wrote in message
On Fri, 14 May 2004 03:35:05 GMT, "Maxprop"

Add their poll numbers together...

. . .which means nothing, especially at this stage.

The Democrats big problem has been trying to
be Republicans and going after the same block of voters in the middle. A
lot of
Democrats are sick of that tactic and stopped caring about going to the
polls to
vote for Republicrats.

Only the far left wing espouses this belief. Same as the far right wing,
which claims to be sick of voting for moderates.

Notice how well right winger, Lieberman was received.

He was poorly received by both sides. The right disliked him because he
flip-flopped on abortion and some other conservative values. The left
disliked him from the get-go. And many simply felt he would put the
interests of Israel ahead of those of this country. He was a very poor
choice for Gore.

Despite what you think, Kerry isn't very far left, and Nader is hardly
radical.

You've got to be kidding. Have you read any of Nader's books, or his more
recent position papers? And Kerry has always voted with the leftmost
division of the party, which places him squarely in liberal land. Kerry's
worst enemy in this election is his voting record, at least with the
so-called "undecideds."

Eccentric, yes - radical, nope. Kerry would be in more trouble if he
picked a
Republicrat such as Gephardt to run with him.

He'll only be in trouble with the far left, which is actually a minor base
within the democrat party. Same would hold true of Bush if he'd pick a
centrist running mate. The religious right and the far right would be
****ed. But neither distal wing is the largest component of either party's
base. Centrists are, like it or not. The far wings can't control an
election in any circumstance. So get used to moderates in both parties,
because that's where the "experts" say the swing voters live.

Kerry/Nader is unelectable, IMO. Sad to say that Bush/Cheney is.

Max