As evidenced by the red state/blue state divide, there was a geographic split between Al Gore and George W. Bush in 2000. There also was a gender gap: men preferred Bush, women preferred Gore--both by double-digit margins. It will be interesting to see if the gap between the sexes shrinks this time around.
If W grabs a larger share of the female vote, two campaign blunders by the Democrats will stand out. First, both John Kerry and John Edwards invoking Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter in the debates struck many as distasteful and politically calculated. Second, Teresa Heinz Kerry's questioning whether Laura Bush ever held a "real job" was offputting, particularly to women. Offputting not only because Laura Bush worked as a school teacher, a librarian, and raised two daughters, but because the job "wealthy heiress" doesn't strike too many people as a "real job."
If Bush holds on to win, political wonks might point to these two 11th hour gaffes by the Democrats as reasons why Kerry stumbled in the closing weeks. They are certainly contributing factors to Bush's current status as the frontrunner.
When will you consevative hacks learn, ALL THIS DOESN'T MATTER. The polls. The gender gap. The red vs. blue states. It dosen't matter. Kerry will be our next president and commander and chief. No matter what. Why? Because this election will be so close that it will be fought in the courtrooms again, and Kerry will have better lawyers. Kerry will sue his way to the presidency, becoming the nation's first unelected predient since, well. George W. Bush.
If I were John Kerry, I'd put a muzzle on his old lday. She's a big liability. Of course, she brings home the bacon, so I don't know how much sway he really has.
This is just the kind of silliness I was referring to. Presidential elections decided by off-handed comments by wives and distasteful references to children? What about abortion, war, taxes, liberty?
Oh well, if the shallowness of the electorate works in my favor, then I can't complain too loudly. I'm for whatever it takes to keep the great white goose hunter out of the oval office.
[Someone should tell Apu that all judicial roads lead to the Supreme Court; and we all know how that turned out for the Dems last time.]
I was just wondering why it is considered "distasteful" to bring up the fact that someone's openly gay daughter, is in fact, gay. Would it be distasteful to mention your opponent had a black person in his family? Or a handicapped person? Or a Jewish person? I fact that it is considered distasteful speaks to the lingering homophobia in this country.
I'm not going to sit here and deny that Kerry had political reasons for bringing it up. But Cheney saying he was "an angry father" over this, when he had just thanked John Edwards a few days earlier when it was brought up in the VP debates is more than a little ridiculous.
It was in bad taste to bring it up because it was none of his damn business, it was not brought up for any reason other than to exploit it politically and was brought up in such a swmarmy manner as to sicken the average American voter. No rational person believes that issue was brought up to better any one other than Kerry. Edwards did the same thing but he put on Clinton face and Chenney was taken back; this next time was done maliciously.
Does it really matter if someone is a lesbian or not these days? Is that really something that would swing a vote from one side to the other? I think the only important question when bringing up lesbians should be, Lipstick or Butch?
I agree with Gregory Oatmeal. It is distasteful enough that canidates "dig up dirt" on one another in lieu of debating over policy. Cheney's daughter is a private citizen, not an canidate for office, and her sexual preference is nobody's business but her own!
Theresa Heinz Kerry will be the demise of her husbands campaign. So sayeth the shepard.....so sayeth the flock!!!!!!!!!!
Men are from Mars but Keenan's from Uranus!!!!!
No, Gayle at "Tony's" is from Uranus.
