Posted on 09/16/2004 9:41:33 PM PDT by DadOfFive
Kerry beat Dean after trailing the same amount. He is not dumb and he can campaign. No one gets to where Kerry is by being stupid or a bad campaigner. Don't underestimate him.
We have to continue to press him. Disrupt his message. Make sure Bush's message gets out.
The fat lady may not have sung yet-but I can hear her warming up backstage.
Kerry is running on fumes. Even a Rolls Royce can't go anywhere when it runs out of gas.
He's probable refering to the Pew Poll which has it a dead heat at 47-46 in favor of Bush. http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/politics/9681608.htm
The blacks in the Democrat party have been suppressed, shut-out, and trampled on again by the Democrats.
At least now we know why the Kerry campaign has taken the tack of the last few days: Talk about Social security to the seniors, coordinate with MoveOn to go defeatist on Iraq and get mushy 18-49s all worried about their high school buddies, kids, cousins, etc. who are over there or might go there.
If I can find my good conduct medal (good luck!) I'm going to send it to the Swiftees. I wish I had two, then I could send one to the Stolen Honor guys as well. They deserve it more than I ever did.
Beautiful!
Reminds me of a comment by the author of "Ron Brown's Body" who pointed out that there were no minoarities in charge of anything on the Clinton Domestic team, and there were no minorities at all on the Foreign Policy team. After he appointed a few minorities to minor cabinet posts, he didn't think he needed anybody but white folk in the place.
First Black President my tuchis!
Of course, it could just be that a lot of people were holding their decision and/or weren't paying attention, and the conventions and the Swiftees turned them. And the very fact that Kerry got no convention bounce (even McGovern, Carter, Mondale and Dukakis got a strong convention bounce!) and Bush got a big one is very, very significant, even if Bush's bounce and lead aren't as big as Gallup says. I just can't see the electorate being this volatile, if they were, Bush would have been behind by 15 in the Spring.
I don't see the point of going ga-ga over polls at this point. Remember, at this point in the 2000 race the CNN/Time daily tracking poll had GORE AHEAD by 8 points (see http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/17/tracking.poll/).
Its great Bush is up, but there is plenty of campaign left- two debates, plus the uncertainty of terrorism in Iraq and on the home front. If you are a baseball fan, just remember the 1996 World Series. The Braves were poised to sweep the Yankees, but the Yankees turned it around last minute to win four in a row.
I think it is unproductive to get caught up in what this poll or that poll says at the expense of staying on message that of the two candidates, only Bush understands that you can defeat Al-Qaida by issuing a subpoena to bin Laden.
It's true that the popular vote and the electoral result may differ. However, I remember very clearly an article in Discover magazine in the late 90s where a statistician was discussing the electoral college and one of his arguments against dumping it was that a candidate who wins the popular vote by more than a certain amount (IIRC it was very small, like 1 or 2%) couldn't possibly lose the electoral vote, because the only way to make that work would be for states like California and New York to go 100% for th losing candidate.
We need to work as if he's behind, especially in the battlegrounds, but there is no way the man will win, say 55% and not win the electoral college.
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.