National Polls Mean Nothing, and Iraq.....

National Polls Mean Nothing, and Iraq is a mess. What the national polls are failing to consider is 3 major things. Republicans are not 40% of the public. You can sample rural and suburban voters and give Kerry 45% in a state, but remember all those red counties dont have as many voters to outdo Kerry breaking even in the suburbs and taking all the big cities. Third Iraq is a mess and polls are not a substitute for what is being said on the street. America hates this war.

What we are seeing in the media, as far as commentary, polls, and pundits go, does not reflect what the average american think.

I have this prediction. November 2nd is going to bring about a big surprise and President Bush will be defeated humiliatingly for the whole nation and the world to see.

Key to winning the Midwest
Mood:  on fire

Is This Election The Watershed Election Landslide We Have Been Waiting For?

?

Case #1: Popular Vote Means Nothing

?

The electoral vote count is going to be quite difficult to predict this year. Some are calling for a landslide in Kerry or Bush's favor, or too close to call. I'm believe that is might be somewhere in between. Let post a sliver of the most recent Fox News Poll and the glaringly obvious reason why the "national race"; the popular vote is too close to call. Half of America trusts Bush more on fighting the war on terror, and the other half believe that John Kerry would do more for the job and pay situation for the average worker. The question is are there more people who fear terrorism, or are there more people who want better jobs, that's what this electoral projecting is all about.

?

Issue	Bush	Kerry	Both	Neither	Not Sure
The war on terror	50	34	4	5	7
National Crisis	48	35	4	4	9
Improving Intel	45	37	3	5	10
Iraq	45	40	2	5	8
Supreme Ct.	41	40	3	3	13
The Economy	40	46	1	4	9
Gay marriage	33	39	2	9	17
Gas prices	31	42	2	13	12
Social Security	34	47	2	6	1
Protecting U.S. jobs	35	50	2	5	8

?

*Fox News. 26 August 04

Polling was conducted by telephone August 24-25, 2004 in the evenings. The

total sample is 1000 likely voters (LV) nationwide, with a margin of error of

?3 percentage points.

?

Once we understand that Bush proves that the national vote does not count in this country, but electors we are more able to understand exactly what the national #s even mean. Bush can win the popular vote, and at the same Kerry can win the electoral vote big time. I hope it does not happen that way, but none the less, the electoral college in the end is the one that decides who becomes President.

?

What we see in America is a dichotomy. But I do not believe it is an electoral vote dichotomy, but a sort of a malaise dichotomy. Yes it is true, that Democrat Celinda Lake of the bipartisan Battleground Poll points out that half of the voters once again do not think George Bush should be re-elected. This is a nation of split personalities, but we vote for President state by state. The presidential election might be held on a single day, but it is still not a national election. Its an election of 50 states, battleground states, Kerry states and Bush states, breaking regional strongholds of states or making inroads. Its all about who wants that 270 the most. Will it be John Kerry or will it be George Bush?

?

?

Case # 2: Ohio The Lonely Industrial

?

Let's take a look at some of those so much desired battleground states. The first question is why are they battleground states? The answer is, is that these states went for Bush or Gore barely. The battlegrounds are Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada. They comprise 141 electoral votes, and its 26% of the Electoral College. This is the biggest grab bag outside each candidates base Kerry with the North East and Pacific, Bush with the Deep South and Plains and Northern Mountains. Everything else is up for grabs. The state by state polls tell us that these twelve battle ground states are very close or tie. Well lest start with a region that usually goes half and half, the Midwest.

?

Ohio and Missouri are the battlegrounds of the Midwest. It would make sense to say that the word jobs would mean something to these people. With Ohio taking the big brunt of the recession, and as a state it is still in recession with no job growth only job loses. Bush is polling under his 49.99% win in 2000 by about 2 to 3 points. This should tell us something. The other half that are more concerned about jobs live in places like Ohio. All of these August polls polling the people of Ohio say the same thing; Bush is in far worse shape in Ohio than the national polls indicate.

?

?????? Ohio: Bush 49%, Kerry 46% (Strategic Vision)

?????? Ohio: Kerry 48%, Bush 46% (University of Cincinnati)

?????? Ohio: Bush 49%, Kerry 44% (LA Times)?

?????? Ohio: Kerry 50%, Bush 41% (Gallup, registered voters)

?????? Ohio: Kerry 48%, Bush 46% (Gallup, likely voters)

?????? Ohio: Kerry 48%, Bush 45% (American Research Group)

?????? Ohio: Kerry 46%, Bush 45% (Rasmussen)

?????? Ohio: Bush 47%, Kerry 44% (Columbus Dispatch)

?????? Ohio: Bush 49%, Kerry 45% (Strategic Vision)

Bush's average is 46.3%, and Kerry's average is 46.5%, with 7.2% of public undecided about who they are going to choose in a state that is doing worse economically since Bush took office. People who believe Kerry might have an answer to their problems would most likely people who believe that he would do better on jobs, as the Fox poll indicates. What likely voters are saying in Ohio is that they do not like Bush as 49.99% much as they did in 2000. They like Kerry better by a hair, as I've heard, undecided break for against the incumbent 2 to1. We could project that Kerry could win Ohio with 51.3% of the vote depending on the weather, and whether people decide to turnout no matter what.

?

?

?

Case # 3: Capital of the Old Confederacy Going South for Bush

?

Bush's once thought of strong hold the South is now the Deep South. The old Confederacy is in question this year when states like Florida essentially tie and states like Virginia where Bush is polling below his 52% win in 2000.

?

?????? Virginia: Bush 49%, Kerry 45% (Survey USA)

?????? Virginia: Bush 49%, Kerry 46% (Rasmussen)

?????? Virginia: Bush 48%, Kerry 45% (Rasmussen)

?????? Virginia: Bush 48%, Kerry 45% (Rasmussen)

?????? Virginia: Bush 50%, Kerry 45% (Survey USA)

?????? Virginia: Bush 47% Kerry 45% (Rasmussen)

?

Bush's average since June according to these polls is 49.2%, below even what he did in 2000 in Ohio. Kerry has room to move up, assuming undecided are going his way Virginia might not be called for days. Kerry can win in Virginia also and snatch 13 electors combined with Ohio makes 33 enough to give Kerry 293 and the Presidency.

?

Case # 4: Montana Dreaming Landslide in the Making???

?

There is something interesting happening in the Mountains; it seems that states like Colorado and Nevada are up for grabs. But what I would like to talk about is a state that might indicate whether Bush is in for a huge defeat or a slim win. The state I'm talking about is Montana. Let get a little history about Montana. A poll done by Montana State University has some interesting things to say about the 2004 race, way back when John Kerry was just announcing that he was running for President. His approval rating was 59% but his reelect numbers would fill with glee the hearts of many who want to see a landslide. Try 46.4% for Bush, 42.4% for Unnamed with 11% undecided. But let's consider another snapshot, the popular vote total for Montana in 1988.

?

State		Total Votes		Bush		Dukakis
Montana	365,674		190,412		52.07%		168,936	46.20%
?		?	?	?	?		?	?

?

Bush even though he had a 59% approval ratting in early 2003 he was polling less than Dukakis was in 1988. I'm a firm believer that Montana is a turn on a dime state; remember how they rejected Bush Sr. in 1992 with barely over 35%. That's right folks 65% of Montanans voted against Bush Sr.

?

The silver lining I believe for the Democrats and Kerry rest with two very important things. First: The economy everywhere has been hit by unemployment, stagnant wages and a shrinking middleclass job base. Second: Bush has lost Afghanistan, and has done a terrible job with Iraq. This election could turn on a dime in a landslide against Bush if we would quit ignoring half the states, or be lured into believing soccer moms in the so sought for battleground states were the answer. The Presidents foreign policy approval rating in that Montana University poll was only at 50%. That's terrible for an incumbent to have in a so called red state like Montana. People in Montana know when they have been had. I wonder if they polled the same exact people again, what would be the outcome. After Iraq, the economy, the corruption, and the arrogance if we do not win in a landslide it would be because Kerry would have failed to convince the public as in Montana's case in 1992 along with the rest of America that they really never have liked Bush or his economic and foreign policy in the first place.

?

?

?

Rhetorical
* this is an essay that I had written about the time John Kerry announced his bid back in the winter of 2003, and when Gov. Dean was exploring the possibilities . This was written as a strategy for a Dean candidacy, but most importantly is can be used as a road map for the Kerry bid, and should be taken into serious concideration. I might add that all barels are gonna need to blow just to get rid of the Bush presidency. As you can see in my other post "The Race where is Stands today" that I still have not changed my electoral numbers or posted on this fact.

Rhetorical Strategies in Presidential Politics

How to beat Bush big and win at his expense

 

 

The Rightwing Strategy

 

 

          Surmising the contemporary trend in the Presidential political landscape, we now understand clearly the undercurrent now facing us. Since Ronald Reagan, Democrats have had a difficult time claiming what some call the "vital center" of American politics. America politically has gone right, but America demographically, socially, and for the most part publicly has liberalized. For instance our customs and manners have become more relaxed, Fortune 500 have moderated dress code rules, it is a given that if the President doesn't wear jeans he is not one of us. But the political situation is more conservative than ever. Conservative Republicans, mostly from the Deep South, now control the Legislative and the Executive branch, including a favorable Supreme Court. This band of radicals has taken over the conversation and set the terms of the issues on their own turf. This is why Bill Clinton was the only Democratic President since Franklin Roosevelt to be elected twice, and in Clinton's case could never muster an absolute majority. The nation is now split so terribly between the South and the North as evidenced in the 2000 election, that even if the Democratic candidate wins the popular vote it does not guarantee Electoral College majority or one Southern state even if it is his home state.

 

          What the Democratic Party needs to do for it to function correctly in the 21^st century and be a driving force for the common good, is for it to take the conversation away from the radical right and have it on our turf for once. During Bill Clinton's term, the Democratic Party achieved parity, but not a majority, we need the majority. There is one good reason for not achieving majority; the lawsuits, the Impeachment, the Supreme Court, and the Republican right with their wedge issues and their insistence that they own the Presidency. In any reasonable person's estimation, this rightwing band has just about taken over without any real input from the populace. Even a war hero such as John McCain, a true patriot who has served his country cannot beat the rightwing "Christian conservatives", not to say all Christians are conservative, but this evidence that a majority of the Republican party is controlled by the rightwing, and now has become a defacto Southern Party representing the deep southern Bible Belt interest, just as the Democrats were 50 years ago.         

 

          The Democratic Party has allowed the rightwing to frame  us as the leftwing, communist, pinko liberal eastern establishment Hollywood crowd, and that is a our unfortunate  shame, because their god Ronald Reagan was from Hollywood, and he never balanced one budget, or created any private sector jobs to speak of . The basic Republican rhetoric has gone as follows, Ronald Reagan created the greatest economic boom of all time, lowered taxes, and trickle down economics is the wave of the future, and anyone who disagrees with our economics plan, is either a "liberal" or socialist. But who are the real liberals? The Republican Senate from 1981-1987 had to par down Reagan's budgets, because they (Reagan budgets) called for even more deficits. The record shows that the liberal democrats never voted for Reagan/Dole budgets, but somehow the liberals in our party always get the blame. The rightwing extols the virtues of family values, church, conservative living, and they have injected wedge issues like abortion, guns, and homosexuality into the conversation, driving another wedge between the Democratic voter and their party. If the potential Republican voter is not quite convinced that Reaganomics does not add up, they will still vote republican out of wedge issues, and many southern democrats have left the party because of these issues. What is quite remarkable is that the Ronald Reagan never attended church during his term, and likewise George W. Bush hardly attends either, yet they are still the darlings of the conservative, deep southern religious right. But there is always truth in this double edge sword, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had a great attendance records at church.

 

          But there is an opposite side to this equation, using Bill Clinton's strategy in the 1992 election. Bill Clinton understood one thing about running for President, to stay ahead of the game, you need to be 5 steps ahead of the game at all times concerning every conceivable shift in the political winds, and still stay on subject and maintain balance. He accomplished it during the primary season and the nomination process, as well as the general election. One of  Clinton's greatest strategic moves was when he admitted that both Democrats and Republicans were at fault for the 80's borrow and spend binge, and that there was a third way to remedy deficit. What many thought, including the writer, is that Clinton was saying that he wasn't a liberal. Actually what Bill Clinton meant, is now the liberals are in charge; we are going to balance the budget by paying for it. For common sense worth, the conservative thing is to balance your budget and pay off debt, not go on a credit card shopping spree, and put the tab on your children's names. The Republicans when Clinton's budget passed said publicly that the budget would cause the greatest recession in history and not one of them voted for it. Five years later they said the economic boom was their doing, but they never proposed a repeal of the 1993 tax hikes when they had the majority, those same evil taxes that were supposed to do the economy in. Well whose recession is it now that they are in charge?

 

          We are in a quite different political vacuum compared to 1992. Over the last decade, the Republican Party has controlled Congress almost entirely, and now has an absolute majority in both houses. The tragedy of 9/11 has shaped the issues differently than before, and Bush continues to blatantly use the `war on terrorism' as a political issue, and will the remainder of his term. George Bush says we either are "against us, or for us", and anyone standing in the way is unpatriotic, un-American, lazy welfare liberals, who really don't care about America's national security or position in the world, and if you talk to loud, you might end up dying in a plane crash. If you think welfare mothers deserve to get a good education, and the father should pay child support, you are a socialist. If you think that the tax code should be fare to the middleclass and the poor, you get labeled as using the class warfare card. If you say that the inner city public schools need to be revived, and filled with educated professionals and good pay, you are an NEA wacho. If you believe in environmental protection, fuel efficiency, and conservation measures, you're a tree hugger. Try to argue better trade agreements that are fair and you are called a big government socialist who doesn't believe in free market enterprise. The right wing might even go on to say nothing is fair so give up; the unseen hand of the economy will take care of everything. When it comes to the question of freedom, the so called "pro-life" movement wants to take the individual freedom of conscience between a woman and her god and make abortion a criminal offense in America. They will use partial birth abortion as a wedge issue to come. They are so wrapped up in their pro-life stance concerning the fetus, that they forget the children worldwide who are all ready living. The most conservative religious elements in America are hell bent on war, more than any other segment, including the Generals who have to give the orders.  

 

          The Democratic nominee for President is going to find it difficult to run even with the best campaign staff, message, and operation, if they do not clear the table of Republican wedge issues, and insert some new ones of their own. For this to happen, the ground work must be clearly thought out in advance, and several alternatives must be used for back up. Below this simple chart shows clear alternatives, and is incomplete and will be discussed further, but even for a simple argument to take hold, our wedge needs to be placed first, knowing that there will be a reply from the opposition with no accomplishment or real idea, because in the end all they have is party line rhetoric, half truths, and in most cases outright lies. Then we promote our ideas as if it is the only ones being discussed, and this can only happen if their wedges have been taken off the table.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue	Democratic Wedge	Republican Propaganda	Democratic Alternative
Budget	Republicans borrow and spend	Liberals spend to much on social programs	Promote surpluses thru balancing the budget
Guns	Republicans only give lip service to the constitution by using the Second Amendment	The liberal democrats are out to take away our guns	Promote legal gun ownership at state level
Health	Republicans are controlled by the insurance lobby	Liberals will nationalize health care	Promote national system to compete against the HMOs
Social Security	Republicans want to gamble every thing on the unseen hand of the Stock Market	The liberal Democrats don't believe in privatization	Promote overall lower FICA tax on individuals and business
Income Taxes	Republicans would rather pay interest on debt than taxes	Liberals will raise taxes	Promote simplification by taxing the individual only

 

 

 

Our Greatest Wedge: The politics of "the war on terrorism"

                  

          Removal of Republican wedge issues will not be easy. In fact, this is the most difficult task the Democratic Party faces. In general the media might not be any help, remembering 2000 as well as 2002. First Democrats in 2000 had to compete against Bush's air of inevitability, and in 2002 could not match George Bush's overwhelming use of national security issues especially in the South. What the Republicans have artfully done is to have the whole conversation around the "war", I might add which we are losing, and shape every issue around national security. The have shaped our whole domestic and international policy around this ruse, and the Democratic Party stands mute. Bush and friends now propose a domestic spy agency, and not one word against such an expansion of government is considered, at least not at this time. If there ever was a time to stand up and fight back, it is now, or it will be too late and Bush will ride this Trojan horse all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. not because people love him, but because the Democratic Party will prove that it stands for nothing. This will leave us in the minority for years to come, or regrettably a non existent party.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

 

          What Democrats need to do is take off the gloves, to be more pointed, our approach should be to go after the jugular and not stop, not even after 2004. The days of being positive where possible are over when it comes to that band of right wing radicals and their leader George W. Bush. Being positive does not work, will not work, and as evidenced over the last two election cycles has not worked. Now is the time to stop praising Bush for his handling of the post 9/11 timeline, now is the time to call Bush to the carpet on the "war", and now is the time to question his patriotism. Some Democrats will say, "We must do that, lest we offend someone". Well I say, who cares the people we offend won't vote for us anyway, and It just might make the Democratic base think twice about voting in 2004, because obviously they didn't show up to the polls in 2002. I for one forced myself to vote, and the Democratic Party is lucky people like me in the base voted. 

 

          We should start with the Administration's call for a domestic spy agency. We should lay our cards on the table and ask the American people if they want such an agency, and if a poll were to be taken, it is almost certain that most people would be opposed to it. We must harp on such a proposal even if it dies by the wayside, and keep reminding America that the Bush Administration proposed this intrusive "big government" agency and it reminds them of Nazi Germany, it is something Hitler would propose, and such an agency would be the end of America's cherished right of privacy and the inherent right to be left alone. Question his patriotism on this issue alone, ask the average American if they would like the government to spy on them, and say that this agency is unconstitutional and is a threat to our long standing Republic. We must say, "George Bush would rather have `big government' over freedom, intrusiveness over the Bill of Rights, an empire instead of a republic."

 

          We must bring up the fact that Bush has lost the "war", because first Bin Laden hasn't been found, the Taliban is back in power and now has control of Afganistan. We must question his sincerity and patriotism, this is obvious, since he now wants to change the subject and lose another war in Iraq. It is imperative that the "war" become an issue, a wedge issue that hurts Republicans and Bush. They must be cornered on our loss in Afganistan, and if and when we go to Iraq, no matter what happens, George Bush is a loser, an amateur on the world stage, and come out and call him it by name, an amateur who reckless with our national security infrastructure. It doesn't matter what we call him, but stay on message repeating it over and over.

 

          Our use of the domestic spy agency and Bush's losing of the "war", should be our first wedge issue. We insert our wedge; eliminate Bush's use of terrorism for political purposes as a republican wedge issue, thereby planting questions about his patriotism and stewardship. As far as Iraq goes, we must question whether he used our military for a personal excuse to take out Sadamn Hussien. The personal use of our military for a personal vendetta either to kill Hussein because he supposedly tried to assassinate his father, or to enrich his oil donors, it does not matter, the fact remains that domestic spy agencies, our loss in Afganistan, and a possible war in Iraq, creates the greater wedge, an over ridding plausible question that the American people must be asked and one that they must and will answer. Is George W. Bush the person that we want to represent us on the world stage? It was George W. Bush who said you are "either against us or you with us". Well let us turn his rhetoric against him, and say for instance, "George Bush we are not with you and we don't want your kind in the highest office in the land, because you indeed have united the world against us, you and your band of radicals have damaged good relations with our closest allies, and it will take decades to repair what you fumbled." We must tell the people, that this amateur has destroyed our foreign policy for personal reasons and we are not going to stand for anymore air craft carrying showboating ego trips in the White House, period.  We must make it known, it does matter who is in the White House.

 

Understanding the Rightwing and dividing the Republican Party

 

 

          As we have seen, even a potent wedge issue as the "war on terrorism" for the Republican Party can be turned on its head and used against them. By inserting our own wedge first we make it known to our base that we have some backbone, and that we are willing to wage political war against Bush no matter what the cost. Second, we have placed in the collective minds of the electorate subtly the notion that he is not trustworthy. Third we will have divided at least some of the average republican voters of their allegiance, because they too have sons and daughters with a future, and in "war time" if this can be so aptly called, gives them something to think about.  Furthermore, we need to offer the electorate in general, and the base specific a viable alternative to this insane crisis, this never ending war that will eventually cost America its sovereignty and security. By at least achieving parity in the national conversation between now and November 2004 will guarantee us a strong voter base, bring in new voters, and chip away at this awkward subservient submission and belief that Bush is the most honorable man to ever be President. Without being to harsh, he and his family are a danger to the Republic, his followers are a danger to the Republic, and the Southern wing of his party is a danger to the Republic. It must be know throughout America, the discussion about every dinner table that Bush is a danger to the Republic, and we have an alternative that is most attractive to the average conservative voter. 

                 

                                                                                                                                                                

Democratic Wedge	Bush Propaganda	Democratic Alternative
Bush has lost the "war on terrorism"	Those who don't believe in this war are unpatriotic	Promote peace and stability by changing America's role in international affairs.
Bush has failed to capture Bin Laden	Bin Laden is small part of picture and is insignificant	Promote stability and democracy throughout Arab world by catching its leader
Bush is using the "war" for oil	This is about catching those evil terrorist in whatever cave they live in	Promote conservation measures and invest in new technology to decrease our dependence on foreign oil
Bush has used this "war" for his own personal political gain	Bush is righteous and God is on our side in this struggle against evil	Promote wise national security by putting America's strategic interest in the 21st century first

                  

 

 

          The average republican voter understands one thing, he or she must drive to work, their house payment must be met, their lifestyle must continue as always and quite correctly that if there is less oil or if energy prices rise too high their whole way of life will be undermined. This is a simple concept, no oil, no work, or at least their money will be worth less. The Democratic Party has failed to connect to these people. They have quasi-patriotism, in the sense that America is in danger, its security is at risk, but they never really understand why, they just revert to the simple concept of lifestyle and to some degree pride. This patriotism of sorts has been groomed throughout the years by such persons as Pat Robertson and his self fulfilling prophecy of the end times centering on the Judeo-Christian faith and its role in the Middle East. The average Bush voter's patriotism is more religious than secular, and this is a dangerous reality when we look at who is in control of our Federal government. This voter feels that America is God's country on earth, and the other nations of the earth are either to poor to count, or they are godless societies that deserve God's wrath by means of the American military, and don't for a second think that you (i.e. you godless nations) are going to deprive us of our freedom. To the average Bush voter, freedom means in practice, if you don't agree with me follow the dictates of my conservative religious views, or question the President of the United States you are unpatriotic, a godless/socialist/communist that is out to destroy America. The rightwing followed this script on Bill Clinton to the letter for 8 straight years; they dotted every i and crossed ever t, I might add.

 

          The rightwing feels that somehow it has been persecuted. That liberalism, a word by definition which means to be free, is evil and must be stamped out of existence. The rightwing in essence has perverted the minds of these people to the point that they hate freedom. This can be pointed out by how George W. Bush handled the post 9/11 events. One of the first things the President said is that everything is under control and America must return to work implying that if America mourned to long those evil terrorist would view this as a weakness on our part and that they were out to destroy our freedom, even the freedom to mourn. We were working the whole time I might add. He went further and said that if we did not consume or travel that our economy would be hurt doubly, and this would harm our freedoms. He inappropriately called the war a "crusade" against terrorism, and said there would be no end in sight to the bloodshed. Does George Bush equate war with freedom? Has George Bush ever served for that matter? 

 

          We have to risk offending Bush and his followers with our lives. We must drive a wedge between Bush and the rest of us, because the truth is clear. This rightwing junta is about ready to take away every freedom, except the 2^nd Amendment for a time, and it shouldn't be doubted that Bush would choose political gain over the 2^nd Amendment if it meant he could win the election because of it. Bush has proposed in one fashion or another chipping away at every safeguard in the Bill of Rights in spite of his promises in the 2000 campaign. What makes his rightwing followers think that he is going protect them if he decides to win another election. It should be known that Bush will strive to win at all cost, even if it means stabbing his own base in the back. If it can be proved that Bush is out to destroy the constitution or to dismantle parts of it, combined with the travesty of the 2000 election we could peal support from Bush's base not out of fear but because they now realize that their freedoms are being chipped away and that they have been duped. But most importantly give our voters "un rasion d'etre, while driving the proverbial stake in the heart of the rightwing.

 

A Strategy for Winning

 

          The truth of  the policies of the Clinton/Gore years must be spoken of in every venue, the media, speeches at fundraisers and party rallies, the chamber of commerce, editorials in the New York Times, a round every week on the Sunday talk shows if anyone is still watching them, in our debates, and to the general public at large. Our policies must be the center of the whole campaign, must shape the issues of the campaign, and it must be done on our own terms. A very stark contrast is a necessity, not the vague warn out contrast of Gore v. Bush, but the absolutely unambiguous assertion that our policies are more progressive and forward looking, and quite rightly on a higher moral ground than the fraudulent vision of the rightwing and Bush, and to some extent what the mass media perpetrates. We must stand our ground diligently and forcefully. We should not run away from the liberal label or the progressive label, these are coming from hate filled people who have nothing better to say. In the 1996 Presidential campaign, Bob Dole said repeatedly in the debates and on the trail that Clinton was liberal, liberal, liberal, and Clinton's response was "yep". He was not afraid to be labeled a liberal, even Ted Kennedy was quoted in the Atlantic Monthly as saying that it was wrong to assert that Clinton moved to the center, rather he ran to the left. It is true that when we go to the left we will win, if we try to hide our differences like Gore did in 2000, we might win the popularity contest but the Electoral College is not a guarantee. We must aim high, 49.2% is not good enough, we must reach an absolute majority, and this will occur when we start appealing to the majority of Americans those who vote and those who don't. We must expand our base further than what the Washington pundits call the "beloved independent voter or the sought after middle class soccer moms, we must invite all Americans to participate and democracy should be the central theme of the campaign. We must hold true a positive vision not only for the American public to see, but for the whole world to see as clear as a sunny but cold winter sky. We need to offer America a breath of fresh air.

 

          We know the rightwing. We have heard, read, and discussed their motives. We now understand how they think and how their followers think. And we know their President is one of them. He is their President, we are certainly not the ones that bought and paid for him. They own him and they can have him, but not in the Presidential seat anymore. We need to purpose our aims, and to relinquish our rightful place at the world stage. As Bill Clinton said in his second Inaugural Address, "Now, for the third time, a new century is upon us, and another time to choose. We began the 19th century with a choice, to spread our nation from coast to coast. We began the 20th century with a choice, to harness the Industrial Revolution to our values of free enterprise, conservation, and human decency. Those choices made all the difference. At the dawn of the 21st century a free people must now choose to shape the forces of the Information Age and the global society, to unleash the limitless potential of all our people, and, yes, to form a more perfect union." Inviting the majority of Americans is key to our party's survival, and our nation's survival. Once we understand that it is our rightful place to bring about a more peaceful and humane world then we will be given this government.

 

          But we must play hard, harder than we ever done before. Because to beat Bush at his game, that means that not only do we have to play and maintain our game, but to play him like a violin, waiting for his next misstep, his next public debauchery of the English language, his next lie, it is imperative that we exaggerate the differences between him and the small moderate wing in his party. It would help our cause for Senators like McCain and Chaffee to distance them from the Administration or out right leave the party, but we cannot control everything, yet we can urge them to do so.

 

          We have to start early, the earlier the better. The sooner we remove Bush's "war", the sooner our issues will be front and center. Al Gore has attempted to question Bush on Iraq, which gave the Democratic Party the leeway to give the President power to act, just not the broad power Bush wanted. Everyone knows that Bush did not want to seek Congresses' approval, until he thought that he could use it for political reasons which were quite shrewd. It is a good thing that Dick Gephardt is not the minority leader anymore, and putting a progressive lady like Nancy Pelosi was just what we needed. In a sense the Democratic Party has set up the Republicans on Iraq by limiting Bush's every move and having him report every sixty days. We must remember it was Senators like Larry Craig and Chuck Hagel pressured their own party to restrict Bush in the resolutions out of their own personal interest. Bush has blown a great big bubble, now its time to pop it. Many of the moves the Democratic Party did, or more accurately what they didn't do, just gives our Nominee and the national party everything for 2004, this opportunity must not be thrown away. At every conceivable opportunity we must make light of the President. Bush has been quoted saying that he would rather go to war than have daughters, if Bush is dumb enough to say things like this it should make "what is, is" look silly.

 

          An opportunity like this might come back for a very long while, maybe 30 years maybe never. We have to look at the next election as untouched territory to exploit the rightwing for who they are and what they stand for. We must exploit and magnify Bush's faults, while we insert our wedges, and promote our policies of peace and prosperity. When we fault Bush it should be associated with an issue like the "war", for instance Bush equating war with having children, or he prefers war over children, either way we can use his own words to speak in mockery, and insert our wedge. Bush has lost the war on terrorism. This wedge changes the original subject that Bush loves war. By first magnifying Bush's own words, then placing the wedge it will force him to respond. His most likely response will be a mixture of defending "America at all cost" and labeling us either liberal, America bashing, or being affiliated with Saddam Hussein. What ever he says we will have the last word if we stay on message.

 

 

Inserting the Wedge and having the Last Word

 

          The message we will try to convey is one of purpose and moral high ground. Our nominee must act as if he were already President. Of course our candidate will use tact, but at the same time be as tough as nails. When for instance one day, we run an early add campaign, first with the war/daughter quote, we gain the attention of the media. Most of these early campaign ads are run in Washington D.C. metro area. Bill Clintons use of ads in 10 different states a year and a half before the election did a lot to shore up the base. Let us run ads in 25 states 3 cities in each. When we gain the attention of the media, we can then insert the wedge. We start saying that Bush has failed America in the "war on terrorism", has lost the war, and will continue to lose the war because he has damaged our ties to our most important allies. This is the wedge. We insert this wedge in a major speech in some venue, like the Detroit Economic Club and at the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Shortly thereafter 5 editorials in the 5 largest news papers should be written in successive motion by our most prominent leaders. This will most likely give the media something to talk about, because the media loves its own publicity, and if staged precisely right after a Bush misstep would add a snowball effect that would significantly bring down the his approval ratings, and there again the media wants a contest.

 

          Once we attain control of the political cycle, we can expect downturns, to minimize this, we should have large rallies stages through out the late summer and early fall of 2003. We could have miniature conventions regionally under a different guise. We should showcase all our candidates early, because the primary season is early. Hitting hard in mid summer 2003 with a few wedges, and staging early rallies will fire up the base and give us room to maneuver the post primary season. The key for this be effective is to have a candidate as early as possible, with the same message for the general election. Inserting the wedges early and deflating any advantage on any issue Bush will give us greater clout to launch a vigorous assault on the Bush Presidency. We should act as if it belongs to us, and any response from the Bush campaign either should be ignored wholly or if a misstep should occurs it should be magnified and twisted in the worst possible way. If Bush says the economy is on the road to recovery, a mockery must be made of it. We should have already said that our economic well being is at risk with rightwing radicals like Bush in office, giving us an opening to insert a wedge in the conversation taking place at the time. Ask the American people if they like high energy prices. It is obvious the higher the energy price, the higher the prices of everything, because business redirects the cost either in higher prices for the consumer or in lower wages to the worker. We have now inserted the wedge, energy prices are strangling small business and the middle class, and we have changed the subject entirely. Then we can promote our policies.  We must stage media confabulations, where every time Bush spins, he is spinning against the wind because we have attainted the motion of the campaign to favor us.  When it comes to the question of energy and the economy, this plays well, especially in the winter and especially up North and in the Midwest. We must explain to America and specifically these regions that the high energy prices will not abate and could actually become worse considering the way the current administrations behaves in the international arena, resembling a bully not a statesman. We must offer the American people a new energy policy, and even more a new foreign policy to save us from this never ending war that we will never win.

 

          Once we have the last word on any issue, the media will make it an issue that cuts against Bush. Every story about the media should have negative overtones against Bush, and any negative media overtones against us if replied too should never deviate from the current message we are propagating, and these should be ignored, such as attacks on the particular hair style or clothing of our candidate, or any attacks on their families. The only reply is to showcase our families and that should suffice. When we stoop to their attacks ours have failed, because if our attacks are loud enough we would already have had the last word, and anything the opposition says is just noise like static on the radio. If we tune it out, America will follow if we shape the conversation and set the terms of the debate on our side.

 

          This is what inserting the wedge and having the last word is all about. We will not win the election, regardless of how hated Bush will be; America will ignore us and return the rightwing to office because we have not fought hard enough. When a sense of urgency is employed, and we magnify all of Bush's disadvantages against him, and congruently make our positions known, we will once again gain acceptance of the electorate and they will reward us for our hard fight against the rightwing.

 

         

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

North Carolina is now a battleground state!!!

I live in North Carolina, and it is a battleground state. I see Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers everywhere, and I live in podunk conservative and church on every street corner North Carolina.

CHARLOTTE, N.C. - A billboard looms over Interstate 40/85 in Alamance County, where George W. Bush carried more than 62 percent of the vote in the 2000 presidential election.



Since 2001, the sign says, 1.8 million American jobs have been lost: "Fed up? Vote Democratic."


Four years after Al Gore (news - web sites) wrote off North Carolina and Bush rolled to victory here, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) is fighting for the state. With North Carolina Sen. John Edwards (news - web sites) on the ticket, Democrats believe they may carry the state in a presidential election for the first time since 1976.


On Friday, Kerry is to make his second visit here since naming Edwards his running mate last month.


In the three weeks after the choice was announced, nearly 11,000 people signed up online in North Carolina asking to volunteer, says Morgan Jackson, state director for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. "For a state like North Carolina, that's just not something that happens overnight."


Republicans say they welcome that kind of attention to North Carolina from the Democrats.



Read my other entry below on where the race stands and you can see that I had predicted that before the this story broke.


read the story here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040818/ap_on_el_pr/fighting_for_nc&cid=694&ncid=1963&sid=96378798


and blog about it here at the only site on the internet that will predict the electoral vote tally accurately

The Biggest Political Blunder in History
I have to laugh. Karl Rove thought he had it all figured out. New York New York what a beautiful town. Well that was then, right after 9/11, but now is now and the hand writing is all over the wall in neon colors. What do they say??

Get the hell out of New York Bush!!! Thats what is says.

Karl Rove's wet dreams of the red carpet being laid out for the Republican Convention in New York, to put it simply, 20/20 is always better. It is the biggest political blunder at least in the last 50 years.

New York it is estimated is gonna have 250k to 1 million protesters. Plan are being made to really give the republicans a hard time. Convention goers are gonna get the real treatment, with people giving them wrong directions, the traffic is gonna be blocked, and frankly Bush is gonna come in and give his stupid speech, and then leave quickly.

The second biggest blunder is the convention speaker roster, they have replaced their base with abortion and gay rights supporters.

What I wonder is after its all over, who in the hell is gonna support Bush anyhow??

This Is Where The Race Stands Today
We are now between the Democratic and Republican conventions. Its not to long for labor day. Well I think the "dog days" of summer are here for Bush, but not so fast Kerry only has 264 with one pick up from last time leaning his way, New Hampshire.

So this is where the 2004 Presidential Election race stands today, according to my calculations. There are more "toss-ups" or undecideds than in 2000, such as Virginia or Indiana, which could be surprises for Kerry's column if Bush does not tread carefully.

The race is wide open, some states like Minnesota and or Wisconsin could turn to toss-up as the Labor Day kick off starts.

Any thing can happen, right now Kerry has the lead and its his to lose. Tell me what you think.

Welcome
Mood:  flirty

My name is Real Michaud and this is the 2004 Presidential Election Blog. Analysis is what this blog is about, and predicting the election "to a tee" will hopefully be the outcome.

I remember in 1992 I predicted the electoral college for Bill Clinton. It was the first time I voted, and all I did that year was follow the campaign on c-span, and read every article about polls and predictions I could get my greedy little eyes on.

I came to the realization in 2000 that predicting presidential elections wasn't all that easy. This year is just as hard, I have my hunches, but all in all it could go either way.

So I guess I will start my blog out with...have you ever predicted and election and what made you come to your conclusion.....its wide open folks...have at it make me happy. Give me something to think about!!!