the biggest 'surprise' state

[Gustaf]

Hm, hard to say...since the surprise state will SURPRISE us!

I'd concur with you, I see OH, PA and WV going for Bush, and I guess that might be a bit of a surprise. Overall, I don't think we'll see a lot of surprises, although some are bound to happen.

[Gustaf]

Walter,

Oregon was very close in 2000, so why wouldn't it be this time? It's the same with Ohio and Florida.

[Gustaf]

Actually the biggest suprise may be California!

First, prior to 1992 California voted Republican in Presidential elections from 1952 - 1988 (1964 exception).

Second, the Republican candidates for Govenor in the recall election received far more votes than the Democrat candidates.

Third, the party registration in California is significantly better for the Republicans in that state than was the case in 2000.

Fourth, the liberal media really went nuts during the recall election calling the voters nuts for wanting to recall Davis.  This badly undermined their credibility with the voters there.  As the liberal media is a major prop of the Kerry campaign, this is bad news for Kerry.

Fifth, it seems likely that the California economy will improve in the next six months even faster than the national average.

Sixth, while the California electorate tends to be socially more liberal than the nation, it has a long record of dislike for tax increases.

Seventh, all poll consistently show Kerry clearly ahead.

Eigth, they'll need that speedy recovery since they're well below national average in terms of getting hit by the economic down-turn.

Ninth, the fact that CA once was Republican holds little value. From 1892 to 1948 Texas voted Democratically, usually by a margin of 20% or so, inevery election except 1928. That doesn't change the fact that Bush won it by 20% last time and will do so again.  

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

First, the polls (Field, LA Times, etc.) have consistently shown a liberal/Democrat bias.  The bias tends to reduce as elections approach.

Second, I think you meant to say that California's economy suffered more than the national econoy.  This is in part from the major components of that economy which are poised for a major recovery.

Third, in addition to the California Presidential election history which I cited, I noted the recent trends in voter registration and the recall election.

Fourth, while Texas did vote for Democrat candidates for President in the first half of the twentieth century, those familiar with the voting practices of texas would not suggest if voted democratically (south Texas was notorious for vote fraud).

OK, I'm gonna stop the silly numbering of arguments now, if it's OK with you...

The liberal bias of Rasmussen Reports was admittedly a fact that I wasn't aware of. I have no idea how biased the Public Policy Institute is. And I moreover would like to see some proof of this alleged liberal bias.

I think that most people would agree that Texas was Democratic for about a 100 years, voter fraud or not...also whether it was due to fraud or not is completely irrelevant to the point.

Finally, I only refuted those of your points that I saw a need to refute at a first glance. Those that I didn't have a problem with I didn't mention.

[Gustaf]

OK, I'm gonna stop the silly numbering of arguments now, if it's OK with you...

The liberal bias of Rasmussen Reports was admittedly a fact that I wasn't aware of. I have no idea how biased the Public Policy Institute is. And I moreover would like to see some proof of this alleged liberal bias.

I think that most people would agree that Texas was Democratic for about a 100 years, voter fraud or not...also whether it was due to fraud or not is completely irrelevant to the point.

Johnson was a cheat and probably the killer of Kennedy.  But hey, he's still Al Sharpton's favorite.  I gotta admit that among leftist leaders, he's one of my favorites too.

Sure, still is completely irrelvant to the point I was making.

[Gustaf]

Heh, this is gonna be fun.

[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.