(no subject)
There is an interesting column by Nathan Gonzales that deals with one of the new liberal talking points: "If 50,000 votes had went to Kerry in Ohio instead of Bush, he would be the President." Here's an excerpt:
"But while 60,000 votes would have made the difference in favor of Kerry, just 45,000 votes the other way paints a completely different picture. If 5,000 voters had switched in New Hampshire, Bush would have carried the state. If 6,000 voters had switched in Wisconsin, Bush would have carried that state. And if 34,000 voters had switched in Oregon, Bush would have carried it also. So, in this backward hypothetical world, Bush wins reelection with a considerable 307 electoral votes."
Great column!
http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/archive/january242005.htm
"But while 60,000 votes would have made the difference in favor of Kerry, just 45,000 votes the other way paints a completely different picture. If 5,000 voters had switched in New Hampshire, Bush would have carried the state. If 6,000 voters had switched in Wisconsin, Bush would have carried that state. And if 34,000 voters had switched in Oregon, Bush would have carried it also. So, in this backward hypothetical world, Bush wins reelection with a considerable 307 electoral votes."
Great column!
http://www.rothenbergpoliticalreport.com/archive/january242005.htm