Uphill battle for Dem POTUS candidate - 2004

At present there are 212 electoral votes that are strongly Rep.
There are 95 that lean Rep, but could be in play.
That's 307. He can afford to lose a few. He can afford to run a defensive campaign, and concentrate on holding the states that are "his". All indications are that he will run an offensive campaign, and try to take some of our states. That will force us to spend some time & money defending.

We start with 164 solid electoral votes, and 67 leaning our way. We have to take some of his states to win.

Here's a non-partisian link: http://www.presidentelect.org/e2004.html

-----

We are in a recovery. The economy moves in cycles of about 5 to 8 years about a baseline. The president can effect the baseline, but the cycles are still there. (I once read a book about "super cycles" in the economy that have a 50 to 70 year cycle.)That's life. We are in the upswing after the bottom of one of the cycles. W hit it lucky. (Sometimes an ameatuer poker player draws all aces. It happens.) All standard models show a continually improving economy and improving job market. By the summer of next year, the economy, and unemployment, will probably be off the table as a campaign issue. (If so look for W to be bragging about it, and using some of our campaign statements of a couple of months ago against us.)
That's the breaks. Being in denial won't help.

-------
W is not campaigning now. Our guys are Bush-bashing at a frantic pace, (As well as bashing each other some.) and his approval rating is still 54% as of this weeks Gallup poll. It has been holding steady for a month now. If we take the one 50% rating of a month ago a a statistical blip, then his rating have been steady for about two months. And he isn't spending any of his $200M campaign funds yet. He is waiting for our candidate to emerge, so he will not waste money. When he does start campaigning it will counter much of our campaigning. His message will be focus group tested, oppo researched, and some of their blows on us are bound to hit home.

------

9-11 happened!! The reaction to it moved the center to the right. On the day of 9-11 I was watching it on TV at the office of a friend of mine. He is very liberal. - very solid democratic. As we watched the towers fall, I commented on the political impact would be to move America to the right. He reaction was, "I don't care. We need to kill all the bastards." OK, he doesn't hold that now. He was speaking from his gut at the emotional moment of watching the towers come down. While my friend has recovered and is now rational again, how many citizens are still stuck in that gut moment? It only takes a few percentage to move an election. A 2% permenant shift in the center is extremely hard to overcome.

-------
W has the power of the incumbency. That is a huge power. He can make news and dominate the TV when he needs to. He can push our guy out of the headlines.
---
Iraq. Wild card. A major improvement in the situation over there helps him. But we absolutely can't be seen as hoping for a worsening situation, or we hurt ourselves badly.

------
OK, what can we do about it at our level? Obviously we can volunteer for campaigns and help get out message out, help register likely Dem voters, drive voters to the polls, poll watch, etc, but we can't control the national stage.

THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO!!!!!
Remember that this is a battle for Joe & Jane Average. We won't convet any staunch Reps and they won't convert us. But Joe & Jane are reachable. To reach Joe & Jane we must first avoid needlessly antagonizing them. Therefore, remember that this site is monitored 24/7/365-366 by the RW. Some of the stuff that is common here will end up on their programs, their discussion boards, & becoming known by Joe & Jane. The Dems candidate, whoever he is, will get splattered with some of the mud, and lose some votes over it. In the last election, New Mexico was won by a tiny handful of votes. Even in Florida, which we really won, the voting "irregularities", only gave W a tiny win. A few more Dem votes, a few Joe & Janes on our side, and we would have overcome the "irregularities" and officially won. In those kind of situations, what we say here could make the critical difference.

Here are some specifics.

STOP RUNNING JOE & JANE DOWN. I see a lot of threads here that are insulting and condecending to Joe & Jane. That won't win them over to vote for us. You may feel better after venting, but you are venting in a public place, where anyone who cares to can read your vent, keep it, and reproduce it to smear all of us with it. You will not win votes by calling people "sheeple". If we verbally abuse Joe & Jane, and the Reps verbally praise them, who will Joe & Jane be more kindly disposed toward? A move of 2% points of the electorate would be enought to swing the election. To get that kind of move away from us, all you need to do is p*ss off 1 in 50 people that weren't already POed at us. Now we aren't going to effect that many, but we might effect 1 in 200. That's a half percentage point, and in a hard fought election, it's a lot. SO LET'S TREAT JOE & JANE WITH SOME RESPECT.

STOP SPELLING AMERICA WITH A K. I don't remember who, but I remember a Rep speaker in a POTUS election, on national TV, refering to "those who spell America with a K." The Reps won that year. Since that faction was supporting the Dem, our candidate was tarred with that brush. When you do that, Joe & Jane read that as you hating the country itself. Joe & Jane are patriotic and are offended and riled by things they views as an attack on America itself. You need to make a distinction between Bush & America. If you don't, if you allow yourself to be precieved as attacking America, you allow Bush to wrap himself in the flag. Don't attack the symbols of America if you want to win.

I agree with 99% of what you've said! :thumbsup:

over swing voters and fares poorly in Pennsylvania, a key swing state.

Sure Dean will get some of the black vote but will he rally that portion of the base - highly unlikely.

Plus, I think once the base gets a hard look at Dean, other portions of the base are also going to be somewhat turned off.

You state all the reasons I believe Dean is our worst possible choice.

Dean is not the worst choice. The absolute worst choice is without question Al Sharpton.

But he has not shot, thank god, of ever getting the nomination.

do you?

And it is critical. The first part of the post is to demonstrate why it is so important to respect Joe & Jane. Kiss them off, and you kiss off the election.

I found your post very well thought out. My post was in reply to someone who never misses an opportunity to bash Dean. With no regard or comment on its relevance to the points you raise, he blindly says, "Yep, er, duh. That's why Dean's just a no good -- See I done told you so."

What's ironic is that the Dean campaign is already gathering those Joe & Janes. A certain poster goes right ahead and disrespects them with his myopic attacks, completely missing the point of your post.

"Deanophobia". Has a ring to it, doesn't it?

To me, he is stating all of the reasons I believe that Dean is our best possible choice.

Take away the economy as a major issue and the next big thing is Health Care.

No matter what you think of him, for the 99% of voters...

who don't follow politics closely...
who don't really care about the all of the specifics of the issues...
who are looking for leadership, not representation...

when they see the "Dr." in front of Deans name, they are going to associate him with Health Care.

9/11

you can't take away the economy as an issue. If the economy is good, there's a let's not rock the boat mentality. If it is recovering from a trough, the President's policies will get the credit, unless we can convince people that it is in spite of, not becasue of, the policies. Now this can be done, but not easily.

Don't forget that there will be another doctor to refute anything Dean says about health care. Dr. Frist will be used and used a lot in the coming campaign. I wouldn't count too heavily on a medical degree lending automatic credibility. This will be just like a jury trial where each side has its own "expert witness" to push its point of view.

"Deaniacs" indeed. Keep it up, as Dean increases his lead.

Dean is dead in the water after his gaffe on the "south & stupid."

17 safe puke states totaling 143 electoral votes

21 swing states totaling 223 votes



my trend predictions

FL 27 = unknown
PA 21 = dem
OH 20 = unknown
MI 17 = dem
GA 15 = bush
VA 13 = bush
WA 11 = dem
TN 11 = bush
MO 11 = bush
WI 10 = dem
AZ 10 = bush
MN 10 = dem
LA 9 = unknown
CO 9 = unknown
OR 7 = dem
IA 7 = dem
AR 6 = bush
NV 5 = unknown
NM 5 = dem
WV 5 = unknown
NH 4 = unknown

I tend to trust a non-partisan site. A Dem or Rep site would be too biased regarding polls and what states they are leading in to be of any real use.

2000 should be used as baseline since even traditional dem states went for Raygun in 1980.

there are a result of private econ activity and gov responses.

I see nothing that tells me that Bush will have lower umemployed going into the 3rd qtr of 04.

I agree media bias will blast fake ratios like a lower unemployment rate and "growth", and "productivity" - where

productivity reflects jobs overseas, unemployment rate reflects not showing the U6 rate and ignoring the tricks used to get the PR rate U-2 down, and growth ignores the fierce game playing as the gov contribution that is the GDP is moved around ("revised") so as to get as many positive headlines as possible -

but I do not see this crap working a second time - media credibility is about gone in the US - US folks know better than to trust a Chris Wallace broadcasting on Fox - despite his great father.

GE will have to work as hard as in 00 to get Bush the 04 election - and I am not sure they want to be exposed - as they will be this time by the foriegn press - by going to that extreme.

I am totally convinced that they do exist. A chart of the U.S. economy shows them. (I can't find such a chart quickly.)And they exist in so many other places. Sunspot cycles, earth climate cycles, tides (Yes we know the reason for that cycle.)animal population cycles, and on and on. The economy is the sum total of the actions of a population, and I see no reason whey the cyclic behavior that one sees in nature should not be seen there too.

We can effect the baseline that the cycle oscillates about, but the cycle is still there.

if our democratic leaders will simply mobilize/energize their base. I honestly feel that it is our democratic leaders (the DLC, DNC, representatives, etc.) who have failed us. They have not spoken out clearly and in unity against shrub, despite being handed a silver platter of issues to capitalize on: Cheney and his ties to energy co., the economy, Iraq, special interests, leakgate, etc. It is their job to keep nailing these issue whenever/wherever they can. They need to bring the message home to every "Joe and Jane" that this administration does not serve their interests and they will only benefit by voting for the democratic candidate.

"We start with 164 solid electoral votes, and 67 leaning our way. We have to take some of his states to win."

All we have to do is win all the states that Gore won, and that includes Florida, where Gore definitely received more votes...If Gore won Tenessee or Arkansas, which were close, we could have won w/out Florida...

Pretty much anyone who voted for Gore will NOT vote for Bush, with relatively few exceptions AND Bush has lost ALOT of voters AND if Nader doesn't run then we're in even better shape...

its 172 not 164 EV

Jeb won re-election. If Florida hated W so much, would they have elected Jeb? Florida is in play and leaning Rep. Denial that we have a challange won't remove the challange.

and neither should you...They purged 93,000 minorities from the voter rolls and use BBV.

It has nothing to do w/ denial. Gore recieved more votes or do you deny that?

What makes you think that page is non-partisan? Fox claims they're fair and balanced too...

I find the fact that they list Fla. as leaning repub to be troubling. Again, Gore recieived more votes in Fla., that makes it lean Dem. If you take into account 93,000 minorities purged illegally from voter rolls, it leans even MORE Dem.

The more I look at that site, the more I smell Bullshit! OH and PA don't lean Repub and NJ, ME and CT don't LEAN Dem, they are solidly Dem.

I don't know much about who runs that site, but I'd be interested in what polls their using to make their state determinations. Do they use approval polls or re-elect polls?

Genuine non-partisian. Remember - they reelected Jeb in FL. He ain't exactly a Dem.

It is possible that I may be incorrect in believing that the site is non-partisan. But I would appreciate more information on why it is partisan. That you don't like what it says is not proof.

You keep parrotting this same point as if it means anything. Honestly, I'm not so sure about the results of the Gov's election and Jebs reelection. As I said, I don't trust anything coming out of Florida. They've already shown they are not averse to rigging and stealing elections so his victory means nothing to me, it could be just as phony as W's "victory".

It's not that I don't like what the website says, it's just that they make this list of states and say it's based on polls but there's NO methodology there. What polls? They list states that have ALWAYS been solid Dem states as only leaning Dem. That's dishonest.

Have you seen this?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/elec04.poll.bush/index.html

Poll: 50 percent of voters would not re-elect Bush

when he is not campaigning and is being hammered by numberous Dems and some media. (NOTE: I said some media, not all or even most or even much. We do have some media that is on our side too.) If I remember right, I think Dukakis started out ahead of Bush v1.0, and look what happened once the campaign got going. Bush v2.0 right now is doing the equivalent of Ali's rope-a-dope. They are getting firing a few campaign shots, like the Lynch movie yesterday, but those are for the purpose of keeping us a bit off balance and from consolidating our gains. BTW - Lynch was in this weeks Parade magazine with an article about the Pledge and what it means to her. The general public perception is that progressives are anti Pledge.

What were Clinton's reelect numbers at this same time in his presidency.

I am not saying the cause is lost. I am saying that we have an uphill fight, and hostility towards the symbols of America and towards Joe & Jane Average will hurt us.

I think it is Dean that says he wants to take our flag back for Bush, Rush, & Falwell. Insulting the flag, insulting Joe & Jane, and some of the post that show hatred for America won't take the flag back. Those type things hurt our cause. THAT IS MY PRIMARY POINT.

Did you read the article? Apparently not. He's at 44% reelect vs. 50% definately NOT reelecting.

Also, no one who voted for Nader will vote for Bush.

That being said, you used a questionable site as your reference for your questionable math regarding electoral votes.

Finally, your Joe and Jane point is absurd. Nothing we do on this site will have any effect whatsoever on the election and additionally, I've not seen much hatred for America on this site if at all. Maybe hatred for Bush, but not for America and it's TRUE ideals. This site doesn't have the ability to hurt the cause of any candidate.

Your comments about the media are assinine. There is no "liberal" media nor is there an equivalent on the left to Fox News, Rush Limbaugh etc. What is perceived by others (and possibly you) as left leaning media is actually OBJECTIVE media. There's a BIG difference.

It won't be easy to beat Bush, I'll neve say that. But all things being equal a Dem SHOULD kick his ass. Unfortunately our biggest problem is not votes, it's dirty tricks.

He will NOT get the Green Party's backing, not this time. We see Bush as a bigger threat than getting the 3% that could throw the election (or be spun as throwing the election) to Bush.

Silverhair said:

"We are in a recovery. Being in denial won't help."

Wow, talk about being in denial, that's what you are. If you really think we're in a recovery, why don't you quit your job right now, and then try to get another job @ the same $ w/the same bennies. Chances are high you won't be able to. If we really were in a recovery, the millions of us who are unemployed would be able to find good paying jobs. Don't you fret, unemployment will be an issue for '04.

I have my own unique online business. And for several years I supported myself by playing poker. I'm not worried.

Economic cycles exist. It is that simple. W got lucky on the timing of the cycle. The economic policies effect the baseline, not the cycle itself.

Always have a job when you are looking for one. I makes it so much easier.

Political analysis is not in your future. This stuff is to shallow for a flea to swim in.

In the end, A presidential canditate has only one thing to run on, thats his record. I for one, would not want to be responsible for defending that record. In fact, I would define that as the ultimate uphill battle.

I challange you to find Shrub's current re-elect numbers

The polls you refer to don't mean much either. He hasn't started campaigning and is being hammered by our candidates. Once we have a firm candidate, then he will start to shoot back, and use the power of the incumbancy to manipulate the news. We have an uphill battle in front of us. I did not say a lost battle, it is winnable, but we can't throw away votes.

Re-elect numbers mean nothing against an unnamed opponent.

Not much, given that Republican attacks have not started yet, but those are better than unnamed opponent polls. I would also point out that polls in the link you provided show all currently running Democrats losing to Bush. In all, I think the original poster was right: if Dems want to win they have their work cut out for them.

that we can't casually offend Joe & Jane Average.

This should be his future Time will tell





If you do believe the poll # for shrub then Rove is earning his keep.

:nuke:

America "means" nothing...its symbols are a sham to keep the batteries in line

No, the country isn't perfect, far from it. But it is a counry continually bettering itself. In America I see the ideal that it will someday become. And I do not loathe the America that is now because it isn't yet the future America. It's symbols stand for that ideal. In hating America, that means you hate it's people. At any time in the future that you wish to complain about "hate radio" you will be a hypocrite, bucause you have just now posted hatred here.

Your view, a hatred of America, will be defeated at the polls every time.

Americans are to be led around as sheep into accepting things the way they are because the status quo is best served by their ignorance

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem

the far left has for Joe & Jane Average will leak through. Joe & Jane don't like being held in contempt. Who does? That will make some of them vote against the candidate that those who hold them in contempt support. By that attitude, you are against a democracy in which actual ordinary people vote, because sometimes they don't vote the way you think they should. You appear to want a "dictatorship of the proleteriat" in which an elite, (Yourself?) tell them what to do and think.

I appreciate the time you spent on this analysis. I think it deserves a thoughful response.

Each of the points you raise is, to some degree, predicated on what the nominee sees as his or her electoral strategy. Some seem to be contemplating a southern strategy. Others may benefit from trying to hold the "Gore" states and pickigng up perhpas as few as one more swing state -- Ohio perhaps.

It's hard to imagine Gore voters going for Bush next time around, so the second strategy may make the most sense. Of course that all depends on who the nominee is and what where his strenths are. Another advantage to such a strategy is that it's geographically defensible against what I think you rightly identify as a likely Bush strategy to go after some of the Gore states -- West coast, upper midwest, and north east.

You may be right about the economy, by certain measures. But other measures will not be taken off the table. A "jobless" recovery will hold little sway with Americans. Also, I'm not sure how quickly this will begin, but higher interest rates (because of the public deficit) seem more likely than not. Not only are consumers going to be turned off by rising rates, they could well stiffle the "recovery" since it has so far largely been fueled by home re-financing and auto sales -- two interest rate sensiteve activities. So, there may well be an "improving economy next year (although I'm not convinced yet) but there will be pocketbook issues on the table.

As for Bush's approval rating. You are partially correct. Yes, our candidates have been bashing him, but the message is diluted. The dems are also bashing each other and a "leader" has yet to emerge to take the fight straight to Bush. No doubt, Bush is holding his fire, and it will be fierce when it comes. But there are a few things that give me hope that we can go head to head with him. First, Dean's fundraising has shown that Bush is not going to have the previously expected 4 to 1 spending advantage. I suspect, once we rally around the eventual nominee, Bush's money advantage will be no more than 5 to 3. Second, our currently scattered efforts, both among supporters and candidates will consolodate in a full out effort against Bush. And third, Bush is Bush. Is the next year going to be error free? His approval and re-elect numbers may seem to have leveled off for the moment, but the overall trend is down. True, his money will combat that trend, but another year of decision making is his worst enemy.

The effects of 9/11 will be less, not more a year from now. Whatever effect you think it may have on the elecoral psyche now, it will be weaker in a year. (One caveat: barring further terrorist attacks. But then, that brings a whole new dynamic to Bush too in terms of his ability to fight the "war on terror.")

On Iraq. You are right. A wild card.

As far as Joe & Jane, I think there is no need to worry about what is posted here. We're the nutty left wing, remember? Do you think it's really possible that any spelling of America here is going to come to their attention, much less have any traction as a campaign issue? No, no more, with all respect to fellow DUers, than any message posted at freeperville will have on Bush.

The real effect on Joe & Jane will come from our nominee, and there, I think we are in good hands. The candidates are already well on their way to making a clear distinction between Bush and America.

It's easy to criticize. But very few posts offer solutions.

I have decided my contribution will be to help register voters for the General Election.

would take 100 Karl Rove's and even then it would be close.

The next President of the USA

I won't say that it is in the bag is Clark get the nomination, but he, I believe, is the one they most fear.

1. We can't afford to throw ANY votes away. We NEED EVERYONE voting for us that we can get.

2. Posts that show hatred for Joe & Jane Average, that condecent to them, or that show hatred for America itself, (As opposed the current leadership of America.)will help turn Joe & Jane off.

ignore this oops

Remember Howard told us in the debate several people could beat Bush (he's so weak several Dems could take him down). I wonder when Dean goes down in flames in the general election (assuming the Dems are crazy enough to make him the nominee) the Dean supporters on this board are going to be willing to admit that they majorly screwed up in such a critical point in our country's history. Nah I don't think so. The new mantra will be ...anybody would have lost, Bush was unbeatable.