Official U.S. Elections Countdown thread! (Now discussing 2004 elections)

The Democrats already have 90% of the Black vote, so the Trent Lott affair is not going to hurt them at all, and is probably going to help the GOP round up southern white democrats that might think of straying away. No one likes to be called a rascist, and when the Democrats and the liberal elites label all southerners as borderline KKK members because of a gaff (and that is what Trent Lott did was a gaff), if anything, it is going to blow up on the Dem's. Add to it the point that Lott would have capitulated on everything that has come up so far (organizing resolution, Miguel Estrada, etc) and the Dems overplayed their hand and are now out someone who gave the Dem's way too much when he was in control, which is why so many GOPer's were glad to see Lott go.

As far as the Hispanic vote goes, the Estrada nomination will only help. Yes, Robert Menendez's comments were ridiculous, and only go to show that the Democrats ultimately DON'T want to see Blacks or Hispanics in positions of leadership if they did not get there via the Civil Rights route.

 

Just the idea that you believe it was "just a gaff" shows how blind party politics can make you.

George W. Bush didn't seem to think it was "just a gaff" himself...but I guess that's for a different thread.

 

Just the idea that you believe it was "just a gaff" shows how blind party politics can make you.

It was a gaff, and from a guy who thinks the Republicans were in the wrong for making a deal about the Wellstone Memorial coudl show how blind party politics can make others.

 

I know this is off topic as heck here, but I just think I should mention this, something I PM'd to Vaderize earlier today.....

I bet you all wish you had listened to me now.....


>>>Krispy Kreme Sees 2004 Profit to Jump 35 Percent

Friday, February 14, 2003

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. ? Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. (KKD) said Friday it expects earnings to jump about 35 percent in its current fiscal year from the year just ended, sending its shares up 9 percent.

The chain of fresh-baked doughnut stores forecast earnings of 88 cents per share in fiscal 2004, which began on Feb. 3, up from the 65 cents it has forecast for fiscal 2003.

It also forecast sales growth of about 10 percent at stores open at least a year for fiscal 2004.

"It's a significant increase," said Brean Murray & Co. analyst Kathleen Heaney. Shares of Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based Krispy Kreme were up $2.58, or 9 percent, at $30.98 by early afternoon on the New York Stock Exchange.

Heaney said the profit forecast was better than it at first appeared because it takes into account share dilution related to Krispy Kreme's acquisition of bakery chain Montana Mills Co. Inc., which was announced last month.

Krispy Kreme said at the time the acquisition would reduce earnings per share by about 3 cents a share in the first 12 months. The deal is expected to close in the second quarter of 2003, Montana Mills has said.

Investors punished the stock after word of the acquisition, driving the shares down almost 8 percent that day. They continued to fall until the company released Friday's bullish forecast.

Analysts on average were forecasting a profit of 84 cents per share in fiscal 2004, according to Thomson First Call. Analyst forecasts were in a range of 82 cents to 86 cents and it was not clear which of the estimates included the Montana Mills effect.

"I had an estimate of 85 cents for 2004, which did not yet include the dilution from the Montana Mills acquisition," Heaney said. Including the Montana Mills dilution, her estimate would have been 82 cents. She forecasts sales at stores open at least a year, or same-store sales, growing 8 percent in fiscal 2004.

J.P. Morgan analyst John Ivankoe was expecting earnings of 82 cents for fiscal 2004, including the Montana Mills effect, and same-store sales growth of 5 percent.

But he was bearish on the stock in a research note to clients, saying he believes "these new forecasts are at the higher end of what the company will achieve during the year."

Krispy Kreme said it expects to open 77 new stores in fiscal 2004.

The company said systemwide same-store sales increased 11.8 percent in the fourth quarter, which ended Feb. 2. Same-store sales rose 14.8 percent at company stores, 8.3 percent at area developer stores and 10.7 percent at associate franchisee stores.

Krispy Kreme, which has grown rapidly in recent years and now operates more than 270 stores in North America, also stood by previous estimates for 2003 earnings, saying it expects to earn 65 cents per share. Analysts are forecasting profit of 65 cents per share, with a range of 64 cents to 66 cents. <<

 

I need to check my PMs more often ...

I could've hit that, but didn't....

D'oh!

Peace,

V-03

ps The dems should just let Estrada on the damn court. We shouldn't waste time and capital filibustering District nominees; let's save them for SC nominees. We'll know his judicial philosophy soon enough.

 

ps The dems should just let Estrada on the damn court. We shouldn't waste time and capital filibustering District nominees; let's save them for SC nominees. We'll know his judicial philosophy soon enough.


A good plan, but it seems to me that the Dems are laying the groundwork for keeping any nominee they don't like off any federal bench.

So far they appear to be using the fact that Estrada won't comment specifically on how he'd rule on certain cases as the basis for their opposition.

I recall reading somewhere (but can't find the quote at the moment) that Sen. Schumer has actually said that he opposes Estrada based on ideology rather than qualifications.

From what I understand it's been no secret ever since Bork (and probably before that) that opposition to a judicial nominee wasn't solely limited to actual qualifications, but this might be the first time that a Senator has actually come out and said that he'll vote no strictly based on ideology.

 

Schumer did indeed say that, and that is why he is coming under fire by the Hispanic groups that really matter. If former congressman Anthony Badillo (D-NY) makes good on his threat, where he vowed he would see Schumer defeated if he fillibusters, then Schumer day's in the senate will be over come 2004.

 

To the victor go the spoils.

The full Senate should be allowed to vote on Estrada, not let it be derailed by the wishes of only a few members. That isn't Democracy in action, that's Democratic Party obstructionism.

 

As a matter of fact, I believe it was Schumer or Fienstien, in 2002 when Pricilla Owens or Charles Pickering were rejected, made it a point of saying the 2000 Election did not give President Bush a mandate/go from the electorate, that he could go ahead and change the judicial philosophy of the judiciary.

I assume that the 2002 Elections to them meant nothing, even if it put them out of power. But like I said earlier, if the Dem's filibuster Estrada, I truely believe on Election Day 2004, that it will cost them dearly, and I would have to up my estimate to the Republicans picking up 6 or even 7 Senate seats.

 

I agree that it will have severe consequences for the Democrats if they derail Estrada on a filibuster.

 

If they filibuster Estrada's nomination, I believe that it will help ensure Peter Fitzgerald get re-elected (as said previously, I am already operating under the presumption he will lose), furthermore, it will make vulnerable Barbara Boxer, Chuck Schumer, Patty Murray, and there was someone else I forget now, but the ultimate result, is that 3 seats they normally would not have to worry about would now be in play.

 

Guys guys guys!

There's more to re-election politics than a filibuster.....you're assuming people are going to care all that much.

DM, to be fair, I should point out that the dems holding up his nomination, as wrong as that may be, doesn't reflect "the wishes of the few". The senate is still very closely divided. I would agree with you if the GOP advantage were 10+, but it isn't yet.

I think this whole Estrada business will be forgotten about by 11/04, however it turns out. The races will pivot on much bigger and probably (for the senators) more local issues.

Just my $0.02.

Peace,

V-03

ps I LOVE BIG SNOW!!!!!! 12-20 inches!!!! WOOOOOHOOOOOOO!!!!!

 

you're assuming people are going to care all that much.

V03, I think the Hispanic community will care very much.

 

The RNC is already considering purchasing lots of ad time on Univision and other spanish television stations; specifically so that the Hispanic community in this country can see the Democrats attacking Miguel Estrada. believe me, that will have a HUGE effect....

 

V03, I think the Hispanic community will care very much.

Not the ones that automatically vote republican, as this will only inflame them more.

As far as the undecideds go, this will probably have blown over one way or the other by 11/04; they will vote based on defense and economy, most likely, and not solely on this issue. The ones who are democrat may very well oppose Estrada as well. I do believe that the largest hispanic advocacy group in the northeast (or possibly the nation, I am not sure) came out as not a very big fan of him. Don't quote me on this one, I just overhead it with one ear on the television.


Anyway, my general point: I think the hispanic vote is still up for grabs in terms of undecideds. I don't think that all hispanics are in favor of estrada just because he is hispanic. His views may just not jive with everyone.

We'll have to wait and see...

Peace,

V-03

 

To an extent, polling data shows a wide variety of opinions. HIspanics of Central American origon are very pro-estrada, while those of mexican are not that much in favor, while Cubans are strongly in favor of and South americans are not.

Univision (the #1 spanish cable outlet in the US) was rather pro-estrada, and were even talking about the 'thought/ideaology policing' in the Democrat party, the other night, talking about how despite all Clinton's talk of inclusion, how he had no blacks or hispanics in positions of real power or leadership in his administration, only jews and women; compared to Bush, who has blacks and hispanics and asians in positions of real power.

So there is definitely an attempt to make this an issue

 

compared to Bush, who has blacks and hispanics and asians in positions of real power.

But how much of this is window-dressing? Having jews in positions of power did not stop Clinton from being much less pro-Israeli than Bush is. Also, Bush's economic policies have not done much to benefit poor minorities. And while I applaud his stance on affirmative action from a moral standpoint, hispanic minorities are amongst the groups that would be placed at a disadvantage should affirmative action fall.

Like I said before, I think it will take more than just this one issue.

Peace,

V-03

 

Besides, Clinton was really the first President to actually appoint minorities and women to such levels of power, I'm glad Bush is continuing that tradition. But don't forget that Bush has still packed his court with plenty of rich old (evil?) white men

 

But don't forget that Bush has still packed his court with plenty of rich old (evil?) white men

Come on. Do you really think many people actually believe that?

 

Do I believe Rumsfeld has a little evil in him? Do I believe that Cheney has a little evil in him? Do I believe that Bush has a little evil in him?

YES.

Anyone who gets to such levels of power has to have some sort of evil, but at least the Democrats liberal goals seem to be there way of saying "Hey, I guess we've had to do some evil things too, but we're trying to do these good deeds to make up for it."

P.S. This post is partly in jest, I don't wish to get in a huge debate or anything.

 

*smacks head*

Both sides have their good and bad points.

 

Anyone who gets to such levels of power has to have some sort of evil, but at least the Democrats liberal goals seem to be there way of saying "Hey, I guess we've had to do some evil things too, but we're trying to do these good deeds to make up for it."


Your jest was successful because it sure made me laugh.

 

Clinton did not appoint any blacks to any cabinet level position after Ron Brown (Commerce Secretary, who died in a plane crash in 1995), and the only Hispanic he appointed was to HUD (Henry Cisneros, I believe, who ended up indicted and conviction for corruption). After that, the only blacks, hispanics, and jews he appointed were in very low level positions.

Bush has appointed blacks to head VERY important agencys, Rod Paige to Secretary of Education (the first black to do so), COlin Powell to Secretary of State (the first to do so), he appointed Elaine Chao to Secretary of Labor(chinese american), NOrman MInetta (japanese) to Secretary of Transportation. there were some more, I can't remember who.

But the minority's Bush has appointed have real missions and are in true positions of leadership in this country, and are genuinely qualifed to hold those positions. The minority's that CLinton appointed WERE window dressings, who had very little power and certainly none on a cabinet level position.

 

Good points, TripleB.

And now the Dems are trying to derail Estrada, a Hispanic.

They love to talk the talk, but they don't walk the walk.

 

It appears the field of Democrats is getting even more crowded. Now former senator Carol Moseley-Braun former Minority Leader Dick Gephardt are in the contest.


I have to predict that Moseley-Braun will be one of the first candidates to drop out of the running. Her record as a one term senator was pretty abysmal and apparently only one person attended her announcement to become a candidate for president. Admittedly there was bad weather that evening, but still, the fact that only one person was excited enough to venture out and show support pretty much says it all.