the biggest 'surprise' state

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I usually don't bother to read all your posts because they rarely make the slightest bit of sense. You strongly opposed the Iraq War, you're a lifelong liberal Democrat, but this election you're voting for Bush. There's not an ounce of logic there.

[Gustaf]

Heh, this is gonna be fun.

[ilikeverin]

We need a Minnesota Democratic Alliance thingy

"Defending the Forum from those who think that Minnesota is trending GOP!"

[The Vorlon]

A Kerry shocker would be winning Virginia
A Bush surprise would be Washington State

[classical liberal]

Nader won't get on the ballot anywhere.  Therefore, Kerry will win convincingly.

[Josh/Devilman88]

What about N.C going for kerry.. because he has Edwards as his V.P.?? It could happen.. i hope not but it could happen.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Wouldn't happen in a million years.  They would hardly keep Edwards as their Senator, let alone a heartbeat away from the "red button".

[Josh/Devilman88]

i don't know the polls here show that if Kerry has him as his V.P. it will be a very, very close race.

[classical liberal]

The VP isn't a heart beat away, he's a heart attack away.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Gustafson,

Perhaps I was unclear vis a vis Texas political practices prior to 1961.  

To be specific, Texas generally cast its electoral college vote for the Democrat party nominee for Preisdent, but often that had nothing to due with the democratic process.  The distinction is that the capital 'D' refers to the party while the lower case 'd" refers to the process.  There is considerable evidence to indicate that some Democrats achieved public office by vote fraud rather than honest votes of the electorate (the democratic process).

[angus]

We need a Minnesota Democratic Alliance thingy

"Defending the Forum from those who think that Minnesota is trending GOP!"

kerry wins minnesota.

by the way I said my position on Iraq most closely mirrored Carol Mosely Braun's position, among those who were running for the democrat nomination, not john kerry's.  why she would later endorse Howard Dean is a mystery to me.  obviously it had little to do with iraq.  it is not illogical not to impugn or malign kerry at every opportunity, just because I have shifted to Bush during the course of his tenure.  I would say, in general, it is not difficult to imagine that personal attacks would have the effect of eliciting sympathy with the victim, even if that victim is a filthy-rich spoiled former drunken fratboy, at least among those true bleeding-heart types.  

the argument in favor of bush with regard to iraq has more to do with nationalism.  republicans are all over the place on most other issues.  quite a bit of controversy, which can be healthy.  I never believed, twenty years ago, that writing a GOP platform is like herding cats, because I too was given the old line about what a monolith the GOP really is.  But the inaccuracy of that viewpoint is very clear to me now.  Perhaps you'll outgrow that familial partisan socialization too, perhaps not.  there is only one constant that has always been the identifying characteristic of the republican party since its first national convention in Pittsburgh 1856:  nationalism.  that will have varying appeal within the three political cultures given all other circumstances, but these three cultures have thus far remained intact enough to be identifiable.  they have not changed fundamentally, though their adherents spread out a bit, as we are a very mobile people.  it is not a matter of conservative or liberal.  as you may have noticed, most americans don't even use those correctly.  with me, it's a matter pragmatism.  bush made the mess, he will clean it up.  his team is best equipped to handle the situation, for better or worse.

I'm not saying that we couldn't have done better.  on some level it is still embarrasing that in a nation of 293,051,668 people, the best we came up with was Bush vs. Gore.  I have been consistent on all these points, if you'd care to actually read.

[Gustaf]

Gustafson,

Perhaps I was unclear vis a vis Texas political practices prior to 1961.  

To be specific, Texas generally cast its electoral college vote for the Democrat party nominee for Preisdent, but often that had nothing to due with the democratic process.  The distinction is that the capital 'D' refers to the party while the lower case 'd" refers to the process.  There is considerable evidence to indicate that some Democrats achieved public office by vote fraud rather than honest votes of the electorate (the democratic process).

Ah, lol, I'm aware of the distinction, but didn't think of that when I read your post. It doesn't make much of a difference regarding your point or mine though.

[Dave from Michigan]

Bush winning Michigan