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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (22074)	11/3/2004 2:23:12 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

SC, I read this victory in a different way. Bush, a war president, incumbent, faces a liberal Democratic senator from Massachusetts, a genuine stiff with little personality, and it ends up this close? Realistically, this is about the weakest possible opponent (other than Howard Dean with the scream) he could imagine. Reagan 1, 2 and Bush 1 were decisive, this election is way too close and, to me, casts a poor light on the first 4 years of W. Point being made on Fox, though, that some of W's state victories (Alaska, S. Dakota, S. Carolina) have helped pad the Senate. Kb

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (22074)	11/3/2004 4:22:21 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 23153

Senate gains aren't too surprising - 4 Dems leaving office. Size of win in Florida is impressive. James Carville and Paul Begala were on CNN say the Democrates need to do some real soul searching - why are they being rejected by all the red states ? Losing Missouri, also Arkansas, Tennesse, Kentucky - can't Dems win in border states ? Also should have done much better - in fact carried North Carolina. ****** The states went pretty much the same as 2000, but the Red states now have more population and now more electoral votes.