Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:34:52 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

ABC: Who will get the 270 electoral votes needed to win? Gore has lost Minn. and Pa. to our toss up column. Bush is up to 209 votes from states leaning or strongly behind him. Gore drops from 204 to 171. But with 158 up for grabs, anything can happen.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:38:20 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

CBS: ELECTORAL TALLY: Bush: 205, Gore: 205, Tossup: 128

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:40:28 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

CNN: Bush 209, Gore 175

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:42:46 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

NBC: Bush: 209 Gore: 175 Toss-up: 154 New Hampshire The Granite State went Democratic in 1992 and 1996, but turnout in the Feb. 1 Republican primary far exceeded Democratic turnout. Florida Seniors make up an estimated 40 percent of the electorate here, so the fight over a prescription drug benefit for Medicare could be important. Michigan After some tension over trade, the United Auto Workers union has fallen in behind Al Gore, but it’s still a tight race here. Arkansas Clinton’s native state might well tilt Republican this year. The state has a conservative Republican governor, Mike Huckabee. Missouri Missouri appears to be evenly balanced between the two parties. The state has voted for the winning presidential candidate in every presidential election since 1946 except for one, 1956. New Mexico Although the Clinton-Gore ticket carried this state by healthy margins in 1992 and 1996, it is more evenly balanced that those victories would imply. Oregon Since Mike Dukakis carried it in 1988, the state has become part of the Pacific Coast Democratic base. But some polling data suggest that Green Party candidate Ralph Nader could siphon support from Gore in this state. Washington Since Michael Dukakis carried the state in 1988, the Pacific Northwest has been Democratic turf in presidential elections. But this year polls show a close contest. Iowa Iowa has gone Democratic in the past three presidential elections, but it’s in play this year, and Bush and Gore are visiting frequently. Tennessee It may be Gore’s home state, but Bush has stumped here frequently, most recently on the way to the Oct. 11 debate. West Virginia This traditionally Democratic state is up for grabs this year. With rising energy prices, mine workers like what Bush is saying about burning more coal. Pennsylvania Both candidates are spending lots of time in the important suburbs north and west of Philadelphia. Minnesota Democrats have to wonder what's going on in what has been a reliable state for them. One answer: Nader. A late-October Minnesota Poll found him pulling 8 percent, double his standing nationwide. Wisconsin Both candidates are lavishing time and advertising dollars on this toss-up state and the Fox River Valley, from Green Bay to Oshkosh. The NBC Electoral Vote Map is based upon polls, prior voting behavior and political judgment. It displays what the expected outcome would be if the election were held today. Those states in which the outcome is currently in doubt are classified as toss-up states. The map is prepared by Tim Russert, Washington bureau chief and moderator of "Meet the Press" and Sheldon Gawiser, Director, Elections.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:44:45 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

USA Today: 176 Bush, 77 Gore

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:49:32 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769667

WHY IS GORE LOSING ? Tuesday,October 31,2000 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A PRESIDENTIAL candidate who is between two and seven points behind in the final eight days of an election can win. He can put on a surge in the final week that brings him even and then pulls ahead of his rival. But Al Gore seems not to have a clue about how to do it. In 1976, President Gerald Ford came back from a 30-point deficit to within two points of beating Jimmy Carter by a sustained focus on the Georgian's inexperience and lack of substance. In 1992, President George Bush actually passed Bill Clinton in the campaign's final days by hammering at the character issue. Only the highly partisan and totally unscrupulous announcement by Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh that he was going to indict Cap Weinberger in the Iran-Contra scandal turned it around and gave Clinton the election. Even in 1996, benighted Bob Dole cut President Clinton's lead in half in the closing week by attacking the Chinese campaign contributions that found their way, mysteriously, into the president's coffees and coffers. But Al Gore is missing the fundamental point that animated these last-minute surges: You have to find one theme and hammer and hammer and hammer away at it. Instead, Gore talks about 20 or 30 different topics in each stump speech. The breadth, specificity and range of Gore's proposals and ideas in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention were impressive and triggered a big surge in the polls. But that was August; this is November (almost). Now, the key is to find one theme and talk about it morning, noon, evening and night until it comes to dominate the contest's final days. Gore's best theme is Medicare. The issue has historical traction because of the GOP's efforts to gut the program in 1995 and 1996 by doubling premiums and raising deductibles. Gore's plan for a $600 billion infusion of cash dwarfs Bush's $150 billion proposal. Gore should talk about Medicare, Medicare, Medicare every chance he gets between now and the election. Forget the other issues. They are luxuries for which there is no time remaining. Medicare. Gore has to lose the class-warfare garbage he has been trying to push at the behest of his liberal adviser, Bob Shrum. Gore basically lost three debates harping on his tiresome repetition of how well the top "1 percent" of American families will do under the Bush tax plan. Economic populism does not work anymore in America. Too many voters believe they are in or near the top 1 percent and too large a proportion of those who don't believe it never vote anyway. By relying on this rhetoric, Gore just stereotypes himself as an unreformed Democrat. Last week, Gore showed how unfocused he could be. One day he spoke about health care; the next, education; the day after that, the minimum wage and striker replacement; then to the Bush tax cut - and finally to Medicare and Social Security. A different day brought a different theme. That's no way to win an election when you are trailing in the final days. In his stump speech, Gore goes even further, addressing more than 20 different issues. He regularly speaks about every issue he can think of - from global warming, to hiring 100,000 extra teachers, to wiring schools for the Internet, to abortion, to discrimination against gays, to the risks of stock market investments of Social Security funds, to the national debt, etc., etc., etc. Nobody comes away with anything from such a Gore performance, and the news media covers what it chooses to, so no real theme emerges from the speech. Al Gore can still win this race. But, to do so, he's got to focus and stop trying to win the election by talking about so many details. You don't kill an opponent who is ahead in the final week before Election Day with a death of one thousand cuts. A rapier thrust to the heart is more like it. nypostonline.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (55184)	10/31/2000 10:51:43 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Gore Can't Blame Nader For His Own Lame Race I will not vote for Ralph Nader. But if Al Gore loses any of the eight states where Nader has become a factor, the fault will not be Nader's. It will be Gore's. Gore has run a fractured campaign. There is a program for this group or that group, prescription drugs for you, insurance for me, but no sense of the whole. He is all prose, no poetry, and he leaves me feeling empty, unsure of where — in his search for one last vote — he will draw the line. It was Gore, after all, who showed his mettle by jumping right into the Elian Gonzalez soap-opera controversy, advocating that the boy stay with his nonfamily in Miami. This was a blatant attempt to pander to Florida's Cuban vote, and it suggested only that Gore will tunnel through many subbasements of principle before he hits bedrock — if ever. It was Gore and his running mate, Joseph Lieberman, who suggested that the entertainment industry would be reined in by the government if it did not mend the way it advertises to children. Never mind any niggling concerns about civil liberties — the two didn't mean it anyway. This was just more pandering, but it was on an issue of some concern to liberals. We take the First Amendment seriously. It was Gore and Lieberman — the Nerd and the Nebbish — who have absolutely refused to utter even the mildest condemnation of Louis Farrakhan, a documented bigot and demagogue if there ever was one. This is not a complicated matter. When asked, as Lieberman has been on several occasions, if he would meet with Farrakhan, he soiled himself with equivocation. It was an ugly sight. It is Gore who constantly says he is his "own man," which is utter nonsense. He is Albert Gore Jr., the son of a senator, which is why he got into politics in the first place. He is the Democratic presidential nominee because — and only because — Bill Clinton chose him as his running mate. It would have been appropriate for Gore to denounce Clinton's womanizing and lying under oath, but his evident distaste for the man — his feelings of betrayal at not having been told the truth about Monica Lewinsky — seems juvenile. It's the moralism of the naive. This insistence on going it alone, on proving he can do it all by himself, is troubling. Look around Gore and you see an inner circle consisting almost entirely of family — his wife, his daughter and his brother-in-law. This inability to share the limelight, this need to dominate, this willingness to abandon old friends sends a disquieting message. I am no Naderite, although I tip my hat to the man. He has truly made a difference, which is more than most politicians can say. But he is wrong on globalization and wrong on trade and just plain idiotic when he says there's no difference between Gore and Bush. On the environment alone, the difference is immense. Nader is exquisitely unsuited for the presidency. He alone doesn't seem to know it. Yet Nader might have turned to Bush during the second debate and told him to "wipe that smile off your face" when he talked about putting people to death. All along, Gore has conducted his campaign as if people like me have nowhere to go. The essence of it was distilled in Lieberman's apparent assessment that the black vote was somewhat in play, the Jewish vote was not, so why knock Farrakhan? I understand. But if these moments were offset by some grand vision — some splendid stand on principle — then Nader would not look so good. Now Gore and Lieberman are knocking Nader, telling us why we should not vote for him. We know that. We even know why we should vote for Gore. But it's like a visit to the dentist. It's going to hurt. nydailynews.com