Has he given up?
Panhandlia
23-09-2004, 05:42
Hey, you Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers.
You need to read this story (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=67244). It seems like your candidate is starting to throw in the towel. Is this more of the "great" advice he is getting from the Clintonistas?
It is one thing to focus your campaign and message (if that were actually possible for Kerry). It is another altogether to simply abandon states that were closely fought by Gore in 2000.
Not that I am complaining.
He's maximizing his money by concentrating more tightly on the horserace states. Sounds like fiscal responsibility to me. I know it's an alien concept to the Right.
Stephistan
23-09-2004, 06:08
Hahaha, hardly throwing in the towel. He's back neck and neck in a statistical tie with GW. Why would he throw in the towel?
Panhandlia
23-09-2004, 06:08
He's maximizing his money by concentrating more tightly on the horserace states. Sounds like fiscal responsibility to me. I know it's an alien concept to the Right.
It looks more like the old "stick a fork in him" situation. But more than anything, it's a huge insult to the voters in all those states, especially Missouri.
It's called strategy my man.
Panhandlia
23-09-2004, 06:13
Hahaha, hardly throwing in the towel. He's back neck and neck in a statistical tie with GW. Why would he throw in the towel?
According to a vast majority of polls (which are worthless anyway...only one poll counts, and it will be held on Nov 2nd,) Bush is ahead by substantial margins.
41 days to go, and Kerry is throwing the towel in states he can't afford to leave. The whole strategy of letting go states where Gore was competitive in 2000 in order to concentrate on a few big prizes is bound to come back to haunt him.
Incertonia
23-09-2004, 06:14
Hey, you Kerry Kool-Aid drinkers.
You need to read this story (http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=67244). It seems like your candidate is starting to throw in the towel. Is this more of the "great" advice he is getting from the Clintonistas?
It is one thing to focus your campaign and message (if that were actually possible for Kerry). It is another altogether to simply abandon states that were closely fought by Gore in 2000.
Not that I am complaining.
By the same token, Gore abandoned Ohio in 2000 and still only narrowly lost it, while Kerry is still fighting tooth and nail there. Also, this could be simply a shift in monetary strategy. It came out today that the Bush campaign has been using a loophole that allows them to use party money for their ads by adding the phrase "our friends in Congress." It's possible that Kerry will retool the ads for those states and finance them with party money just like Bush's campaign is doing.
But let's be straight here--Louisiana, Arkansas and Missouri were always going to be a stretch. Arizona will be tough in presidential politics as long as McCain draws breath. But Bush's leads--where he still leads at all--are shrinking fast. What little bounce he had is gone, and we're heading for the home stretch, and Kerry's moving in the right direction--up.
According to a vast majority of polls (which are worthless anyway...only one poll counts, and it will be held on Nov 2nd,) Bush is ahead by substantial margins.
41 days to go, and Kerry is throwing the towel in states he can't afford to leave. The whole strategy of letting go states where Gore was competitive in 2000 in order to concentrate on a few big prizes is bound to come back to haunt him.
If you call a three point lead a substantial lead...then okay. That's within the margin of error too.
Incertonia
23-09-2004, 06:23
If you call a three point lead a substantial lead...then okay. That's within the margin of error too.
Yeah, a substantial lead?
http://pollingreport.com/images/SEPgen3.GIF
Toss out the flawed Gallup poll and you have an average lead of less than 3%. That's hardly substantial.