No matter which candidate you support, don't buy the landslide line

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

McGovern would not have lost the electoral college as badly as he did in 1972 if we were running in today's political climate. Same with Mondale. There are clear "red" and "blue" states. Many of Bush's clear victories in 2000 are actually up for grabs (within 6 points for the general dem. candidate). This is why the dem. poltical operatives focus so heavily on the south. You go after one or two of your opponent's states, and things swing quickly. We are a divided country in terms of political parties (ask about the issues only and dems. clearly rule). Fears of an electoral landslide, I think, are silly. Nobody will bury Bush; Bush won't bury anyone else. There could be a decisive victory on either side, but it won't be a landslide. It'll be close; it'll be close for quite awhile, or until the dems. can take back some of the south.

On this note, let me offer three reasons Bush has proposed the immigration reform: 1) Arizona: this state is going to be close for the dems. Do you really think Arizona repubs are going to vote for Dean (another argument for Clark, Edwards, or Lieberman I guess); 2) New Mexico: could have had its own full-blown recount controversy in 2000; 3) California: administration really believes Arnold helps them out. More than anything else, this is free election pandering and will force the dems. to put money into California. Bush has huge money advantage and wants to force dems. to spend time and money on California.

[Padraig18]

1. I absolutey agree.

This 'blowout' talk is ridiculous, and just an attempt to pander to the fear each and every one of us has in that 'secret place' in our poliical mind.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. I would go so far as to say that Dennis K

Would do reasomably well in the general election. He wouldn't win, but he would lose 50 states. He'd have a chance to share his vision, his ideas, conduct a little class retaliation (since the class warfare has clearly already begun). He'd lose easily, but he'd do better than McGovern and Mondale, and he's FAR more out of the "mainstream" than those two.

And maybe my Nyquil hasn't fully worn off yet. If I start arguing for Rev. Al, then we'll have our answer.

[Padraig18]

5. hehe.

So much 'hyperbolic horseshit' is posted here about 'doom and gloom' stuff that I alternately find myself raging and laughing hysterically. I especially love the 'profound and wise' posts on various 'electoral disaster' scenarios--- those crack me up so much that I have a hard time remembering to obey the rules, rather than posting what I'd really like to post. :P

[vi5]

3. Yeah, but it's ridiculous on both sides....

It's just as silly for the numerous people on this page to say that "Candidate X will bury Bush!!!!".

And I see at least half a dozen to a dozen posts or responses like that a day on these here pages.

Cockiness and arrogance will be just as much our undoing as any southern strategy will.

[Killarney]

4. I agree - By the number of people polled who already say

they will not vote for Bush no matter what, I don't think there can be a landslide.

Look at all the polls that say Bush vs Generic Dem Candidate... it's very close!

Sure, Bush has higher points in comparison to each individual candidate but that's because the general public doesn't know our candidates well, yet. Many people don't involve themselves in the primary process and wait until fall to even get to know the candidates. But enough people are against Bush already that this will not be a landslide for Bush, in my opinion.

[maxr4clark]

6. The landslide line

I've been hearing here has been in favor of the Democrat, not the Republican. And I agree, one can't believe that line, either.

[farmbo]

7. But...but...but... God has ordained it!

In a private conversation with Pat Robertson. (Man...whatkind of cell phone has that feature?)

And Smite the blasphemers who suggest otherwise!