"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

Unless Bush falls further in the polls, which I suppose is possible, I
don't see any sort of landslide numbers opening up. The country is
pretty evenly divided between the GOP and Democratic bases, with perhaps
10% of the voters undecided. It seems to me that whomever holds his base
and captures the majority of undecideds will win the popular vote and
the electoral college.

Kerry to me seems a good antidote to the Bush years. Kerry is unexciting
and contemplative; he's not a "hot" media candidate like Bush. But
Bush's media "hotness" carries over into his personality, and his
personality and other negatives are what have dropped us into the deep
**** we're in now.

Kerry is not an antidote to anything. Kerry could compete for the attention
of people that enjoy watching paint dry and grass grow. A leader needs to
have the ability to take in the available information and then make an
immediate decision.

I'll be perfectly happy if Kerry gets 1% more popular votes than Bush
and carries the Electoral College. That would be a nice victory. But
perhaps, with the cheating planned by the Bush-****ters and Diebold, a
larger percentage of popular votes for Kerry would be helpful, eh?

We, the Rebuplicans, must finally be learning how this election game is
played (i.e. Chicago, Florida and union elections).

Looks like there is every chance the "Iraq" story will continue as a
disaster through the elections here. It's sad that so many will die, but
Bush created the mess and if he suffers politically because of it, well,
that's the price he should pay.

Iraq is just the second battle in the war for the survival of western
culture.