"electability"

[Napoleon]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

Dirty tricks may have sunk Kerry. Do you remember the photo montage that showed him with Jane Fonda? It was a Soviet-style fake, as shown by the shadows showing the sunlight hitting them from different directions.  Figure that if that photo didn't appear, Kerry might have won  somewhere between 1.05% (which would have flipped Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio to Kerry) and  2.51% of the vote (which would have also flipped Nevada, Colorado, and Florida).

You are right about the ceiling. With an electorate like that of 2010, the GOP will win the Presidency, take over the Senate, and consolidate its gains in the House.

 

Wrong on 4 out of 6.  Bush won Ohio 50.8 to 48.7 = 2.1% margin, Nevada 50.5 to 47.9 = 2.6% margin, Colorado 51.7 to 47.0 = 4.7% margin, and Florida 52.1 to 47.1 = 5% margin. 

Iowa and NM were both under 1% margins for Bush. 

You're wrong. Shifting 2.51% of Florida's voters from Republican to Democrat would leave us with 49.61 Kerry to only 49.59 for George W. Bush. And of course, that means the others would all flip as well.

No, that assumes that all the voters completely flip from Bush to Kerry.  That's a faulty assumption.  This only makes sense from a one-sided view.  Perhaps Kerry voters stayed home b/c of the photo thus only adding to his vote total if the picture doesn't exist.  to suggest that that % of Bush voters would change their mind based on a picture is really reaching. 

It's the same theory as the DUI in 2000.  While, there may have been some flips from Bush to Gore, it hurt most with Conservatives staying home and not voting. 

You're ability to prove your claims are just as impossible as my ability to prove pbrewoer2's. that doesn't mean that you were wrongly interpreting what he was saying in his post though.

[pbrower2a]

I don't know how you can characterize Kerry's performance as a strong one.  Bush looked strong in the early part of 2003 but his approval ratings fell dramatically in that year and in 2004.

The climate wasn't particularly favorable or unfavorable to either Bush or Kerry.  Kerry could have plausibly spun Iraq as a failure and the economy as sputtering.  There was an opportunity for Kerry to win and potentially win big.

Unfortunately for us Republicans, there is a ceiling on the number of electoral college votes we can get these days and Bush's 280 + isn't that far off (perhaps he could have plausibly won Pennsylvania) considering that Washington/Minnesota are not serious possibilities without third-party help.

Dirty tricks may have sunk Kerry. Do you remember the photo montage that showed him with Jane Fonda? It was a Soviet-style fake, as shown by the shadows showing the sunlight hitting them from different directions.  Figure that if that photo didn't appear, Kerry might have won  somewhere between 1.05% (which would have flipped Iowa, New Mexico, and Ohio to Kerry) and  2.51% of the vote (which would have also flipped Nevada, Colorado, and Florida).

You are right about the ceiling. With an electorate like that of 2010, the GOP will win the Presidency, take over the Senate, and consolidate its gains in the House.

 

Wrong on 4 out of 6.  Bush won Ohio 50.8 to 48.7 = 2.1% margin, Nevada 50.5 to 47.9 = 2.6% margin, Colorado 51.7 to 47.0 = 4.7% margin, and Florida 52.1 to 47.1 = 5% margin. 

Iowa and NM were both under 1% margins for Bush. 

You're wrong. Shifting 2.51% of Florida's voters from Republican to Democrat would leave us with 49.61 Kerry to only 49.59 for George W. Bush. And of course, that means the others would all flip as well.

No, that assumes that all the voters completely flip from Bush to Kerry.  That's a faulty assumption.  This only makes sense from a one-sided view.  Perhaps Kerry voters stayed home b/c of the photo thus only adding to his vote total if the picture doesn't exist.  to suggest that that % of Bush voters would change their mind based on a picture is really reaching. 

It's the same theory as the DUI in 2000.  While, there may have been some flips from Bush to Gore, it hurt most with Conservatives staying home and not voting. 

Sure, I ignored the likelihood that right-leaning voters might have voted for a third-party candidate.  But the propaganda showing John Kerry with Jane Fonda, a forgery, sank him badly. It didn't have to convince 5% of Americans that John Kerry was an unelectable leftist and that George W. Bush was a genuine patriot -- and that voting for Bush/Cheney was the "patriotic" thing to do even if Dubya had put American troops into harm's way for the profit of his cronies.

I continue to believe that the Religious Right, organized as it as to vote for any right-winger, was the key to Republican control of both Houses of Congress from 1994 to 2006 and the Presidency from 2000 to 2008.   

[milhouse24]

The Swift Boating did hurt Kerry because that was his main "Band of Brothers" theme that helped him win the primaries. 

It was a strong and effective dirty campaign smear, but it was a smear that started when he Testified in the Senate 40 years ago.  He wanted the limelight then and it was probably his shining moment. 

His flip-flopping on the Iraq War vote also made him look idiotic and buffoonish at best; and a traitor at worst. 

He was a decent candidate, but those 2 instances were significant PR flaws.

[anvi]

There wasn't one Obama voter from 2008 who wouldn't have also voted for those two.  There's no reason why West Virginia, Missouri, or Arkansas (and perhaps Montana) shouldn't have gone to the Democrats.  These states tend to vote for the Democrat Party nominee with the conditions at play in 2008 and Obama somehow managed to lose these states by 20 (with the exception of Montana) when Clinton and a faithful Edwards would have won everywhere else that Obama won.

I would never have voted for Edwards; had he been nominated in either '04 or '08, I would have stayed home.  Even when he was getting play in the 2004 primaries, the only reason I could fathom that he ever seemed to be running was his own narcissism ("This is a great country, where a man whose daddy worked in a mill has a chance to become president.").  Plus, the way he conducted himself in the VP debate against Cheney in 2004 was, I thought, disgraceful.  Obama lost Montana (which has voted for a Democrat only once since '64 and twice since '48, largely because of Perot in '92) very narrowly and Missouri by a hair.  And there is a very distinct reason why he lost West Virginia and Arkansas in a year when an alternative white Democrat may not have. 

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

There wasn't one Obama voter from 2008 who wouldn't have also voted for those two.  There's no reason why West Virginia, Missouri, or Arkansas (and perhaps Montana) shouldn't have gone to the Democrats.  These states tend to vote for the Democrat Party nominee with the conditions at play in 2008 and Obama somehow managed to lose these states by 20 (with the exception of Montana) when Clinton and a faithful Edwards would have won everywhere else that Obama won.

I would never have voted for Edwards; had he been nominated in either '04 or '08, I would have stayed home.  Even when he was getting play in the 2004 primaries, the only reason I could fathom that he ever seemed to be running was his own narcissism ("This is a great country, where a man whose daddy worked in a mill has a chance to become president.").  Plus, the way he conducted himself in the VP debate against Cheney in 2004 was, I thought, disgraceful.  Obama lost Montana (which has voted for a Democrat only once since '64 and twice since '48, largely because of Perot in '92) very narrowly and Missouri by a hair.  And there is a very distinct reason why he lost West Virginia and Arkansas in a year when an alternative white Democrat may not have. 

[Lincoln Republican]

I wouldn't necessary say Romney is a sure-fire electable candidate.  I strongly doubt he will get much support from Evangelicals and Southerners.  Can someone find polling about how Romney does against Democrats in Southern States?  I see Huckabee or Palin running on a 3rd Party to challenge Romney for Christian conservative voters.
Kerry played up the War Hero card in the primaries, and his experience.  Kerry was the Democrat version of John "War Hero" McCain.  But it just wasn't enough.  For Kerry, he might have been able to scrape some swing voters in Ohio to beat Bush.  Maybe a Kerry-Clark ticket would have improved the military/white veterans votes.

I think for any GOP candidate, he or she has to keep the Southern Christians in line, but also appeal to swing voters - Catholics, Women, Hispanics, Veterans or Midwesterners.

I do have to disagree on this point.  No way Palin nor Huckabee mount a third party challenge to Romney if he is the nominee.  They would endorse Romney, perhaps not enthusiastically, but at lease publicly.  Neither Palin nor Huckabee would risk their standing within the Republican Party by challenging the party nominee.  Doing so would fly in the face of respect for the will of the people.     

[Poundingtherock]

anvikshiki ,

You are acting like Vera Baker.  The point is that Montana and Missouri should have been easy Democrat Party wins given the election cycle.  Clinton did not win Montana because of Perot.  That's a right-wing myth.  Perot voters would have split equally between Clinton and Bush I.

I see that you have to recycle a right-wing lie in order to prop up Obama.

Missouri, West Virginia, and arkansas are easy Democrat Party victories for a somewhat sane Democrat given the economic conditions in the country and the hatred of George W. Bush.

[anvi]

Clinton didn't even get 38% of the Montana vote in '92; he edged out Bush by 2.5% with Perot getting over 26%.  If you think Clinton would have won Montana in '92 without Perot, if you think 13% of Montana's vote would have gone for Clinton had Perot not been in the race, you're dreaming.  And Arkansas and Missouri have only cast their electoral votes for white southern Democrats since '64 ('64. '76, '92 and '96).  None of those states are Democratic gimmes, especially not anymore, not even in a year when the GOP is performing poorly.

But, whatever.

[Poundingtherock]

Vera, is that you?

[Lincoln Republican]

Clinton didn't even get 38% of the Montana vote in '92; he edged out Bush by 2.5% with Perot getting over 26%.  If you think Clinton would have won Montana in '92 without Perot, if you think 13% of Montana's vote would have gone for Clinton had Perot not been in the race, you're dreaming.  And Arkansas and Missouri have only cast their electoral votes for white southern Democrats since '64 ('64. '76, '92 and '96).  None of those states are Democratic gimmes, especially not anymore, not even in a year when the GOP is performing poorly.

But, whatever.

I have to agree.  Although most certainly Perot did not cost Bush the election, as doubtless Clinton would have won anyway, with reference to Montana, and some other states, there is strong evidence to indicate that Bush would have won these states had Perot not been a candidate.  I emphasize however that Clinton wins the election with or without Perot running.

But I have to agree in particular with Montana that Perot cost Bush a victory in that particular state.

Please see the following article, with which I agree.     

http://archive.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm

[Poundingtherock]

What evidence.

The exit poll showed that Perot voters split equally between Clinton and Bush.  It is a complete right-wing fabrication that Perot had any significant impact on the 1992 election.

The only reason why the poster I suspect to be Vera Baker is citing Perot is that he's trying to prop up Obama.

There is absolutely no evidence that Perot voters would have acted differently in Montana than they nationally. 

[Lincoln Republican]

I have no idea who Vera Baker is.

You sound like Hillary Clinton and her vast right wing conspiracy statements.

Exit polls in 2004 also showed Kerry winning the election.

[Lincoln Republican]

Montana 1992

Clinton         37.63 
Bush            35.12
Perot           26.12

[anvi]

Ok, last post on this topic for me.  I could invoke experience by saying I grew up less than 100 miles from the Montana border and spent lots of time in the state in the late '80's and early '90's visiting my niece and nephew, so I know how Montanans felt at the time.  But, forget that.

Compare the Clinton vs. Perot margins in the six most populous counties (by far) in Montana.

                                         1992                      1996
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cascade                            40-25                   44-13
Flathead                            31-29                   32-14
Gallatin                             42-29                   37-10
Lewis and Clark                 42-21                   43-11
Missoula                            49-22                   49-12
Yellowstone                       35-23                   41-11

Notice that, between these two years, though Perot's support falls in each county by practically half and by 66% in one, Clinton breaks even in three counties, while gaining between 4-6% in two and losing 5% in the county where the Perot vote diminished by 2/3.  Guess what?  Perot did not take many prospective Clinton votes in Montana; he took lots more prospective Bush votes in '92.  And there is just no way that Clinton could have pulled half of Perot's votes out of any of those counties had Perot not been in the race.  

The only point I ever wanted to make in this thread was that beating Obama won't be a cakewalk unless circumstances make it so, and that to beat him in '12, the GOP had best pick a good, appealing candidate.  That's all.

Hey, Pounding; big kisses from the Caribbean!

[Bull Moose Base]

It just turned 2011, no one is even in, and already electability is sinking Palin with even Eric Erickson declaring himself "adamantly convinced" she can't win.

Pounding, do you post at conservatives4palin?  I notice someone there picked up my advice that Palin start citing Bush Sr's 88 race instead of Reagan on electability.  Thought maybe it was you after I wrote it here.  Want to know whether I should add free chief strategist to the Palin campaign to my list of delusions.