Could Kerry Win In a Landslide?

if history's any indicator, he will.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.todd.html


Over the last year, most political TV shows handicapping the upcoming presidential election have repeated the refrain that the race will be extremely tight. Last month, CNN's astute commentator Jeff Greenfield hosted an entire segment on how easily this election could turn out like 2000, with President Bush and Sen. John Kerry splitting victories in the popular vote and the electoral college. Greenfield even threw out the possibility of an electoral college split of 269-269, brought about by a shift of just two swing states that went for Bush last time, New Hampshire, and West Virginia. He ended his feature with the conventional wisdom among Washington pundits: "We're assuming this election will stay incredibly close." Reporters covering the campaign echo this expectation, sprinkling their campaign dispatches with references to the "closely fought" electoral race and "tight election."
The campaign staffs themselves have been saying for months that they anticipate that the race will go down to the wire. In late April, Republican party chairman Ed Gillespie told The New York Times that he expected a "very, very close" race. This winter, Democratic party chairman Terry McAuliffe urged Ralph Nader not to enter the race, fearing that the perpetual candidate could take precious votes away from Kerry in a race sure to be won by a hairline margin.



There are perfectly understandable reasons why we expect 2004 to be close. Everyone remembers the nail-biting 2000 recount. A vast number of books and magazine articles describe the degree to which we are a 50/50 nation and detail the precarious balance between red and blue states. And poll after poll show the two candidates oscillating within a few percentage points of one another. There are also institutional factors that drive the presumption that the race will be tight. The press wants to cover a competitive horse-race. And the last thing either campaign wants to do is give its supporters any reason to be complacent and stay home on election day.

But there's another possibility, one only now being floated by a few political operatives: 2004 could be a decisive victory for Kerry. The reason to think so is historical. Elections that feature a sitting president tend to be referendums on the incumbent--and in recent elections, the incumbent has either won or lost by large electoral margins. If you look at key indicators beyond the neck-and-neck support for the two candidates in the polls--such as high turnout in the early Democratic primaries and the likelihood of a high turnout in November--it seems improbable that Bush will win big. More likely, it's going to be Kerry in a rout.


...more

campaign...there's lots to be done...big, little, it takes a village and there still are very few people putting the kind into Kerry's campaign to make a landslide victory....


if now you...WHO?

if not now...WHEN?


we only have a few more months to TAKE BACK AMERICA...so open this link and choose what effort YOU will make today....it's easy, fun, and you'll be better for making that effort today...
http://www.JohnKerry.com

:P

As Rage Against the Machine told us:

It has to start sometime... it has start somewhere...
What better place than here? What better time than now?

Get involved!! Take Back our America!!!!

http://congress.org/congressorg/pyv/stats/?action=stats

btw, if you haven't already pledged your vote, here is where to do it.

Ruy Teixeira discusses it today on his blog: http://www.emergingdemocraticmajority.com

It is true that elections with incumbents are rarely close. The last one would've been Truman-Dewey in 1948.

Religious fundamentalism has become a tidal wave. Fundies are being told from the pulpet that a vote for Dubya is a vote for God.

if he does poorly among independents and moderates, and that's a real possibility.

People who aren't fanatics (religious or otherwise) surely are questioning whether we can afford four more years of this incompetent bumbling. A landslide is certainly a possibility and thanks to the Electoral College throwing half the votes away it doesn't even take a large majority for an EC "landslide".

...because nobody is intrigued by a landslide.

Ratings, people. The news is a business just like anything else.

...point in 1992.

Don

Nothing else will be able to counter the BBV rigging of this election.

Let's make it happen!

what about this??? :think:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast

(Snip)
"One million votes will disappear in a puff of very black smoke. And when the smoke clears, the Bush clan will be warming their political careers in the light of the ballot bonfire. HAVA nice day."

However, six months is a long long time in politics and we need to plan on the election being close. There are some trends that are favorable for Senator Kerry but they could reverse in a heart beat.

Diebold lurks.