Thanks alot Yankee Libs...

Kerry just pulled off his second win with his latest in New Hamphire offering the bounce he needs in next week's round of states to effectively close the deal on the Democratic nomination...

...and FOUR MORE YEARS OF BUSH!!!

According to polls, people don't even like Kerry so much with NBC citing John Edwards as the most favorable opinion candidate even among New Hampshire voters that DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM. So why are they voting Kerry? Even over Dean? Something they call "ELECTABILITY". In short, they think he can beat George Bush...?

Let's review: The last time we had a yankee Democratic President he was assassignated! After that every Democratic President we've had SINCE THE 60's has been from the SOUTH.

Lyndon Johnson was a Texas Cowboy, Jimmy Carter a Georgia peanut farmer and Bill Clinton an Arkansas moderate... so who do we nominate "to beat George Bush" ... Massachusett's own 35 year veteran from the Dukakis/Kennedy school of hard knocks: JOHN KERRY?!?!?

Are you KIDDING me? Lest you forget just how popular Dukakis really was in 1988, the man got 42 MILLION votes or nearly 46% of the nation. And what does THAT get you when you're from the North?

1988: Bush (41) = Blue / Dukakis = Red

It get's you SQUAT or less than a quarter of the electorates as shown here. (And why you ask is there a stripe in West Virgina? One Democratic electorate voted for BENTSON!)

It's not right, it's not the way it should, but it's the way it is!!! Bush and Rove know it. Why don't Democrats?

Our last best chance to take the White House is a quick withdrawl by Clark and announcement of an Edwards/Clark ticket in the tradition of southerners Clinton/Gore. It won't happen though...just a dream.

Get used to disappointment Yanks, and Bush in office four more years. Thanks alot.

i wouldnt mind if kerry won, but dean scares me

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
i wouldnt mind if kerry won, but dean scares me

I wouldn't mind if Kerry beat Bush at all; I'm just saying it won't happen. It goes against 100% of strategic logic and 40 years of trend.

IF it happens, I'll be dancing in the streets, but also looking for the sky to fall any minute and hell to freeze over.

Kerry is a mistake, just like this...


[Edited on 27-1-2004 by RANT]

Rant, I've seen this line of reasoning tossed about a few times, and it is enticing, but remember, statistics cannot adjust for candidate volitility. That is to say, a candidate (or the encumbant) can do or say a handful of stupid things and lose their opportunity. Bush isn't above doing just that.
Another thing. Of the three previous presidents you mentioned, the first ones were horrible, the last one we had did some hazardous things that are yet to come home to roost, and I hope the nation has learned the dangers of electing a Southern Democrat. Heck, now you have reason to think critically before voting for a Southern Republican!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Rant, I've seen this line of reasoning tossed about a few times, and it is enticing, but remember, statistics cannot adjust for candidate volitility. That is to say, a candidate (or the encumbant) can do or say a handful of stupid things and lose their opportunity. Bush isn't above doing just that.
Another thing. Of the three previous presidents you mentioned, the first ones were horrible, the last one we had did some hazardous things that are yet to come home to roost, and I hope the nation has learned the dangers of electing a Southern Democrat. Heck, now you have reason to think critically before voting for a Southern Republican!

What are those "hazardous things" that the Clinton Adminstration left poor old Bush to handle with? You don't need to think to vote Republican, Thomas Crowne.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Rant, I've seen this line of reasoning tossed about a few times, and it is enticing, but remember, statistics cannot adjust for candidate volitility. That is to say, a candidate (or the encumbant) can do or say a handful of stupid things and lose their opportunity. Bush isn't above doing just that.

I agree, but you've got to see Kerry has three decades of a liberal voting record to pick apart already before even opening his mouth. All of which where he was hook, line and sinker on the 'wrong' side of nearly every issue from the public's view. Voting AGAINST the First Gulf War after the Kuwait invasion? Rove is DROOLING right now.

And as for Southerners versus Northerners making better or worse Presidents, that is not the issue unfortunately. It's the voter mentality and ELECTORATES. Even a majority of the vote (as we know) isn't worth didley if they aren't the RIGHT votes. Meaning crushing in New York is meaningless, if you can't win in AT LEAST one southern state. Look at the map.

Like I said I'd be thrilled with the signaled core change in voter values IF Kerry or even Dean could win... I just doubt it can happen in 2004. And beating Bush is too important to forgoe winning, just to make a liberal point.

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by RANT]

Well to me this just means southerners are stupid. I mean really, if they won't vote for a person JUST because they're from the North, doesn't that make them lackwits?

P.S.-I'm a southerner.

Originally posted by Flinx
Well to me this just means southerners are stupid. I mean really, if they won't vote for a person JUST because they're from the North, doesn't that make them lackwits?

Pretty much. They voted for Texan Bush didn't they?

Seriously, it's not JUST that the South won't vote for Northerners...they don't like 'elite' liberals.

Southern Democrats are Moderates, Centrists and "down-to-earth Bible Thumpers", etc. and Ted Kennedy (Kerry's "boss") is a freaking joke to them.

They didn't vote for Tennessee's own GORE, of all people, because HE seemed smug and uppity. You think Kerry warms the cockles of a Southerner's heart?

Even assuming Southerners ARE stupid and just won't vote for Northerners, wouldn't the DNC have to be from the planet STUPITER to nominate Kerry?

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by RANT]

RANT is making a lot of sense, imho. I see my region, great lakes, thinking the same way. Here, Gebhardt would have done well against Bush. The region also supported the Iraq war more than any other area and there are some highly contested states like MI and Ohio. With Kerry, I think the red states expand (or blue, in your pic, Rant). I also think Dean would/will have the same problem. On the other hands, these states were close in the last election and the job losses could tip the scales, if those that have lost their since Bush won't vote for him. Who knows really what will happen. I still don't think the Dems have a solid candidate.

[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Bob88]

let's say Kerry (or even Dean) gets the nomination I think it's likely the VP spot becomes quite important, someone from the south or midwest. Kerry and Edwards? Edwards' sunshine policy towards other candidates might be him saying "pick me for VP - you elitist nancy boy New Englanders, you need a southerner!"


[Edited on 27-1-2004 by Bob88]

Assuming Cheney's replacement is New York's own Rudi Juliani.... (Speculates MSNBC)

Fuget about it. That Republican Texas/New York ticket mired in 9/11 leadership means Kerry won't even come CLOSE to Dukakis numbers.

"Cheney's sick" my azz. This is strategy people. Get some.

Edwards would be an attractive VP, but if this Juliani rumor is real, then Clark becomes more attractive.

Hard to say. The Republicans won't have to decide until AFTER the Dems do. This is mad strategy on their part and none from the Dems. I hate it. I'm sick of it. But oh so used to it.

Well, if it's Rudy, and not Frist, then, uh, well - the Dems don't have a chance. That would probably give them New York, a tough state for the GOP. And, gosh, he might be able to tap into the republican uprising in Cali also! (well, I can dream can't I?). I would, at any rate, like to see him on the public stage again.

...was just floated (leaked) and reported on MSNBC while Cheney is out of the country visiting with the Pope.

It even smells legit with Cheney being sent on errands to meet with incomprehensible narcilepsy victims.

Originally posted by RANT
....incomprehensible narcilepsy victims.

ok, now THAT was funny

...grew up in theboro of the "House that Ruth Built" to boot!

Kerry: Awesome choice ( insert anyone of the top 4's names here)

Why?

Kerry has the key to electability in modern politics: money
It's a sad but true fact: if you can't spend, much like a poor hand in poker being able to buy the pot, you can't win.

Also, Kerry is a polar opposite to Dukakis, and right of Ted Kennedy on many things. That he courted the Kennedy clan & kept the power elite within arms reach is just smart politics.
It's too hard to paint Kerry as an elitist: way too many of those blue collar folks stll have shrapnel from Asia in their bodies, and that's a better link than saying you're for the regular folk - he was shot up & nearly died like one of them.
Guilliani - he was given a temporary stay from a direct trip to hell with his 9/11 performance. Before that, he was widely despised in NY.
His demon like ugliness, NY accent and most importantly, his record, will not motivate Southerners to vote for him & us Yankees already know he's full of sh**t.
Frist - the guy picked up stray cats & dogs and killed them for "science". Sell THAT one to America!
Cheney - do you think the exorcism was a success, or did he eat the pope's heart?
They would need a profile person, but it ain't the folks above.
It also puts the choice in clear context: Bush & whomever vesus Kerry/Edward or Kerry/Clark or Kerry/Gramhan.
Did anyone think Republicans voted last time for Bush on his own merit? No, they voted for him with a chaparon.

CNN ( Conservative News Network) has Kerry 49% to Bush 46%

Now he's the front runner though. He'll be attacked.

I'd probably prefer Kerry out of Dean and Edwards. He's experienced, well rounded, well mannered, etc. I like Edwards too but he's light. I'd like to see him somewhere in the Kerry administration, if it comes to that. I'll admit Kerry just seems 'presidential' - doesn't he? He'd probably be an overall better leader than any of the other dems. And, he finally cut that mop down a bit, his hair was really bugging me. LOL And, he's not touching the middle class tax cut.

Since you're in to polls, Bout Time, CNN/USA Today poll has Bush at a 59% approval rating. What was Clinton's rating prior to reelection?

Somewhere in the low 60's I believe.
But, again I beg you to look at the poll question/number that really matters: " Would you like to see President Bush get a second term"? 52% said no

As everyone probably knows, they are an entirely different sampling animal from marketing polls, or any standard population/ representative sample effort.

For national elections they must do a few things without question (some do, some don't).

First, verify registered voter and LIKELY voter including high degree of probability to vote in the given election.

Also represent all demographic categories BY BUCKET not national levels. That is to say the exact percentage of likely voters by age, gender and party as embedded in the specific region being represented by those electorates. This is rarely if ever done.

What is more common (if they bother at all) are some pretty elaborate weighting schemes as required later to make say that one southern black male opinion count 3 to 10 times the white female New Yorker that is much more likely to exist, answer the phone AND agree to participate. So what happens in even polls of THOUSANDS are ultimately small buckets of 30 or so people become more important than large blocks of hundreds. And of course, the entire poll becomes less reliable. Especially considering it only takes so many of one group to win electorates, and the smaller states are notoriously under represented, or artificially over represented in national election polls. (Did I just admit polls trend liberal? I think I did. Bad ones anyway.)

Then they proudly proclaim some impressive margin of error around 4 to 6%, while all they are really saying is "if we did this crappy poll the same way with the same types of people at the same point in time 100 times, then we'd get similar results (within a standard deviation) 94 to 96 of those times. It is NOT saying these numbers are plus or minus 4 to 6% as anchors enjoy implying. Not at all, not even close. And no one claims to be saying that's what people WILL do, just what they said they would do at one time (while on the phone with an interviewer more than likely of color. See Jesse Helms poll loses versus election wins).

So to end this pointless rant that doesn't even belong here (sorry), national polls are notoriously bad or rather notoriously lucky with the results and reality having more to do with the media's self fulfilling reporting of those finding, and not any real scientific representation.

But small homogenous population polls tend to be good! Or marketing surveys where population representation trends along the exact same lines of metropolitan statistical areas (MSA), or advertising markets. Or for that matter customer surveys...the perfect representative universe!

But in a national poll, especially political, and especially reporting numbers around the curve midpoint of 50% (where the deviation is highest) it's almost guaranteed to be WAY off one way or the other. I'm guessing the wrong way unless you happen to be George W. Bush.

I'm bored. Sorry. Someone hire me.