pings, as you requested.
Not liking the direction the country is heading does not mean that the person will vote against the chief executive. It means the voter will vote against those (s)he identifies as steering the country down the wrong road. In hindsight, voters seemed to blame members of Congress for the wrong direction more than the President.
No, I think it's just the opposite. Bush was the reason for the high turnout.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
The Presidential Race in the Northeast .. The first in the series.
The facts speak for themselves: Pres. Bush added a whopping 11 million votes to his 2000 total, while the left added about 5 million (if you include Nader as a leftist in 2000), and that after the leftist 527s spent about $250 million more than their right counterparts. Not many ways to spin those facts!
Ruffini's analysis is too granular and crude to support any conclusion about anything regarding turnout and who it benefitted. That takes looking at individual precincts, not statewide totals, which totals are incomplete because California for example has not yet counted hundreds of thousands of ballots at the time the data was generated, and in the case of Arizona and Nevada, high population growth.
"There is no hidden, nonvoting Democratic majority. There is no cap on the number of people willing to vote Republican."
I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this line. Could it be there are no downtrodden masses of socialist sympathizers, just waiting for the right Democrat GOTV drive? And millions more potential republican voters waiting for our calls?
It's a wonderfully optimistic outlook. The Republican 96-hour plan is only a few years old. I believe we can do better still.