Whether Bush Wins Or Not Depends On Which Way The Wind Is Blowing in Novem

This is abundantly clear. All the strategy, all of the hoping will really come down to the last month before the election.

We can only hope that the wind blows in a favorable way.

Like it or not, I believe the economic numbers that came out today are devastating news for those who want to get rid of Bush.

It doesn't matter what the "truth" is. The media will tout this as the truth with little question.

So, what I say is that we must focus on our readiness to take advantage of POSSIBLE favorable conditions in the couple of months leading up to the election itself. We have to be prepared to strike hard and fast.

The sheeple do not have the attention span to hold on to complex issues. They know - Money good, Iraqis Bad.

That is the unfortunate truth. Don't anybody tell me I am talking "down" to Americans either. They ARE in fact, for the most part, idiots who sway with the wind and vote based on 'gut feelings' - that is a fact.

The war is all for them. We have dug out our position as the Freepers have dug out theirs. The elections, I predict will be fought and lost by the 'consumer culture' of the mushy middle.

These people really don't understand more than sound bites and pretty pictures. If we want to get rid of Bush we have to learn that.

So, as I said - This election relies in the hands of various factors that are out of anybody's control (for the most part) - They are:

- Iraqi situation gets WORSE (not just stays the same) - It must get WORSE to be damaging to Bush at the time of election.

- Economy is in a bad cycle at the time of election

- Bush gets caught in a blatant lie (like one of the many many lies he already told but then was forgotten about) - He has to be caught up in a lie RIGHT around election time otherwise the media will (as it has done over and over) bury it and it will be forgotten by the sheep.

These are the facts of politics. We can sit here and crow about idealism and our liberal values all we want. We'll never win if we don't understand the ugly truth of how elections are won and lost.

I HAD faith that Wes Clark might be able to simply outshine Bush - but this is clearly not the case. He has failed to translate his amazing potential into the debates (so far) - and he is not 'exciting' the media the way Dean is.

Deans only chance to win is for Bush to be in a bad situation on election day. He will not win against an even semi-popular Bush and we all know this.

If we take all of these assumptions, and I am not sure that
I do. We will need a candidate who is equal parts
trustworthy and charming to inspire the "people."
It would be nice if they were able to communicate
a progressive version of "Morning in America" as well.

Too bad Gregory Peck is dead, he might have pulled it off :)

Dean is not exciting the media. Dean has created so much excitment amongst a large portion of the base that the media has to cover him.

Dean is a good and decent man, and shame on Confederate Leftover Zell Miller for attacking his character as being "shallow"; but never the less, Dean cannot win! He has appealled to the base but that's about it! He will loose the south and some of the mid-west will vote against him! Wes Clark still has a chance to proove himself before the first primary!

..it'll once again come down to turnout. With George Soros' $75 million for the 19-state turnout efforts, we'll be in much better condition than we were in 2000 (as far as GOTV goes). As an added bonus, that money from Soros (et al) helps us if the campaign finance law is upheld in that we won't need to spend as much on GOTV operations - we'll be able to fight Bush more comprehensively on television.

I also suspect that a Dean nomination might get turnout up in our favor. Even if it goes up a mere 2 or 3%, that'll be potentially significant when those close states are falling into the red and blue columns. Given that Gore was behind Bush in 1999 by a whole 10%, with Dean currently behind by about 6 or 7%, that's pretty good shape.. and that's not counting Bush's incumbency advantage. Most polls had Gore 4 or 5% behind Bush on the weekend before the election, and Gore still won popularly. If a Dean candidacy can get into that range and turn-out votes in the right states, he could win it. But it'll be tough, no matter whom we nominate.

when we only have one person running against Bush* you are going to see Bush's poll numbers start to plummet. I truly think that right now people aren't paying that much attention because as you said, "The sheeple do not have the attention span to hold on to complex issues."

a crap... I don't know if I can take it if Bush is re-selected. I'm still broken up about Gore losing the last time. I don't know if I can even work on a campaign this time around.

will determine the next election:

http://www.bupipedream.com/001031/news/n4.html

The Hemline Hypothesis: The rise and fall of women’s hemlines is one of the more venerable barometers of the political climes. Rising hemlines have suggested a Democrat will win, longer skirts have meant the GOP has a leg up on the White House.

Thomas DiBacco, a professor emeritus of history at American University and the son of a seamstress, points out that the Republicans dominated in the 19th century when dresses swept the floor, and, during World War II, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt ruled as fabric shortages sent hemlines higher and higher.

Miniskirts took hold in the 1960s, when John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson reigned, but long dresses were back in vogue by the time Nixon was elected, DiBacco says.
...

maybe I shouldn't have cancelled that subscription to Vogue