Posted on 12/09/2002 1:29:20 PM PST by TaRaRaBoomDeAyGoreLostToday!
Most voters--never mind the type that vote Dim--would need elaborate explanations as to exactly who Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond are.
I just don't think most people have any inkling of what the Dems are screaming about, and two years from now it'll be forgotten anyway.
Ho-hum.
I'll give you this one. The Bush we all know and love. 43 has also screwed his pooch among California conservatives in 2004 over another of his brilliant domestic policies .. open boarders.
I'll bet 43 is glad there's an electoral college.
I don't know if there these MIAs voted in the Senate race or not until it's looked at on a precinct by precinct basis. But the Statewide Senate vote was only 319 voters larger than the primary vote. So those MIAs in the 5th CD either didn't vote at all or voted in some portion for the Senate race and left the CD race blank. My gut feeling is that they didn't show up period.... Thus the make up voters were from somewhere else within the state. Example, Orleans Parish had only a 6,200 vote increase in turnout this time over the primary. If they were conservative Republicans and didn't show then that is where the race was lost, imo.
If you spend sometime in a news career covering sports and then transition to political news, it gives you a unique perspective.
There are many similarities.
For example you will note in sport that a team will come up with a game plan that works in the first half. Then at half time the other team makes adjustments. And in the second half does a lot better. This year's senate election had a half time. It happens a lot in sports. We just saw it happen in elections.
It is obvious the Democrats made adjustments. It is also logical that the team that was wining team was winning earlier did not change tactics and the losing team did.
The tactic changes are obvious in both races this year. They were obvious if we start the game in 2000. In 2000 Clinton was kept on the sidelines and Gore went left. They even booed boy scouts at the Democratic convention and even courted naderites. Clinton was not welcome anywhere in 2000 and Bush won close one.
So this time the Bush camp went to a much harder game in the Senate races. Candidates that can win and successful tactics of negative spots and positive candidates won the senate back. For the Democrats the tactical change was great. Clinton and Gore were everywhere to take on Bush in the rematch. Clinton and Gore got their butts knocked on the floor by Dubya and company on November 5. Then with a 30 day time out the Democrats changed strategy again. In Louisiana there was no Clinton, no Gore, no Daschle, no more. It was the song Dubya when he is right and us only when he is wrong that Landrieu sang. Landrieu ran on I will do what is right regardless of party. It was a new centrist Democratic tactic.... They were the new kinder Gentler Democrats. No Dammit Daschle Hammit at all. ONe this is your last campaign sneaked out and that was all.
What that means is the democrats now have an example of how to win. IT IS CENTER CENTER CENTER. Did I mention Center? It was the white vote that elected Landriew. Terrell needed 66 percent of the white vote. She did not get it.
So what does this mean for 2004. Well not much. To get the Democratic nomination the Candidate will have to go to the left. It will be the left being left all over the TV. It will be Democrat trashing Democrat for not being left enough. How well will Al Sharpton run? Could the Sharper Al win Michigan and South Carolina? Could the convention be a real convention with no Democrat having it sewn up by the convention? Look at the 2004 start. It is possible that Gephardt could win Iowa. Kerry might win New Hampshire and Sharpton could win South Carolina and Michigan... holy Toledo... Say What Bat Man?
No matter what happens the candidate will have a leftist image. So they can only move a little toward the center in the campaign. And will the magic presence of Al Sharpton help the Democrats in the fall of 2004.
I don't think it looks all that good for the Democrats.
When a Democrat runs on the platform that they vote with President Bush 75 percent of the time and demands that all name Democrat names stay away, that says a lot.
Guess what I'm thinking ping.
I don't care what Lott said or what Clinton does. Blacks will not elect another president. Ever. Hispanics will decide many races, but not blacks, as their numbers and political flexibility continues to plummet.
I don't like him, and he should step down as MAJORITY LEADER, but not for this. He should have stepped down a long time ago for failing to promote more conservative policies effectively.
You mean like the NAACP sponsored ad depicting Dubya dragging a black man to his death behind a pick-up truck?
The NAACP ad mentioned was used in the 2000 election. Is it your opinion that this was a "positive message" in the mind of the African American voter?
What Double Standard? Where was it documented that the Republicans also gave out gift cards to servicemen? you are just making that up to defend democrats for stealing an election.
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.