Bush 2000 NH: 273,559 vores; total Dem primary 2004: 218,000

[GOPBasher]

I don't know what to make of this, but it seems like good news to me. Bush in 2000 barely won NH, getting 273,559 votes in the GENERAL ELECTION, and the Dems this year totaled a bit over 218,000 votes in the PRIMARY. It seems to me that this is very good news, since far less people participate in the primaries than in the general election. If only all 218,000 of those people come out and vote for the Dem, we'd only be about 56,000 votes shy of Bush's 2000 number. If he doesn't get any more votes than last time, I don't see him winning that state, because we'll definately be able to pick up the additional 56,000 in the general election to overtake him. What do you all think? Agree? Disagree? I know NH isn't a big deal, but in a country this closely divided, those 4 EV's may make the difference.

[funkyflathead]

1. Considering that Bush is running against nobody

I am surprised he got any votes in the primary.

[GOPBasher]

2. No, those were his 2000 numbers in the general election.

I don't know what his vote total was for the primaries.

[forgethell]

3. I don't that the one

has anything to do with the other. Everybody is assuming that * won't do any better in November, 2004 than he did in November, 2000. this is a very dangerous assumption. too much has changed, the president has yet to start campaigning, while our guys are tearing each other up. Dean has flamed out, unless he makes a great recovery (fingers crossed, but I won't say which way). Kerry makes Al Gore look like a party animal. Edwards, well we will see in SC. But my point is, we are highly divided, and despite all the ABB we hear, the general public doesn't seem to feel that way.

Now a lot can happen between now and Nov, so we don't have to give up hope. But we should never assume that Bush is NOT going to pick up votes.

[Doomsayer13]

4. Independents

Remember, some independents who lean Repub voted in the primary. Doesn't mean they'll vote for the nominee in the fall.