Official 2004 US Elections Thread

No you're right, I was just making the argument on behalf of the trial lawyers, but I agree that the image can and probably will hurt Edwards in some way.

 

I can tell you right now Jedismuggler that most of the doctors around here in philly aren't huge fans of Bill Frist, or the conservative wing of the GOP in general. While the republicans are more sensitive to the malpractice issue, they have also irritated many physicians in this city by demanding abortion records and disclosure of the physicians who have performed them. Right now, that is a much bigger buzz-topic amongst the philadelphia medical community (arguable with the worst malpractice crisis in the nation), and Bush has not been credited with bringing any real reform. Most of us are looking to the state, not the federal government, for relief, as the dynamics of such an issue make federal action unlikely.

Frankly, to win Pennsylvania, Bush has to win all the rural areas (which he did not in 2000, although he got more than Gore), and carry the philadelphia suburbs, which are packed to the hilt with moderate, pro-choice, pro-reasonable-gun-control, pro-separation-of-church-and-state republicans. Many of them voted for Bush the first time around, and many of them are planning on voting for Kerry.

Pennsylvania is very much a battleground state in play. What Kerry loses in physician votes in this state he may more than gain in disaffected moderates/independents who either support him or stay at home.

Peace,

V-03

 

The Republicans could make very huge inroads if Doctor Frist is talking with other doctors there about their malpractice premiums

Frist is the guy to watch for the Republicans. he's the future of the right wing of the party.

 

Vaderize03

Perhaps, but that puts a lot there. Pennsylvania is a battleground, but as it stands now, Bush is up by five points in the latest poll (Fox/Opinion Dynamics) - albeit it is before Kerry selected Edwards.

A lot remains to be seen in this. Nader will probably make the ballot in PA. Keep in mind that the conservative Rick Santorum won re-election in the same year that Bush lost, and he's the major sponsor of the partial-birth abortion ban.

The Detroit News has a poll that pretty much confirms the Fox News/Opinon Dynamics Poll (Bush is up by 1% 44-43; Fox News had him up 2 in Michigan). Survey USA had Kerry up by 10, but you sometimes get screwy polls from companies - Survey USA did NOT include Ralph Nader, who by virtue of the Reform Party endorsement is on that state's ballot.

That said, this is all pre-Edwards-as-veep.

 

Kerry/Edwards. Oh yeah.

Start packing George!

 

Kerry/Edwards. Oh yeah.

Start packing George!

Come on now. It's just not that simple, and Bush still has plenty of supporters and votes out there.

Speaking of Nader, Arizona is going to be an interesting state for reasons beyond what was initially expected, because Nader is officially off the ballot here. It'll be Bush vs. Kerry only here, without Nader to siphon any votes.

 

Nader the spoiler will no longer be a real factor. Not as many people are going to waste their vote on him.

Mark my words. George is going to lose. He has a big fat liability....Dick Cheney.

Cheney can barely walk because he keeps shooting himself in the foot.

Bush will not be rewarded for the debacle that is the Iraq War.

Pack up George! Yaaaaahooooooo!

 

KnightWriter

That is interesting. Nader is accusing the Demcorats of playing dirty tricks, and the Democrats did sue to get him off the ballot in Arizona.

It certainly could come back to hurt Kerry, I think. Then again, McCain's support for Bush could put that state out of reach for Kerry.

 

I'm not sure what the dirty tricks are, outside of natural politics. A lot of the signatures were found to be invalid (for one reason or another), and so he was removed from the ballot.

Kerry's team just played it smart by recognizing the info they were being given and acting on it.

I imagine that all of us here will be able to give some basic reports regarding what's happening in our respective states, and that could be especially interesting on Election Day.

Then again, McCain's support for Bush could put that state out of reach for Kerry.

As an ardent McCain supporter, his support of Bush is a bummer. I think he's doing it to be the good soldier, and wouldn't mind if Kerry won.

 

I think Nader may be gone by the time election comes around anyway. He'll tell his supporters to vote for Kerry, especially if they cut some kind of deal which I foresee as highly possible.

 

KnightWriter

Perhaps it might be nothing, but I can see this driving up Kerry's negatives a little.

Kerry has a charisma gap already. If his campaign plays too much hardball, it could be a situation much like 2000, where Bush will gain in the middle because his opponent is seen as a jerk (reference Gore's conduct in the debates).

What's happened to Nader... it looks like a bully. Clearly, more than the minimum wanted Nader on the ballot. They might not vote for Bush over it, but with the Arizona Democratic Party having supported that lawsuit, it may cause them to stay home.

 

Crix,
Then why alienate him by trying to keep him off the ballot? That could only encourage him and allow him to play up his "two party/corrupt politics" message.

JS, there's always a write-in.

KW, yeah the dems "played by the rules". But who wrote those rules? The two parties.

The two parties are so full of wanks.

 

Clearly, more than the minimum wanted Nader on the ballot.

If it's so clear, why wasn't Nader able to get on the ballot by legitimate means?

They might not vote for Bush over it, but with the Arizona Democratic Party having supported that lawsuit, it may cause them to stay home.

I doubt it. This is an energized state, and there's plenty of support for both sides. What we need here is hispanic voter turnout, which has always been low. If Kerry can somehow get that (and I hope he sends Edwards out here to help with it), Bush cannot hope to win Arizona.

If hispanic voters mostly stay home, Bush has an even to good shot of winning this state.

 

Anyone who has ever worked on an election or reelection campaign knows that what they did to Nader in a few of those states is what any serious political candidate does in ANY race.

I can't speak for the various third parties, but both the GOP and the Dem's do it in every single race. They weed out and find as many invalid signitures as they can find. Smuggler, Nader did NOT have enough valid signitures, that is why he isn't on the ballot.

EDIT:

Well, I gotta give the DNC some credit, they are playing for keeps this year. Check out THIS commercial put out by the Democratic Party, lambasting the President for using McCain in his new commercial by showing all of the negative things McCain has said about Bush and his policies over the years.

 

Obi-Wan McCarteny

This certainly leaves the Democrats with little room to complain about Florida in my book.

Seriously, the petitions and signatures were tossed out on technicalities. It might be legit on the ground, but for some folks, it can be used to paint the Kerry campaign and the Democratic party as a bunch of bullies picking on poor Ralph Nader.

Nader certainly is questioning the removal, and I have to wonder why it is that in this case, the Democrats are insisting on following the rules when in New Jersey, they asked the state supreme court to DISREGARD the rules when it seemed like they were going to lose a Senate seat.

It does seem inconsistent.

 

If hispanic voters mostly stay home, Bush has an even to good shot of winning this state.

Not to pick on you KnightWriter, but this is something that really gets me angry.

Why do we care about the Hispanic vote? Is there this one guy out there who takes a poll of all of the Hispanics and cast all the Hispanic votes on one person?

Right . . .

I'm sick of all this [expletive deleted] racism. If I were Hispanic, I would be extremely offended with all this talk about the Hispanic vote. Someone's ethnicity is no reason to try to get their vote. Just because there happen to be a lot of Hispanics in this country means squat. They're still Americans and they vote as individuals.

This makes as much sense to me as a candidate saying that he wants to get the Brunette vote. There are a lot of Hispanics. They're not all fruit pickers in California.

I just think that this is stupid and that race should be left out of elections. There are a lot of white people in America. Why aren't politicians trying to get their vote because they're white?

Trying to get the vote of minority ethnicities is dumb. It's as dumb to get the black vote as the Hispanic vote and the white vote.

 

I think it's apples and oranges, Smuggler. In Florida, hundreds or thousands of people who were LEGALLY ENTITLED to vote were denied their voice. That is a substantial mistake that was acknowledge.

Here, like every Congressional, Senatorial, or other Executive Office seat in every county and state in the Country, party pols went through voter lists to make sure signatures were from REAL people who REALLY live in the jurisdiction. Unless you can somehow prove that misconduct occurred and a substial amount of the signators were removed by mistake, I can't see where there is an inconsistancy.

The difference with Florida was that a mistake was made, those people had a legal right to vote. Here, there has been no evidence of any mistake.

Basically, what you advocated in your last post was sort of along the lines of saying "well, the GOP screwed up in Florida so that means that the Democrats are wrong to follow standard procedure in Arizona. Coincidently, I have no problem with the GOP who did the exact same thing to conservative third party candidates and the Democrats in every county in America."

 

Why do we care about the Hispanic vote?

Because it's a tremendous potential bloc of voters in this state that tends to stay home (regardless of the election). If a large number of hispanic voters make it to the ballot box, Arizona will swing to Kerry. There's simply no doubt about it. It's highly uncertain otherwise.

If I were Hispanic, I would be extremely offended with all this talk about the Hispanic vote.

Given that I could technically be considered part of the hispanic vote, I find it rather flattering. Hispanics tend to be more liberal than conservative (at least here in Arizona), and the number of hispanics in Arizona continues to increase.

Trying to get the vote of minority ethnicities is dumb. It's as dumb to get the black vote as the Hispanic vote and the white vote.

It may be dumb, but it's also part of life. A lot of politics is "dumb", but that doesn't make it any less important.

Also, this is about ethnicity, rather than race. You can be part of an ethnicity without being part of a specific race.

 

They're still Americans and they vote as individuals.

oh, please. no one votes as an individual. people vote, by and large, in blocs, based on race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, economic status, geographical region, etc.

there are always a small percentage of people who are going to buck the trend of their group, but statistically speaking people's votes are predictable based on that kind of demographic information.

people, as much as we sometimes like to think otherwise, are primarily social creatures and products of their culture, not free-thinking rational individuals. tell a professional political statistician your basic census information, and he or she will be able to predict who you're going to vote for with a very high degree of accuracy.

 

Liberal or conservative hispanic vote depends on what part of the country KW.

 

Liberal or conservative hispanic vote depends on what part of the country KW.

in Arizona, the Latino vote is primarily Democratic.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney

I notice you didn't discuss New Jersey. That was a CLEAR disregard for the rules because the Democrats were afraid they would LOSE an election.

Now, let's be clear here about Florida. The media did their recounts. Bush still won the media recounts.

And the Florida Supreme Court's rulings were vacated (their first one), and the second was knocked down 7-2 on its constitutionality, with a 5-4 split on the remedy for the bad ruling. The Republicans were trying to follow the rules. There are documented instances of the Democrats NOT doing so - and their hardball included throwing out military votes.

Florida law also said "felons lose the right to vote." Are you saying that the State of Florida should not have made an effort to enforce that law? Or is this again a situation like New Jersey, where the law got in the way of the Democrats winning an election?

 

OWM
In Florida, hundreds or thousands of people who were LEGALLY ENTITLED to vote were denied their voice.

Yeah, including those overseas ballots, which you always neglect to mention. I wonder why?

EDIT

people, as much as we sometimes like to think otherwise, are primarily social creatures and products of their culture, not free-thinking rational individuals.

Ehhh.....not always. Many times, yes. Politics is full of that.

That's why markets are better.

 

Whoa, Smuggler, Shane, I think you missed my point. First, I have no idea what you are talking about regarding New Jersey, and I didn't bring up Florida to continue debating how illegitemate Bush is, in fact, I didn't bring it up at all, you did. As far as my actual point today is concerned, Smuggler, you sort of helped make my point. Florida was just following the laws about felons votes, right? So why do you condemn the Demcrats (and again, not the GOP who do the same thing in every county in every state in America) for also enforcing ballot entry laws?

Furthermore, in Florida the process was abused, hundreds or thousands of people who were either NOT felons OR felons who earned back their right to vote, so they incorrectly kept people off the ballot. Shane, whatever evidence of Democratic fowl play in 2000 only enhances my point, that in 2000 there was evidence of wrongdoing regarding people's right to vote.

In this case regarding Nader, no evidence of wrongdoing has been shown. In addition, Smuggler attacks the Dems for this "technical" stuff keeping Nader off the ballot and then tries to compare it to Florida. My point was this: In Florida, there was clear and convincing evidence of wrongdoing, I guess on both sides.

Here, there hasn't been any evidence that legitemate signatures were discounted. Heck, that's the whole point of this process, to make sure ONLY legitamte sigatures are counted. And again, BOTH sides do this, its just a normal and routine function of the election process, coupled with the fact that no evidence of mistake has been demostrated, I have no idea what the problem is.

 

Shane, whatever evidence of Democratic fowl play in 2000 only enhances my point, that in 2000 there was evidence of wrongdoing regarding people's right to vote.

Oh, I agree with that. That's why we need to break the political-corporate oligarchy that dominates American politics.