The South

[© tweed]

I think he can.

Gore-NM-IA=248+NH+OH+WV=277 and win

[minionofmidas]

Yes, he can. Unless that's the Census Bureau definition of the South, including Delaware, Maryland and the DC...
Oh, and WV is definitely SOuth.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The last time anyone won the Presidency without winning a single Southern state (ie: south of the Mason-Dixon line) was Benjamin Harrison in 1888.

Mind you the last person to lose every single Southern state was the hapless Walter Mondale in 1984

[agcatter]

Doubtful.  It would leave for zero margin of error.

[dazzleman]

I think he could, but it would leave no margin for error.

Gore would have won, without a single southern state, if he had won Ohio.  Of course, I am not counting Maryland, Delaware and DC as southern, which they really are not at this point.

Kerry would have to win every single state that Gore won, plus pick up a state like Ohio, to pull it off.  It could happen if the election is really close.

The foreign situation is a big wild card.  I heard a report that said that if Kerry wins, the terrorists will go all out to attack us, because they won't have the same fear of a response that they have with Bush.  I don't know what effect terrorist attacks before the election may have, or maybe the terrorists will hold off until after the election in the hope that Kerry will win.

[agcatter]

If terrorists were logical, they'd hold off until after Kerry is elected.  At that point, they'd have little to worry about.  It becomes a law enforcement issue once again and they have a lot less to worry about.

Anyone doubt those that set off the explosions in Spain would hesitate one second in detonating a nuclear device in a major urban area?  Anyone?  This is a war against a death cult and we need to kill them before they kill us.

But yeah, terrorist activity or inactivity might very well determine the election.  Another major attack and Kerry's "the war against terrorism has been exagerated" remark will look as silly as it is.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think you Republicans need to stop trying to turn terrorism into a partizan issue...

Look... Al Qaeda et al couldn't give a f*** who the President is or whether he's a Democrat or a Republican.
If they want to attack you, they will attack you.

I grew up in a country where terrorist attacks were common and I am sick of people playing politics with terrorist attacks.

[agcatter]

Sorry, but when one candidate views it as a" law enforcement issue" that makes it an issue with me.  We tried that approach in the 90s after the first WTC bombing.  Memo:  IT DIDN"T WORK.

[GOPhound]

It IS a partisan issue.  Every issue is a partisan issue and the differences between the two sides need to be discussed.  During Clinton's 8 years we saw how the Democrat's would handle the terrorism issue, i.e. treat it as a law enforcement issue.  Kerry would be more of the same.  

During Bush's 3+ years we've seen how Republican's would handle terrorism.  There is a drastic difference between the two.  This needs to be discussed before the people.  Whenever I hear politicians say things like "Let's not politicize this issue", it signals to me that they're scared because they know the people don't agree with them.  

[agcatter]

Exactly

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Grow up

[agcatter]

I don't agree with you so I need "to grow up"?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

No... I told you to grow up because you were being immature

[GOPhound]

Typical, they can't win in the arena of ideas so they resort to name calling.  

[© tweed]

by the south I mean TX, LA, AR, AL, MS, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, TN, and KY.

I don't see how he can any one of those states, other than FL, and that's even a stretch.
If Kerry wins, he won't win because the south voted him in.

[dazzleman]

The handling of terrorism is definitely a legitimate issue for political discussion, especially with Kerry calling it a law enforcement and intelligence issue.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Typical, they can't win in the arena of ideas so they resort to name calling.

Such intelligence...

It is immature to play politics with terrorism

[agcatter]

Immature would be engaging you personally and not the issue.  In no way did I do that.  You just didn't like my argument.  There is a clear difference in the approaches of both sides on the issue of terror.

[GOPhound]

You don't think the differences between Kerry & Bush on terrorism is a legitmate issue during an election?  I can't think of anything more important.

[© tweed]

This forum has degenerated into a fraction of it once was...so many people, so many posts, so much disliking..

I started this poll, looking for people's opinions, and this is what I got.  I regret having started this thing.

[agcatter]

Back to the original thread, I think it possible that Kerry could win without the South.  Certainly Gore came close.  It will mean threading the needle however and that will be difficult but not impossible.

[agcatter]

My apologies for getting off track.  The thread was a good one.

[GOPhound]

Yes an interesting thread sorry, the terror issue really is strong with me.  I work 1 mile from ground zero, I'll never forget what I saw that day as long as I live.

Anyway, I think Kerry definitely can win with losing every Southern state.  If he wins all of the Gore states plus NH he's already up to 264.    

This is why Ohio & Florida are so crucial.  If you give Kerry the Gore states plus NH & Ohio it gives him 284.  Plus NH & FL gives him 291. It gets almost impossible for Bush to win if he doesn't carry OH & FL.  If Kerry wins both it's all over then, he wins the election.  

 

[agcatter]

I can imagine the effect seeing that scene must have had on you.  I don't have nearly that kind of first hand connection although my sister  lost her best friend 9-11.  Her friend was a trainee for Morgan Stanley in one of the towers.  My sister is even more hard core on that issue than I am.  You don't mention say terrorism is a "law enforcement issue" around her.