Bush cannot win in 2004.

Bush cannot win.


(1) I don't know of one Democrat, Progressive or Liberal who voted for Al Gore that would now change and vote for Bush.

(2) I don't know of one Democrat, Progressive or Liberal who voted for Ralph Nader that would now change and vote for Bush.

(3) I know many Republicans and Conservatives who voted for Bush but are now going to switch to the Democratic column, at least for this next election.

(4) I know many of the active and retired military people voted for Bush last time around but are digested with him and will either stay home on Election Day, or will vote for the Democrat.


The only way Bush will be able to win in 2004 is to cheat again. Either the Bushites will keep minorities from voting or they will rig the vote count by programming the no-paper-trail, electronic voting machines.

But Bush cannot win an honest election.

Let's face it, Bush did NOT get the most votes last time and he will garner even fewer votes this time. The combined total of the Gore and Nader votes in 2002 was substantially more than Bush got. And, even if Nader decides to run again, he is history; those who voted for him will now stay home or will support the Democrat (unless they are very slow learners).

Bush cannot win.

He will try to win the electoral victory by hook or by crook

and we're being dangerously self-deceptive if we believe we've got it in the bag.

Don't be suprised by the stupidity of this country. Hell freezes over every day.

If we don't get lawyers, politicians, newspapers, and the public to say "NO, HELL NO" to the voting machines without paper trail we are sunk.

If the race is too lopsided to trust to rigged elections, Shrub will declare martial law and void the election. We're stuck with the BFEE. Get used to it.

right now.

error is that you have forgotten about the motivation to go to the polls at all. Remember, less than 50% of eligible voters even bother.

The Democrats are going to nominate a Bush Lite. The motivation to vote for the average Americans will be weak. If the turnout is not good, anything can happen -- EVEN IF you assume an honest vote-counting process (which I don't assume).

I've been saying this for a while. Bush barely won in 2000 (if you want to call it that). He won 48% of the vote (less than Al Gore) and won 271 electoral votes. Only one more than needed.

Whenever Republicans say Bush is unbeatable in 2004, I always ask them, which states did Gore win, which Bush will win now?

The answer is usually silence.

We only need to win one state Bush had won. Like you, i've yet to meet a single liberal/Democrat who voted for Gore and will now vote for Bush. They don't exist. Also, like you, I know of many conservatives/Republicans who will not vote for Bush or think he is a bad president.

I actually think 2004 will be an easy election.

The Economy, health, SocSec., education, taxes, etc. work in our favor.

The War in Iraq and foreign policy in general are working against Bush.

We have to have a strong candidate and platform and I think we are unbeatable.

The Gore states have been reduced to 260 votes down from 267 in 2000, additionally the core Dem base now stands at 13 states equaling 172 EC votes including D.C. You better make damn sure those southern swing states go blue and not red.

If the election were THIS year, I'd say you're right on target but it's more than 12 months away. There are dozens of "crises" the BFEE can invent, assist or comply with between now and then. The worst possible thing we can do in the interim is to get complacent.

Wish I could feel that kind of optimism. I've been around for a few too many losing election nights to get over confident a year in advance of the election.