I think Fred will win a lot of votes in a lot of states... more than W did.
08 could have been a walk for the Dims, but they were too dim to find any credible nominees. This guy would have made me very nervous:
Posted on 07/10/2007 3:27:29 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
In this case, not necessarily. One can end the war with victory. It could be that he simply chose his words poorly.
Simply pointing out that when you declare states out of play, in essence you’re telling us that our votes don’t count. Unfortunately many candidates seem to be looking at various states that way.
The GOP isn’t helping themselves with the way they’re treating some states. In 04 Michigan was closer than it had been in a long time. Meanwhile Detroit newspapers were reporting on blatant vote fraud and the GOP just shrugged it off because they won. To make matters worse we got to listen to John Conyers screaming about vote fraud in every district in the country but his own and still not a word out of the GOP.
http://www.nationalreview.com/battleground/battleground.asp
I’m sorry if the cynicism made it sound like we shouldn’t bother with those states. I do indeed know how close some of those states were, and absent or clamping down on the fraud, and ginning up a bit more support in other GOP-leaning areas of those states, we could carry them.
What I was trying to point out is that we need to focus #1 on carrying states we have consistently done so with. If we can’t carry those basic ones, we can’t count on an unlikely miracle elsewhere. If the Republican were to lose VA or CO, it’s over. I don’t see some big shift away from states that have usually supported the GOP Presidential candidate all of a sudden to states that haven’t given us a majority in 20 (MI), 24 (WI), or 36 (MN) years to make up for that gap.
Voter fraud won’t be clamped down on in Wisconsin, it’s out of control and the fox is guarding the hen house. That said, a GOP victory doesn’t mean what it used to...it’s the lessor of two evils that leads to the same conclusion.
Only true if the Republican decides to do a pale imitation of the rodent... or does what the current President does on shamnesty and border security. :-(
And he won Iowa by less than 1% in 2004 and lost it by less than 1% in 2000. Looking at history Wisconsin is a tough state for the GOP to win and Iowa has been all over the board.
Yes, Tommy’s run is a waste of time and money. If Fred wins, you may as well elect Tommy...just another moderate that delays our nations eventual demise.
” think Fred will win a lot of votes in a lot of states... more than W did.”
I agree that Fred Thompson is a great candidate, but we can’t take anything for granted. The strong polarization of the nation and Bush’s low approval ratings give the DemocRATS an opening even with Fred Thompson as the nominee.
It certainly is.
I think the candidates should look at the states on a county by county basis. We have 83 counties in Michigan and Bush won 72 or 73 of those counties but lost the state by only around 50,000 votes.
In my county of Jackson Bush won in 2000 but he won with around 9000 votes more in 04. That’s a pretty sizable increase in a county with about 158,000 people. I think they should spend more time in smaller towns trying to get out the vote among the people who are most likely to vote for them.
Michigan like many midwestern states is a lot more conservative than one would think after only a glance. We got rid of affirmative action, we got a decent concealed carry law and we opposed gay marriage by over 60%.
The right candidate running a smart campaign in the right places could do some serious damage to the democrats across the midwest.
(Just kidding, all you Tommys out there__LOL!)
Logistically, it’s impossible for the candidates to actively target every county, but you need to get your best, most knowledgeable people hired or volunteering for the campaigns to gin up that turnout. Coordinating GOTV is always of paramount importance.
I agree. If we lose in OH, I don’t see how we would be able to carry PA or MI. It is very rare for either MI or PA to vote more Republican than does OH. The last time the GOP carried PA but not OH was in *1948*, when Republican Tom Dewey nearly swept the Northeast, carrying ME, VT, NH, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD and PA; obviously, the political landscape has changed quite a bit since then. (Also, in 1948 Truman had Kentuckian Alben Barkley as his runningmate, which made the difference in his 0.24% margin in Kentucky’s neighbor Ohio.) And the last time the GOP carried MI but not OH was 1976, when Michigander Gerald Ford was the GOP nominee, and Southern-accented Ohioans along the Ohio River voted for Jimmy Carter (as did majorities in every Southern or border state other than OK and VA) allowing Carter to carry OH by 0.27%; before 1976, you have to go back to 1948 as well.
If we write off Ohio, we’re playing for 2nd place.
A Democrat activist and officeholder in Michigan told me straight out that they would never permit Bayh on the Dem ticket. He’s considered (by their standards) a right-winger on abortion, and that’s anathema to the nutroots. It’s as offensive to them to nominate somebody who isn’t 100% pro-abort as it is to the GOP to nominate some who is.
You made Tommy J. sad.
I’m not a fan of Tommy Thompson at all-he’s too “goofy looking” and very boring to listen to on all of the issues. But, I’m curious as to why Tommy Thompson dislikes Fred Thompson because it could be important when fully evaluating Fred Thompson as a ‘08 Presidential candidate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
