Two more signs that Kerry is winning:
Today I read an article [subscription only, you oiks] in The Economist defending him against the increasingly desperate Republican accusations that he is a weathervane, always saying one thing or voting one way, before “flipping” around to an opposite position.
Then I noticed that Bloomberg has him raising more money more quickly for his campaign than any Democratic candidate ever.
I wouldn’t say that either of those are “signs that he is winning”. He’s getting more direct/personal contributions because of the abominable McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, through quite a few proxies to be sure. The DNC is going to be barred from running advertising just like the NRA or any other politically-motivated group (unconstitutionally I might add), so the candidates themselves shelving more of the cash isn’t actually suprising. He’s still in a DEEP hole in respect to Bush’s campaign cash. That and he’s now locked up the Dhimmocrat nomination, so he’s the only one the Bush-haters can pin their hopes on.
As to the weather-vane ads, I’d say it’s hard to call fact an accusation. The man has an Everest of a voting record to climb, and he’s no Sir Hillary. I would politely suggest you not rely on European press sources for US election coverage, Damian. I’ve been looking at them some, and they are pretty hopelessly clueless as to what is going on. Either that, or they are purposely misrepresenting it, as much as I would like to think otherwise.
It’s certainly going to be a tight race on the popular vote, but not as close as 2000, and the College vote (the one that counts), could wind up rather lop-sided. It’s really been the Dems looking rather desperate lately, they don’t have anything to offer except “we’re not Bush.” That might go down great in Europe, but it looks rather lame over here. But hey, we’ll find out in November!
Here, check this out: http://www.fundrace.org/moneymap.php
As to the weather-vane ads, I’d say it’s hard to call fact an accusation.
The Economist article didn’t so much deny the “accusation” as explain that there were some good reasons for many (if not most) of Kerry’s “changes of mind”.
I would politely suggest you not rely on European press sources for US election coverage, Damian.
Warning taken: I made that mistake last time, but, ironically, the author of the aforementioned piece went to some lengths to explain how a lot of what appears to us on this side of The Pond as flip-flopping by Kerry was more to do with the ways in which the drafting of American legislation differs from the way legislation is drafted in the UK.
Thanks for the Money Map link, by the way. And why can’t I get your blog? [23:13 UTC 30Mar04]
The blog is still there: http://bluecollarphilosopher.com/ just posted a couple new things today. Been in Chicago for a conference all last week, and I had no connectivity up there. Been playing around with the new digicam, maybe I went a little overboard on one of my posts, but I’ve been teasing some whackos over in Pravda’s forum, and it just came out that way. Not going to change it now.
This election is going to be the nastiest I think we’ve ever seen. The Dems are so full of hate and invective that the Reps are going to have to answer it. Negative campaigning is seen by the public as “bad”, but for some reason it still works. Most people made up their minds long since anyway, the “undecided middle” is smaller than it ever has been. Frankly, I think a terrorist bombing is more likely than a Kerry win, but anything’s possible. TTFN