uconnyc
(185 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 07:56 PM
Original message |
what "Gore states" does Bush have a realistic shot in? |
|
if the election is not a complete blowout.
I know we've gone over this a lot. Just wanted to know as I play with the electoral map on JRE's website.
I presume Iowa, WI and PA. How about CA, MI, etc.?
|
Democrats unite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:00 PM
Response to Original message |
1. The election is not going to be a complete blow-out |
|
It is going to be like 2000, no matter what Bush does the Repukes are still going to stand behind him (anyone who thinks otherwise is living in a dream world).
We are going to have to pay close attention to what happened in Florida in 2000, In a couple of States this November to make sure it does not happen again. If it goes unchecked we will definitely get four more years of Hell!
|
blurp
(769 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
6. Better machines will do what in FL? |
|
It will be very interesting to see what the results since most of the state(all?) has gotten rid of punch cards.
There were many spoiled ballots in 2000. In fact, in those precincts with large African-American populations, the overall rate of spoilage was up to 31% higher than the rest of the state.
|
Democrats unite
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. What about all the people who's vote didn't count |
|
Because of a fraudulent felon list? How will machines help that? How will machines help voter intimidation at the polls asking for 5 pieces of ID?
|
CalebHayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Iowa... But it will be really bad if Nader runs... Because then you got... |
|
to watch out for Washington and Oregon.
|
SaveElmer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:08 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon.
|
mlawson
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:08 PM
Response to Original message |
4. It depends a lot upon who our nominee is. |
|
We *should* nominate someone who has the common touch that Clinton has, one who can get non-ideological voters to connect with him, the so-called 'chemistry' factor. Al Gore, for all his virtues really lacked that property.
I fear we are about to nominate someone else who lacks it, possibly even more than Gore did. If we do, bush could have a shot at a lot of Gore's states.
|
Zero Gravitas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:09 PM
Response to Original message |
Feanorcurufinwe
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 08:13 PM
Response to Original message |
7. He has a chance in Florida. |
|
California - no way. Michigan - yes, Bush has a shot. I don't know about the others.
|
greekspeak
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-30-04 09:16 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Oregon, Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico |
|
Washington
NOW...some states Shrub ought to watch out for:
New Hampshire, Missouri, Florida, Arkansas, Kentuky, Tennessee, etc. We have a shot in these if the cards are played correctly. And the election is not totally rigged.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 01:22 AM
Response to Original message |