Nobody who voted for Gore is going to vote for Bush! is Breslin Correct?

A quote from Breslin's article where he's attacking Bloomberg, but his comments are interesting. Will we win based what he says? Is it as simple as this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'd like to remind him that Al Gore won the last election by 500,000 votes over
George Bush. Gore was not the most likeable candidate the Democrats could put
up. Still, he won. They had to steal it from him in Florida.

Nobody who voted for Gore is going to vote for Bush this time. That is common
sense.

Then there is a large number of other people who because of the war and the
unemployment and the nasty attacks on their civil liberties by John Ashcroft
would never vote for Bush.

You put the 500,000 votes that Bush lost by last time together with the people
angered and weary of his years so far and there is no Bush at the end of an
election that cannot be stolen.

more.........http://www.nynewsday.com/news/local/newyork/columnists/ny-nybres303517236oct30,0,5444274.column?coll=ny-ny-columnists

I on the other hand am less hopeful.

those are the voters worth targetting.

They've had four years to see the error of their ways.

And then, of course, you've got the Greens who will vote for the Dem because they hate Bush so damn much. I am one such voter.

Turn-out will matter, and Dems are notorious flakes about voting. And the Repugs have $200 million to spend to further discourage Dem turn-out--you know, the old "well, I don't care for George Bush but I don't like the Dem either." That's what they'll be going for partially.

Plus there were 4 million Christian fundies who didn't vote last time around--don't expect a repeat there. The fundies looooooove the Chimp.

And I think whatever movements there have been in populations, redistricting, new electoral counts for the states--all that is supposed to favor Repuklicons.

And don't forget Diebold, and just any other plain old cheating they can get away with. These folks have now killed thousands at least partially to get Chimpy a re-boost in the polls. I would never, ever put anything past them.

So, though I don't think it means Bush will win, I think Breslin has it right--no one who voted for Gore will vote for Bush, except by theft, and Bush has turned off at least some of those who voted for him the first time.

There will be a number, however small, who voted for Gore that will vote for Bush.

Generally speaking, I agree that Bush is a polarizer, and that most who voted for Gore won't vote for Bush.

I know many who voted for dumbya in 00 who are now saying "I can't believe I voted for him!" They are voting dem regardless of who the candidate is (just not in good concious). One thing for sure, this misadministration has sure pissed alot of people off.

it was hard to find anyone who would admit they voted for him. I also heard a woman on one of the talk shows who said I wish we had Hoover back.

3 million people won't vote for Nader, whether he runs or not. That's why there are nine candidates; the Democrat nominee will win going away.

now I hope to see something about how elections are stolen -- will we insist on exit polls-remember, in the last election, the exit pollers resigned and so we had nothing to compare to. I fear those diebold machines are gonna take the place of the Supreme Court in deciding the election by fraud--or the company, forgot name, that purged the voter registrations in Florida of the felons who were not felons.

Just saw Palast's documentary on Sundance channel-- it is simply amazing and beyond belief how Harris got away with it all and the further insult is that she had the nerve to run for congress and won! Comes out smelling like roses.

I can't imagine who anyone who voted for Gore would consider voting for the Former Texas Governor in 2004. I would bet that there are plenty of non-Nationalist, non-Fundamentalist, non-hardcore Conservative people who voted for Bush* last time who are now horrified by what a disaster his Administration has turned out to be and are just begging for the Dems to put up a "reasonable" viable candidate they can vote for.

the 2000 election pissed me off...why would I ever vote for Bush?

Sounds like he gave it to the 'chosen people' over and over.

That would be the zen group.. still high on 911

The only ones I can imagine that voted for Gore but are leaning Bush this time are those frightened out of their wits over terrorism. Also some may be convinced "he's doing a good job fighting terror" and "he has guts", the usual bullshit GOP mantras...

I guess these are the Zell Miller and Ed Koch type democrats (though I really wonder if they even voted for Gore)...

That's what it'll be very important to nominate someone that can dispell these myths and point out that we are less safe after this misadventure in Iraq and that the administration chose to go to Iraq at the expense of fighting Al Queda and other more direct threats to Americans.

I think we will have large turnout though. What's happened in the last several years has many previously apathetic people a bit more aware that there are major differences between the two parties...This applies to many of the Nader voters as well. I can't see Nader (or whomever the green party nominates) to get any more than a quarter of the votes he recieved last time.

Of course, that would mean the Bu$$$h misadministration would have to be fighting themselves

people have been disillusioned by the shenanigans of the 2000 election.

unless you think that anyone who voted for Gore realizes that they were wrong , and that a massive deficit, wrecked economy favoring wartime manufacturers and their stockholders,all out assault on the environment, creation of a right wing christian state and attack on the constitution was really the right way to go after all.

but that will not be the issue in 2004, where the busheviks will try to activate those who supported bush in 2000 and those who do today yet did not vote at all in 2000.

we are talking about dipping into two entirely different wells of potential votes here. for bush the gore 2000 voter well is dry, but that other one is that which contains non-voters in 2000 who can be convinced that this time they had better vote for bush over whomever the dems select.

the logical conclusion is that we will see a tremendous push from the gop to get out the vote in areas where they had spent only a modicum of effort before and can inspire to vote for bush a significant portion of apathetic voters who stayed home in 2000.

the targets are the minority communities of asian americans and espanic americans.

the easiest way to detect this is to check the local advertising budgets of the gop re-election committees to radio and tv stations which have a high degree of audience in these aformentioned communities.

There is a possibility, however remote, that some folks are convinced we are 'safer' now.

The repugs always have done well opposing 'evil empires' which is why if none exists, they will make one up. Or perhaps, just enhance it's image with fables of WMD.

I saw a link to his stinky blog where he claims that "so many" Gore voters have made up their mind: "Bush is the man."

I saw the same "wishful thinking" in May 2001 when the paper said "High percentage of Gore voters now like Bush better."

Just a lot of propaganda to demoralize the Democrats. Some may take the bait, "Well, gee, if the press says Gore voters are deserting their party, I better go along."

Sadly, I think that Andrew Sullivan is partially correct. I believe that there are some Democrats who are currently voting Republican because they've chosen to perceive that George the Lesser is supposedly "tougher on terrorism" than the stick-figure Democratic caricatures right-wing talk show hosts hold up for ridicule.

On the other hand, there are also a lot of very angry Democrats out there. There are also a lot of Greens who have come to question Ralph Nader's assertion that there is no difference between George UU Bush and former vice president Gore, and a lot of moderate to moderate-conservative voters who have been thoroughly put off by the incumbent administration and its reactionary allies.

Will we, together with those other folks, be enough to overthrow King George? Only if we accept the fact that we're facing a challenge and work for a regime change.

that other things will have taken it's place. If Sullivan is still sitting there enraged about 9/11, he needs to move on with his life. How much more vengance can we extract around the world before 9/11 has it's final memorial service? And, maybe by the election, we will know more about the real negligence that caused it than we do now.

Voted for Gore in 2000, intends to vote for Bush in 2004 because he "liked the way he behaved after 9/11".

I know some very conservative folks out here who voted for Bush. One has a son who's getting close to graduating high school. She and hubby are having a huge change of heart since the war began. She told me that there is no way she can vote for the shrub because he wants to be at war continuously and she won't sacrifice her son for oil. They're very involved in their church and I have to wonder if they're part of a growing trend of R's who will vote to save their kids.

It all sounds very plausible. I know of no Dems or liberal minded folk who will vote for * this time around. Our miniscule tax break hasn't changed our minds.

Al Gore was a moderate Southern Democrat and a key figure in a moderate Democratic administration. Not everyone who voted for Gore would vote for a Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich -- not by a long shot.

In addition, Bush in 2004 won't be the same untested candidate he was in 2000. And he'll have $100 million more to spend in 2004, to go with the tons of free publicity he already gets.

DU'ers routinely make the error of assuming that Gore's popular vote total represented a hard core Democratic base that would carry over to 2004. But in reality, the Gore vote is much closer to being a ceiling than a floor for the Democrats. While Gore has been tagged by the press for running an imcompetent campaign, the fact is that the Democrats will be hard pressed to come up with a candidate capable of generating the level of support among both core Democratic constituencies (blacks, union households) and suburban and independent voters that Gore did.

How many who voted for Nader will vote Dem in 2004?

And I *do* mean that in a sincere way.

Assuming it's still possible (and I'm not at all sure it is) to conduct a legit election in this country - the wreckless, evil War Chimp doesn't have a prayer of being elected!

Although there is a vast majority of Gore voters that will vote Dem, I worry most about the 18-25 crowd. Many of this age group that have never voted before claim they are conservative (recent Harvard study among others. They have bought into all of the conservative propaganda. They are also too young to remember how good the economy was during Clinton years.

The only way the Dem wins in 2004 is to substantially increase minority voter turnout, economy doesn't recover, or another major terrorist attack on US soil (linked to agression in Iraq). I only wish for the first of the three scenarios.