2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[agcatter]

Explode?

[agcatter]

I just reread my thread in search of the "explosion" and still couldn't find what the hell you are talking about.

However, I'll be anxiously awaiting that link.

[agcatter]

Move on.

[agcatter]

I don't know about hate, but it sure is not a responsible position for the President of the United States to take.

Pretty academic though.  Dean is never going to make it to the White House -  unless he takes the tour.  I hear it's pretty good.

[agcatter]

I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.

[agcatter]

That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.

[agcatter]

I share a love of Howard Dean with liberal Democrats - for slightly different reasons.  Ha

[agcatter]

It's gonna be a fun ride.

[agcatter]

interesting site

[agcatter]

I bookmarked the site.

[agcatter]

In 2000, Bush carried 72% of congressional districts in the 11 state South - almost half of those with 60% plus percentages.  This was against southernor Gore.  Don't expect a Howard Dean to do nearly as well against Bush in 2004.  However, republicans would welcome the Dems throwing as many resources as they want to at the South.  A little over half of the Southern congressional districts represented by Dems in the South were carried by Bush.  In other words, southern whites, while they sometimes vote for moderate southerners at the local level, are presidential Republicans through and through.

[agcatter]

Just because whites in a southern district choose to elect a Democrat to Congress, doesn't mean they will swallow a national Democrat as President.  For instance, in Texas, there were 6 districts represented by Democrats in congress but carried handily by Bush.  5 of 6 by at least 60 - 40.  Southern whites are presidential Republicans.  Dems trying to project the election of some Dem victories at the congressional or state wide office level to mean that automatically transfers to a Dean vote as President are living in a fantasy world.  There just isn't any empirical evidence to suggest that.  None.

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.

[agcatter]

<The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governor from a different party than the incumbents.  Facts are facts>

They sure are.  Quit ignoring them.   Citing a Dem elected here and there in local or statewide racea means absolutely nothing with regard to how whites vote at the PRESIDENTIAL level in the SOUTH.  

Even if the Dems somehow captured Kentucky 6th, it would mean absolutely nothing for Howard Dean in the PRESIDENTIAL general election.  Those white voters will not swallow Dean.  Bush carried the district by 13 points in 2000.  I'll wager anything you want (a meal of Texas BBQ vs. a platter of fish & chips or something) that Bush carries that district by more than 13pts against Howard Dean.

I think you are very knowlegable about American electoral politics in general and I respect your opinions.  You certainly are 100 times more well informed about politics here than I am about British politics.  However, with regard to the South, you are simply wrong.

[agcatter]

I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.

[agcatter]

So southern whites who vote for Bush are voting for a race- baiter and gay-basher?  Oh brother.....

[agcatter]

Read realpoilitic's last post.

[agcatter]

I have been arguing that the South is cultural conservative and that's why they vote Republican - that that kind of cultural conservatism doesn't exist in Britain.  Realpolitic seemed to equate cultural conservatism in the South with "race-baiting" and "gay bashing" since he brought up those terms.  What do those two terms have to do with conservative?  I'm neither and the President I vote for is not either one of those.  Conservative yes.  Conservative does not equal race-baiting and gay - bashing.  

[agcatter]

Then why bring up "gay bashers" and race -baiters?  I don't see the connection with the cultural conservatism we were discussing.

[agcatter]

I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

[agcatter]

Yeah!

[agcatter]

very possible - hehe

[agcatter]

Ah yes, Democrat/Republican.  I remember him well....

[agcatter]

I was on the old forum - had to reregister for the new forum and start over.

[agcatter]

Your point....?

[agcatter]

I read a number of his old posts, but who cares?