my theory on 2000, why Gore lost. 2004 will be different....

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Yes they willl... there is only so much of the religious right America can stomach before the people take a minute out of their election day to say Cut the Bullsh*t.

It's talk like that that's putting so much of the American public off of the Democrats.  There's only so much religion-bashing America can take before people take a minute out of their election day to say Cut the Bullsh*t.

Case in point: the effort of Atheist Fundamentalists to strike "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegience.  Everyone with a brain knows that "Under God" is not a prayer, and it's not even an invocation of any particular faith.  Most of America understands that we invoke God as the basis for our nation and our society - we've been doing so since 1776.  Thomas Jefferson understood this when he penned the Declaration of Independence, and he wasn't even a Christian.  

Our culture is monotheistic, Judeo/Christian in nature.  Now, you can choose not to participate in that aspect of our culture, and we as a nation pride ourselves in giving our citizens that freedom.  BUT, that doesn't mean we are obligated to do away with the Judeo/Christian underpinnings of our culture, society, and law, just because it makes Atheists, Budhists, or Wiccans feel bad.  The single Atheist Fundamentalist who insists on removing all references to God from any public sphere is going to alienate far more Americans than ten televangelists ever could.

Another case in point: Republicans are running general attack ads against "Angry Democrats," and Dean's slam against "Fundamentalist Preachers" is part of a collage of Democrat nattering nabobs of negativity.

To sum up, if you think the Americans who are pissed at the religious right are going to come out in droves, that's nothing compared to how many Americans are pissed at the areligious left.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

With Bush frantically waving at his base, it looks quite possible that Bush will lose.

If this is a reference to Bush's push for the marriage amendment, I think your interpretations of this are a bit off.  

I hear a lot of liberal analysts proclaiming that the marriage amendment amounts to Bush distracting from his weakness on other issues (jobs, war in Iraq...) by "frantically waving at his base."  This is bad analysis.  Conservatives across the country had been pushing for this amendment, passing around signed petitions, etc, for months, while Bush was silent on the issue.  It wasn't until the clamor for this became so overwhelming across so much of America, that Bush saw he had no choice but to come out in support of it.

Bush was not frantically waving at his base.  His base was frantically waving at *him*.

If Bush does not support the marriage amendment, he faces millions of very disgruntled conservatives, who are not above letting Kerry win to send a message.  Even if Bush is riding relatively high approval in key issues, he *must* have this support.  So this is not necessarly a sign of Bush weakness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There is too much ABB-ism on the coasts, and too much Bush-support in Flyover Country for a blowout of any kind to occur.  2004 will be decided by fewer than 100 EV, and more likely will be a 30 EV contest.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Many political commentators even who are democrat say it is still possible for Bush to carry 40 states or more.

but not likely

There's no such thing as likely in politics.  If the campaign continues to progress as it has--if Kerry continues to fall apart--I think it's very likely that Bush will carry 40 states or more.  If Kerry recovers, is aided by what is perceived to be jobless growth and chaos in Iraq, as well as mistakes by the Bushies, Kerry could win.

Kerry's falling apart?....

Probably referring to his recent stumbles, such as his "metting with world leaders who want to see Bush lose."  I wouldn't call that falling apart, though if this sort of thing continues for the next 7 months, Kerry doesn't stand a chance.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Either way, get over 2000. Gore lost to Bush. HE had 266 to Bush's 271. How could JEB set it up! Please.

Besides all that, there should be a Constitutional amendment stating that if you can't win your own home state, you can't be President .  If Gore had won Tennessee, he'd be President today.  Has ANY other Presidential candidate lost an election by not winning his home state?  It's ludicrous.  That's not Jeb's fault, or W's fault, or even Nader's fault.  That's on Gore, plain and simple.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Gore "lost" partly because he wasn't liberal enough and caused many liberals to support Nader. (Gore really didn't lose, since we all know the election was stolen, but that's beside the point right now.) Another factor was the media's clear support of Bush.

Yeah..LOL...you guys keep telling yourself that. When was the last "true liberal" elected President of the United States?

The real nasty wake-up call is going to come when the Left finds out that about half the of ABBers aren't liberal at all .

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

The real nasty wake-up call is going to come when the Left finds out that about half the of ABBers aren't liberal at all .

Beef,

There's truth in what you say. But I do think that the loudest, and most sinister, ABB voices come from the hard left wing.

They are certainly the ones that encourage the piling on.  But I think a lot of the Bush hate is coming out of the center.  My point is that the left wing seems to think that the Hate Bush Movement is a sign of a national shift to the left, when it really isn't.