NY Times Interactive Election Guide
Find a Conversation
NY Times Interactive Election Guide
| Sat, 07-24-2004 - 8:34am |
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html?th
Note: This feature is regularly updated with the most current information available. This will continue through the November election.

Pages
My impression is that they are convinced (hopeful anyway) Kerry will win...or, maybe indeed, very worried that Bush will. Haven't heard the crowing yet from Dems looking at the NYT Guide. Bound to be a lot of it on Nov. 3rd, IF Kerry wins! (((shutter)))
I can't speak for the other liberals on the board but personally I don't feel the need to post every single upswing for the Kerry campaign. I do post some occasionally if they stand out to me. In addition, I go to all the sites (CNN,MSNBC,Gallup,Zogby,Rasmussen,etc..not just NY times). I'm not upset or in a state of panic. I KNOW that the American people will do the right thing and kick Bush to the curb. I'm absolutely confident of that. I KNOW John Kerry and John Edwards will turn this country around and get it back on track. I just can't wait until the day actually gets here for the election. Less than 100 days now but it can't be soon enough for me. In the meantime, I go to my local Kerry meetups and participate as much as I can. We have a rally here next week so I'm very excited about that. So when I read the negative stuff about Kerry on this board I simply shake my head and laugh to myself(which is a change because I used to get quite upset)! It just shows me how scared the Republicans/Conservatives are. This election is all about GWB, not John Kerry. It is about whether or not people are happy with the job that GWB has done. John Kerry will show the American people in a few days that he is a viable alternative to Bush and the swing voters will join us once they are confident of that. Then thanks to the debacle in 2000 our party is more united than ever. In addition, because of 2000 I predict we will truly have record turnouts to vote. ANYWAY, I don't know how the other liberals feel but I'm confident and I can't wait to vote. I wish we could vote today........
July 24, 2004, 11:54PM
If it's 2000 all over, Bush loses even if he wins
GEORGE F. WILL
Washington Post
Democrats now convening know that voters are unusually interested in the election and unprecedentedly polarized, and that two large events have determined the campaign's dynamics. One was Howard Dean's decision to forgo public financing of his campaign. The other was the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal.
Dean's decision triggered -- and destigmatized -- John Kerry's emulative decision. Together they loosed floods of money from the left side of today's angry electorate. This will enable Kerry's campaign, and the supposedly "uncoordinated" 527 groups supporting it, to contest some states where his chances, although south of excellent, are well north of negligible.
Colorado, for example. A senior Bush campaign official calls it "competitive" only in the sense that Kerry can lose by 8 points or spend millions and lose by 5 points. The official puts Arizona in the same category. However, some such state is apt to provide a surprise on Nov. 2.
After Kerry won the nomination largely unscathed by his Democratic opponents, George W. Bush had three good weeks, raising voters' concerns about Kerry's "flip-flopping."
Then came Bush's three dreadful months. After four Americans were murdered and burned in Fallujah, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal eclipsed economic good news and solidified public forebodings about Iraq.
A third event, Kerry's selection of John Edwards, did not alter the dynamics of the race. A Bush campaign operative, noting that Kerry's choice did not significantly help the ticket in North Carolina, asks: When was the last time a major party nominated a vice presidential candidate who could not be counted on to carry his home state? Actually, that happens frequently: Bob Dole selected New York's Jack Kemp in 1996, Michael Dukakis selected Texan Lloyd Bentsen in 1988, and Walter Mondale selected New York's Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, among other instances -- generally on losing tickets.
This year, both candidates are thinking as Lincoln did when he reportedly said, "I hope to have God on my side, but I must have Kentucky." Kerry feels that way about Michigan and Pennsylvania. Gore carried both, as Kerry must. No Democrat has won the presidency without carrying at least five Southern states. Kerry might carry none, so he must try to sweep the big states between New Jersey and Missouri.
In Michigan, Gore beat Bush by 5 percent, when there was a successful Republican governor, John Engler. Now there is a popular Democratic governor, Jennifer Granholm. But, says the determinedly cheerful Bush campaign operative, Bush gains because Engler is gone: In 2000, Michiganders felt "Engler fatigue" after 10 years of his stewardship. Furthermore, says the operative, this year social conservatives will be pulled to the polls by a ballot initiative to write same-sex marriage into Michigan's Constitution.
But as the operative acknowledges, both parties' core voters already are so motivated, "they will be at the polls at 6 a.m."
Pennsylvania, where Kerry leads and Gore beat Bush by 4 percent, presents the Bush campaign with a complicated calculation. It can try to win the state with issues like abortion, guns and capital punishment. This will drive up Kerry's winning margin in culturally liberal states, which does not matter -- unless it leads to a second Bush win with fewer popular votes nationally than his opponent. That would make Bush's second term even more disappointing than second terms generally are.
A cultural conservative, Rick Santorum, has been elected senator twice in Pennsylvania. But a campaign of cultural conservatism would cost Bush votes in Philadelphia suburbs. And with the electorate so polarized, it is unclear how many votes Bush could move his way.
Perhaps the most telling political fact of midsummer is this: More U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq in July (43 as of Thursday morning, Eastern time) than in June (42). But since Iraq acquired sovereignty, of sorts, the war has faded somewhat as a cause of nagging national dread.
According to a veteran Republican polltaker, there is still no evidence that anxiety about Iraq is pulling significant numbers of Bush supporters into the undecided category. But, then, considering that the last election result would have been reversed by the switch of 269 votes in Florida (or 3,606 in New Hampshire, or 13,784 in Nevada, or 20,490 in West Virginia), what number might prove to be "significant"?
Reading all the disgruntled liberals on this board, you'd think the Republicans have this election in the bag. Due to my prolonged absence from this board, am I missing something?
--
I'd say you're missing quite a lot:
1st, Liberals and supporters of Kerry are far from disgruntled. They're leading or tied in all the polls against an incumbant President!
2nd, Bush/Cheney spent 110 million dollars over 3 months on negative teleivsion ads aimed at discrediting John Kerry. The result? Bush's approval rating dropped 15 points over the same 3 months.
Finally, Bush/Cheney 04 cannot make a television ad citing their own administrations list of successes.
I'm sure Liberals are just tearing their hair out in frustration.
<< Bush/Cheney spent 110 million dollars over 3 months on negative teleivsion ads aimed at discrediting John Kerry. The result? Bush's approval rating dropped 15 points over the same 3 months. >>
You're a bit confused. Bush's poll numbers dropped in the months of the Democrat primaries because of all the negative ads that were directed at him. Since
Renee ~~~
He who slings mud, looses much ground. :-)
Middle of March, Bush's approval rating was standing around 60. Middle of June, Bush's approval rating standing around 45.
These are CONSERVATIVE estimates. Bush's approval rating on some polls was above 60.
Now, how is it that I am confused now? Maybe GALLUP is confused?
And yet, Bush still doesn't have much to campaign on.
--
They have the best mud-slingers in the nation. That's gotta count for something right? Even the religious nutcases like Robertson/Buchanon can't hold a candle to the Cheney/Rove attack machine, that's gotta count for something right?
No, why on earth would I want a Candidate who can't tell me why I should vote for him, only why I shouldn't vote for the competition.
But hey, Bush/Cheney are running the same campaign that Bush/Quayle ran against Clinton in 1992. Seeing how much of a success it was against a:
Draft dodging, crooked businessman, soon to be disbarred lawyer, pot smoking, war protester from The USSR, womanizing, lying, governor of a small and insignificant state....
I'm sure it'll work against a guy who's been in public service his entire adult life. Not to be confused with Bush's adult life, which began at 40.
That speaks volumes about Kerry (and Bush too).
Pages