Bush Landslide?

[Annie]

I haven't thought so, but I know some of the younger guys have. Well, now you have some company!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/218595p-188030c.html

Excerpts:

Why Bush is going to win

Kerry's a captive of the overbearing, elitist wing of his party

In 1972, The New Yorker's movie critic, Pauline Kael, won herself a place in political lore by expressing astonishment at the Republicans' 49-state landslide victory. "How could that be?" she demanded. "I don't know a single person who voted for Nixon."
I don't live in such a rarified world, but most of my friends are voting for John Kerry. And I imagine that a good many will be shocked when President Bush wins in November.

It is possible that no Democrat could beat Bush this year. The President has Ralph Nader on his side, and demography. Since the 2000 election, shifts in population have added seven electoral votes to the Red Bush states and subtracted seven from Goreland.

This alone might be enough to put Bush over the top in a tight race. But despite the polls, I don't think this election will be close, and this time the Democratic establishment won't be able to blame the Supreme Court. If they're fair, they'll blame themselves. Since this is politics, they'll blame the candidate.John Kerry is not a bad man. He probably wouldn't make a bad President. But he is a bad candidate in a terrible situation. He represents the wing of the Democratic Party that is imbued with a sense of its own moral, intellectual, cultural and social superiority. In short, he is the standard bearer for the unbearable.

These people don't comprise a majority of the electorate or even Democratic voters (how could they and remain an elite?), but they have convinced themselves that they and their candidate - if packaged properly - will prove irresistibly attractive to lesser Americans.

Boston, with its flag-waving and saluting and balloon-blowing was supposed to be a commercial for this new and superior brand of politics. But Americans are expert TV watchers. A lot of them voted with their remotes. Those who did watch weren't impressed. The Democrats' much anticipated post-convention bump turned into a thud. George McGovern got one of those in 1972.

 

[Avatar4321]

Have faith Kathianne. Just the fact that Bush is close to Kerry in several states that should easily be his is spelling out that this will be a landslide. add that with the fact that Kerry's convention actually energized the Republican base rather than the Democrats, that any energizing the Democrats did have is going to be killed by the Olympics, that the Republicans are going to get a huge boost from speakers like Guilani, McCain, Arnold, and of course the President and Vice President during the convention. And this is going to be further in the bag once the debates start. Ive seen John kerry debate the other Democrats, he has nothing. Its going to be a blow out. I dont see Kerry winning many states outside New England if even that many there.

 

[tpahl]

And this is going to be further in the bag once the debates start. Ive seen John kerry debate the other Democrats, he has nothing. Its going to be a blow out. I dont see Kerry winning many states outside New England if even that many there.

Hopefully the debates are more than just Kerry and Bush. Kerry is so boring and Bush and Kerry agree on far to much to even call it a 'debate'.

Travis

 

[MtnBiker]

Hopefully the debates are more than just Kerry and Bush. Kerry is so boring and Bush and Kerry agree on far to much to even call it a 'debate'.

Travis

Only likely to happen if another canidate is polling more than 10 percent nationally.

 

[5stringJeff]

Electorally, I see Bush getting 300+ votes easily.

The popular vote I think will be in the neighborhood of 52-47 Bush, with 5% going to third parties.