YEAR ELECTED------CAUSE OF DEATH

William H. Harrison 1840 Pleurisy, pneumonia

Abraham Lincoln 1860 Assassinated

James Garfield 1880 Assassinated

William McKinley 1900 Assassinated

Warren Harding 1920 Pneumonia

Franklin D. Roosevelt 1940 Cerebral hemmorage

John F. Kennedy 1960 Assassinated

now... the pattern may have been broken with Regan. This, we have yet to see..

It may go something like..

Ronald Regan 1980 Nearly assassinated

George W Bush 2000 Choked on a pretzel


Jeez.. I feel weird predicting that the prez will die in office... should I be worried about men in black showing up at my door? *knock knock*

Reagan broke the cycle or he kicked death's ass! !

 

[Zero]

I am declaring right now that Osama Bin Laden will be trotted out on Halloween, +/- a week. It is the only way for Bush to ensure victory, besides rigging the election again. Every time something "good"(politically) happens, Bush's numbers go up. As soon as it fades from memory, his numbers go back down.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
1>I am declaring right now that Osama Bin Laden will be trotted out on Halloween, +/- a week. It is the only way for Bush to ensure victory, besides rigging the election again.

2>Every time something "good"(politically) happens, Bush's numbers go up. As soon as it fades from memory, his numbers go back down.

1>Do you REALLY believe that we have Osama right now and are just holding him?? Are you thinking that the recent comment from the military about "we will get osama this year" is foreshadowing of this? Or do you have other reasons?

2>hahaha, that's a fairly redundant statement, don't you think?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Great, someone who thinks all intelligent life lives on either coast

Which coast are Michigan and Ohio on again? Also, when did the Carolinas and Georgia secede from the Atlantic Coast?

There is this bizarre perception that not pandering to the South is somehow parochial and narrow minded. The narrow mindedness is not in those who refuse to pander, but in those who insist that they be pandered to. It is the majority of southern voters who are narrow minded, not "Northeastern Liberals" or "Bi-coastal establishment types". Nobody fears their candidate will be unacceptable to the midwest, or the Rocky mountain states. It is only the South that earns this privilage.

Everyone knows the dirty little secret. To be "acceptable" in the South, you need to foster the impression that you are at least a closet racist. The media dance around this, saying that southern voters are for non-interference by government, or a strong military, or for traditional values. Richard Nixon knew the real path to winning the south was through lambasting school busing. Ronald Reagan made up stories about black "welfare queens". Bush the elder Willie Hortoned his way to victory. Bush the younger went to Bob Jones university to deliver his wink and nod to fellow racists to let them know, "I'm one of you boys."

Njorl

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
It is the only way for Bush to ensure victory, besides rigging the election again.

You really crack me up sometimes, Zero. I can't always tell if you actually believe everything you write(I sure hope not), but it really seems you do believe that one.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You really crack me up sometimes, Zero. I can't always tell if you actually believe everything you write(I sure hope not), but it really seems you do believe that one.

Just because you don't like the evidence, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist...but that is neither here nor there, so stick to the topic.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Which coast are Michigan and Ohio on again? Also, when did the Carolinas and Georgia secede from the Atlantic Coast?

There is this bizarre perception that not pandering to the South is somehow parochial and narrow minded. The narrow mindedness is not in those who refuse to pander, but in those who insist that they be pandered to. It is the majority of southern voters who are narrow minded, not "Northeastern Liberals" or "Bi-coastal establishment types". Nobody fears their candidate will be unacceptable to the midwest, or the Rocky mountain states. It is only the South that earns this privilage.

Everyone knows the dirty little secret. To be "acceptable" in the South, you need to foster the impression that you are at least a closet racist. The media dance around this, saying that southern voters are for non-interference by government, or a strong military, or for traditional values. Richard Nixon knew the real path to winning the south was through lambasting school busing. Ronald Reagan made up stories about black "welfare queens". Bush the elder Willie Hortoned his way to victory. Bush the younger went to Bob Jones university to deliver his wink and nod to fellow racists to let them know, "I'm one of you boys."

Njorl

You's a be right! I'm just a dumb ol' southern boy and my vote be just race based. Excuse me now, I need to get back hangin' some niggas and ****ing cows with the rest of the uneducated folk inbreeding down here sir!

 

[megashawn]

Woa, dude, don't you think your being just a lil touchy here?

I mean, let's face it. A good majority of people in the south are very much still racist, and portray an attitude that is very similar to your last response.

Now, I'm from north carolina, AKA the middle east, and most of what Njorl said is quite true. I know of several people who plan to vote for bush. When I query them why they think he deserves another term, few can give a good explanation. They denie the lies we we're told about iraq, hell, some people actually think we have found WMD's and ties to OBL. Heck, my girlfriend told me she plans to vote for bush, because that's who her brother is voting for. I suspect there are plenty of other voters who vote for who there family tells them to.

The south is quite an armpit, I love it here, I hope to be able to piss enough people off that they move the bible belt to the closest. unfortunately, as was mentioned, if you don't have a southern accent, your not getting much of a vote from the south.

___

But this brings another question about election. I admit, I'll be 24 this year and I've never voted. The entire process is to complicated. Anyhow, if I vote for say, kerry, but Bush wins NC, does my vote still support kerry? Because doesn't each state have an electorate vote, which represents the entire state? If this is so, it certainly seems it will be pointless for me to vote, without moving to a kerry supporting state.

I certainly hope that bush gets kicked to the curb, if he gets another 4 years, it might be worth our time to reread the John Titor prophecys.