Posted on 08/09/2004 8:25:06 AM PDT by Liz
Gore and Liberman were much better candidates than Kerry Edwards; Bush trounced them as an unkown. How are the two weak candidates going to beat Bush? Gore followed steps, he stuck to his leftist guns, so did Liberman; Bush made Gore look like a fool during the debates. How is a flip flopping joke like Kerry going to do better than Bush?
Because they wish it was because Kerry would win right now. Kerry will be found out and Bush will unleash everything on this guy that will make Kerry look like the biggest liberal in the world.
The analyst know this is not over and they want the Republican base to put up the white flag. Kerry will lose and he will lose "BIG TIME."
He teaches @ UVA and while I don't agree w/ everything that he wrote, he makes a reasonable argument. Also, he's very evenhanded and doesn't mind taking some jabs at the Dems (see his comments about Kerry). He's not someone who can be dismissed as a left-wing partisan b/c he isn't one. Agree or disagree w/ him, but he does his homework and provides some good analysis.
Isn't Larry Sabato the guy who said the Republicans would lose the Senate in 2002 by a 52-48 margin?
BTW..how was the weekend? Iw as away..just catching up?..I missed the Russert interview with Krugman and O'Reilly, hope they rurun it this week..
Yeah right! Dream on. LOL
Media attempt to show Skerry as a winner.
Middle American wont buy.
>Never believe Larry Sabato.
Sabato predicted a Gore win in 2000.
IIRC Sabato was saying the exact opposite about a month ago.
If the election were held today Sabato would write jimmy carter would win.
I agree with your comments. Reading between the lines, I think Sabato is saying that the Bush campaign must portray sKerry for what he is: A tax and spend liberal who wants bigger government, more social programs and less defense spending. Rove needs to go medeival on the guy.
I don't know what his track record is. Every time I hear him I get the impression he lives in the NY/Washington Press echo chamber. He make those general statements, "The American people feel/think.....", and they NEVER describe me.
The DEMOCRATS would still LIE!!!!
what you say is true - he's thoughtful, he seems analytical and all - but what the others are saying here is correct, he's wrong very often.
right now, on the stump, the best thing Bush has going for him - is Kerry. The soundbites of him that make the news are awful - this criticism of Bush reading to the classroom on 9-11, and this latest blurb about how he would fight a "more sensitive" war on terrorism - both played badly for him in my opinion.
still, its going to be a very close race.
Simple answer: The Left is programming The Sheep for the vote in November.
The Sheep need constant feeding, given their short-term memories Ask a Sheep about what they watch and listen to: they can quote chapter-and-verse about their fave stars, but can't remember September 11th.
I don't know what Sabato's track record is, though I must say that when I've heard him speak on television he does seem to be impartial, unlike Zogby and that guy for CNN who seems to take delight in Democratic chances for gains.
I mean the fact that Sabato admits that Kerry is out of the mainstream on social and cultural issues is a credit to him in my opinion. Many refuse to admit this obvious truth.
While I don't agree that w/o the Iraq war Bush would be leading in 45 states -- Calif, Vermont, Rhode Island, Conn, Mass, Illinois, Hawaii = at least 7 states -- I do think that Bush would be headed for a rather easy 6-8 point, 35-40 state landslide victory. I think people will be willing to hold back on blaming Bush (rightly so) for the slow-recovering economy because of things like 9-11, and that combined with Bush being closer to most people on social and cultural issues would have been enough to reelect him over the far left Kerry/Edwards ticket. But with growing discontent over Iraq; I don't know.
It would be a shame if Kerry is elected because of Iraq. It would be a shame if Kerry wins in spite of his far-left social views instead of because of them. And it will really be a shame if Kerry wins and disapproval of Bush results in the GOP losing the Senate races in Colorado, Louisiana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Florida, and Alaska thus giving the Dems control of the Senate.
Bush and the GOP had better convince the people that Iraq was worth it, that it was necessary, and that is was a legitimate front to open in the war on terror.
Why are so many analysts saying that this race is already over?
They are trying to "create facts on the ground," psychologically. They want the mood to be so weighted to this "conventional wisdom" that it will happen, simply because everyone knew it was going to happen. Kerry voters will turn out to be part of the happy herd and Bushies (I actually heard a reporter use this term in this context) will be so discouraged that they won't show up.
And on November 3rd Peter Jennings will complain that the American voters had a temper tantrum when it DOESN'T happen their way.
Sabato might be wrong and I hope he is but he has always come across as a pretty straight shooter.
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.