Of course there is an assumption, Sam that the newcomers to the states assume the political stripes of the natives. That may be true to some degree, but we don’t really know how much. Remember all the “Floridians” interviewed in the last election that voted for Gore? Funny how so many of them had NY accents.
Oh, and 'Luci, a light year is a measure of space, not time. Just for the record. Fighting ignorance, and all that.
Well, it assumes that the state will still go to Bush even if the newcomers are from the opposing party.
I saw him on an interview today. He basically gave all of the gay voters the metaphorical middle finger. Lest us not forget that during the whole Affirmative Action thing, he backhanded racial minorities with his statements - then embarrassingly recanted them when the Supreme Court gave their decision.
Honesty
I don’t think he’s a shoo-in, but I don’t believe he will be removed easily, either. If nothing else, Karl and Jeb and Katherine are probably ready to lend a(nother) helping hand. 
For a sorta-example of the Gore-cum-Bush voter, check out the latest issue of Time magazine. Their ten-question interview subject this week is Dennis Miller, and when he’s asked why his views have shifted to the right, he cites Bush’s response to 9/11 as a reason.
(Of course, IMO, Dennis also reveals himself to be a Grade-A Moron, by saying the Iraq war was justified because Osama didn’t have a home country we could bomb, but that’s a hijack of a different color…)
Uh, who do you mean? And whoever you mean, how did he give “all of the gay voters the metaphorical middle finger”?
Ah yes, Bluesman, let’s look at previous examples of your “authority”:
Just over 10 months later, and still waiting for that proof. Out of interest, my dear reference work, just when is it due to turn up?
In 2000, according to Voter News Service exit polls, support for George W. Bush and then-Vice President Al Gore was divided almost evenly among 18- to 29-year-olds.
That percentage is virtually the same today. Gallup poll, Dec. 5-7, 2003: 51% of those polled between ages 18-30 approve of Bush’s job performance.
I imagine that percentage has only grown higher in the last few days.
Bush’s chances just got a big boost. Not only was Saddam captured, but there were papers with him that apparently had a lot of info about the insurgents’ network, and particularly its financing.
I don’t think that gave Bush all that much of a charge. Short term, yeah. But next fall if people are still unemployed while the corporations are doing the happy dance because they increased profits by cutting all those workers, they’re gonna remember.
Corporations vote with money, people vote with actual votes.
Dennis who?
Unless you lack the political savvy to win either your OWN state or that of the wildly popular, widely worshiped incumbent who presided over a period of unprecedented growth, peace, and prosperity. Had Gore bothered to win either of those, he would have won the presidency. Everyone in Florida could have voted for Bush (giving BUSH the plurality of votes!!) and it wouldn’t have mattered. But it’s strange: THEN, we wouldn’t have heard one liberal whining about the horrible, writhing injustice of the guy who won the “popular vote” not getting to take office.
Ah, situational ethics.
If I may hijack my own thread.
Who is this guy DeLay? Just hours ago I saw him on Today and my God was he unimpressive. His delivery wouldn’t have earned him a place on a decent high school debating team. I said to the friend I was watching with “If this is the best the party can come up with for national TV, they’re in trouble.” I was amazed when later comments revealed that he was a Republican.
Not only is he republican but in the house he’s THE Republican.
When I was covering the hill I see to recall his unofficial nickname was ‘The Hammer’.
Not a guy to piss off unless you’re REALLY sure of yourself.
it’s interesting that nobody has mentioned the first president Bush. This time , back then,–one year before the election , G.B the elder was far, far ahead in the polls, and he had just beaten Saddam (with virtually NO loss of American soldiers).
But he still lost the election.
GW has just beaten Saddam–but we are losing soldiers every single day. If the enemy manages some spectacular attack on our soldiers, public opinion could switch fast. I can see millions of headlines with “vietnam” and “quagmire” in bold type.
Suppose,say, several coordinated attacks in one day, with 500 dead, including senior officers whose faces we recognize from the TV news. Or pictures of dead soldiers being dragged through the streets, Somalia-style, while huge crowds of Iraqis shout "US get out "
A year from now, Saddam’s haircut-and-dental-inspection will be forgotten. If the press plays heavily on dead soldiers, Shiite fanaticsm and Iraqi ingrattitude, Bush could lose the election .
So the states in question were solidly for Bush last time, so they will most likely go for Bush again, even if more* of the newcomers are Democrats? Are there enough of those “solidly Bush” states among the states that are gaining electors?
*by “more” I’m just thinking of something like a flood of imigration from New York would tilt the mix. Obviously it is not necessary to consider the extreme, where all the newcomers are Dems.
and Bluesman–if you really do know something top secret, please don’t tease me with it. It’s beneath the standards of this board. Wait till you can tell us something honestly and truthfully.
And if there is real info out there, hinting to us that it will soon be made public is very irresponsible. It’s kept secret because we poor slobs arent supposed to know it exists, because some boss higher up than you thinks that revealing it’s existence would damage national security. Respect your boss. The nation’s security may depend on it. ( I have no way of judging for myself)
The U.S. had combat troops in Vietnam for nine years, and the number of U.S. troops killed every week was in the hundreds. The U.S. has been in Iraq eight months, and the number of U.S. troops killed every week is in the single digits.
Yes, but the world has changed–we have live TV now. In 1968, Vietnam was seen in black-and-white still pictures in newspapers, with an occasional bit of combat action shown on black-and white TV --but no real gore. TV news was barely one half-hour show a day, read respectfully by a grumpy-looking Walter Cronkite. Today, the news is entertainment, with music in the background and presented as chit-chat by pretty faces. The public will not accept huge loss of life, shown graphically in close-up.
(another factor is the huge change in American social values regarding individual rights.Today, a single child with peanut allergy can prevent 500 mothers from packing a peanut-butter sandwich for their kids to take to school. That’s why one picture of a soldier dragged through the streets of Somalia can make the US retreat.)
Yeah. Instead, you would have had Republicans howling about it instead. Only being the GOP, they weren’t just going to get mad, they were going to try to get even. Immediately.
They had a plan ready to attempt to persuade electors to switch their votes to remedy that ‘injustice’, if it had happened.
I’m sure that if Gore was sworn in as President on 1/20/2001, the Republicans would have unveiled their first “independent investigations” into “alleged wrongdoings” on 1/21/2001.
Four more years of Monica, anyone?