Blair and Stephen Green are getting carried away with predictions.

The election is going to be a lot closer than you think. Green is getting crazy predicting that New York could go to Bush.

Its still a 50/50 country and its a long way to go to elction time.

Mike: The election is going to be a lot closer than you think.

You are probably right. And I doubt New York will go to Bush. Still, this map reflects today's polls (supposedly) so it's interesting.

The gap will probably close once a nominee is picked. And if it's Edwards, I think Bush will be in trouble. I like Edwards, and all my liberal hawk friends who say they might vote for Bush like Edwards too.

agreed on all counts.
but I think people don't realize how 50/50 the country is and though 9/11 is an anomaly event that has given Bush a different status and image than any President has gotten since maybe FDR, the country is still a 50/50 country and 9/11 will have been 3 years ago by election time.

I still give Busht the edge but there a lot of swing states where Independents rule and Bush's approval ratings aren't great among them.
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida etc.. etc..
Forget about California and New York Blue States and Texas a red state....

I think the overconfidence and getting carried away by even Roger commenting at Green's site, Green and this are getting dillusional with the Bush train....

Mike

From a UK perspective Edwards is looking more and more interesting. Personally I think he has a 'bit of Blair' about him and I saw on BBC2 the other night - impressive speach about the virtue of work and the two Americas.

To be honest most Brits would prefer anyone but Bush and that includes many conservatives. We look at the deficit, global economics and environmental issues and, as we've never really noticed that much of a difference in foreign policy between the two parties (rightly or wrongly) so we tend to focus on the economic and environmental issues.

There is in Britain - post Thatcherism and post socialism - a general distrust of overly ideological government. Alot of my pragmatic friends would just like to see more of a return
to 'what works' instead of what you have now.

Election Projection Disclaimer #1 This formula's intent is in no way to predict what will happen in the elections this November. It is only to give a general sense of how the President would fare if the elections were held today.

So, the "blowout" projection is nearly meaningless.

"Its still a 50/50 country and its a long way to go to elction time."

Only because I am a stickler for people who ignore numbers they don't like, I have to point this out.

According to the polls, this isn't a 50/50 country.

It may become so in the next ten months, but according to the polls - and that map - it isn't now. Demanding that it was and that, because of that it still is, is delusional.

It still is a 50/50 country. It is now and it was when Clinton had a 65% approval rating. Approval rating is not the same as "I'll vote for him and his party."

Yes, currently the projection is mostly meaningless - but isn't it FUN!?! I believe, as we get closer to the election, that this projection will be more relevant.

Couple of responses to earlier statements:

On Edwards: I'm a staunch conservative from NC - Edwards worries me more than any of the other Democratic candidates. I discuss him on my blog

On New York: Gore beat Bush by 25 points in 2000 - 28.6% if you give Nader's vote to Gore. That's an incredible margin. Only MA, RI, and DC went to Gore by more. I don't understand this stir-crazy notion that Bush will even get close, much less win NY. For Bush to win, a full 14.5 point switch in the vote will need to be seen. If Bush does win NY, he'll win by a landslide of historical proportions nationwide.

"Approval rating is not the same as 'I'll vote for him and his party.'"

Actually, the job approval measure is the closest thing we have to "I'll vote for him." There's an amazing correlation between final job approval ratings before an election and incumbent vote pct.

Hey, has anyone else noticed the extra Blue State off the Maryland coast? Did SPECTRE build a giant magnifying glass on a man-made island, in order to focus the sun's rays on D.C.? Why isn't the New York Times on it? Liberal Bias!

Bush may be a crony capitalist big-business supporter, but the economy is doing incredibly well considering the dot.com bubble AND 9/11.

And Bush did good to boot Saddam.

How can the Dems run against a big deficit? Where are they gonna cut? No cuts, well, that means, punish, er, tax the rich!

It is FUN. Too much. Now, get to work, or else your job is going to Shanghai, or is that Bangalore; or how about Bratislava? (Bratislava? Never heard of it! 50 miles East of Vienna, cap of Slovakia -- my job's already here, you see.)

Interesting map but... according to the latest Field Poll (most estblished in state), Bush is ahead in California. And why wouldn't he be? Look who's governor.

The race always tightens up come election day. But I can't think of anything solid the Dems have on Bush. The anti-war crowd was already decided anyway, and the economy is on the mend. Regardless, overconfidence was the downfall of Bush Sr., so the GOP, if they've learned anything, should run this campaign as if W is the underdog.

Ind. George: Unless I'm mistaken, isn't that little speck under the magnifying glass supposed to be Rhode Island? Since it's so small, a lot of times maps will set it off to the side and enlarge it so it can be seen. That was my impression, anyway.

Caesar: I read your entry on Edwards, and while everyone is entitled to an opinion on candidates based on whatever criteria they like (I don't care for Clark or Dean for close to the same reasons you cite on your blog), but you say:

"Edwards is one of the smoothest, slickest politicians I've ever seen (not in a car salesman way, either). I watched his 1998 Senate campaign - it was down-right scary."

That's all you're basing your statement "Edwards worries me more than any of the other Democratic candidates..." on? That he's slick and smooth?

I just wonder if there's anything more substantial to your fears than outward appearances, or if there are more details of his 1998 campaign that would support your feeling.

Nice map, but wishful thinking.

As the election nears, name recognition will go way up. The democrat will move to the center. The president will have to start campaigning. Debates will reveal gaps in peoples' knowledge and glibness. In other words, there's a long way to go.

Plus, there's the Cold Feet factor for Totten Democrats. I think many are looking for some reason, any reason to vote democrat. The nominee might have to placate them, but that won't be harder than a few careful sound bites. That's not meant to offend; I'm easily swayed by a few words from a GOP candidate, because there's a mountain of other issues we agree on and I'm inclined to view him in a positive light.

Finally, who gets their asses down to the polls and votes will be a critical question. Voter turnout will be crucial. And the GOP will work hard even in states like Georgia that are almost sure things, just to avoid losing the popular vote again.

Barry,
Mostly, the sense I get about Edwards is that he reminds me of Clinton. I never understood why Clinton was always so well received by the American public. They say he just had that something, that special charisma, which enabled him to connect with voters. I see that same potential in Edwards, only he doesn't carry the moral baggage that Clinton did.

I'll back that up with an example from the campaign in 1998. Edwards' campaign ads largely focused on 2 things:
1. His upbringing. He has the solid, down home heritage that will play well with a large spectrum of the electorate - especially swing voters.
2. His "fight for the little guy". Even though conservatives trashed him as a "millionaire trial lawyer", Edwards was able to portray himself as a man on mission to defend the downtrodden. It worked. And, considering that he is a millionaire trial lawyer, that's quite a feat!

It's political savvy like this that worries me. Keep in mind that Edwards never held elected office before winning a Senate seat. All the more impressive for a trial lawyer.

Read this and you'll get an idea why I'm worried.

I don't know anyone who thinks this means Bush is a shoo-in. But I don't know all that many people, so it's possible that's a more pervasive view than my experience would indicate.

The Democrats that actually say what they mean can't get nominated. I am not sure nominating candidates who are weasels instead of candidates who are honest and have integrity is a sign for hope.

As a Democrat, I really want to see one-on-one debates between the serious candidates, Edwards and Kerry (maybe add Dean to the mix). I, too, am intrigued with Edwards, particularly matched up with another southerner or moderate like John Breux, Evan Bayh or Phil Bredesen. His vote against the $87 billion will hurt though.

Rob: Nice map, but wishful thinking.

Of course elections do usually tighten up as the election nears. But polls aren't wishful thinking. Polls are data.

Is the person who runs the site a Republican? I don't know. Who am I going to vote for? I don't know. Who is guilty of wishful thinking here? I just think it's interesting. That's all.

Barry - nice try, but it's not shaped like Rhode Island, is it? Obviously, it's an artificial island created by aliens inspired by Bush's immigration reforms, not realizing it was directed at terrestrial aliens. Once they realized this, they felt betrayed, shifted their support to the Democrats, and built a giant magnifying glass as a symbol of the electoral system's tendency to overlook the small states. Duh!

I am a Republican. But don't write me off just because of my partisanship. Back in September, when Bush's numbers were at their relative lows, Bush was projected by the formula to win only 181 EVs and was projected to lose the popular vote by almost 7%.

The one thing I keep harping on is that this is an objective projection based on what I think are reasonable parameters.

If Bush's numbers are in the 40's at some point this year, the map will be in favor of the Democrat.

I live in Seattle, and if Washington goes to Bush, I'll eat my hat. I might eat two of them.

For all the conservatives east of the Cascades, there are still too many people in the Puget Sound region who are far-left, Green Party people. The Seattle/Tacoma/Olympia area is trying to remake itself as Berkeley North. Unless every conservative in Washington goes to the polls (which I doubt, since many of us have our own disagreements with Bush) I just don't see Washington going for Bush.

That mystery island may represent Washington, D.C.

No, it's Burlington VT seceding from the United States, its citizens rowing out to sea.

FYI,

The person above who signed his name The Blogging Caesar is the one who created this map.

Ind. George: I stand corrected. Um, I think.

Caesar: I read the article you cited....what, exactly about his bio scares you? I don't see it, sorry.

To summarize: Had working class parents, worked in textile mill with dad, worked his way through college and became a lawyer, advocate of families affected by negligence, after 20 years ran for Senate and beat incumbent, supported standard Democratic causes like education/environment/health care, served on Intelligence Committee and authored legislation regarding national security.

So, you're equating political savvy with duplicitousness? Has he broken any Senate campaign promises, or wavered significantly from his platforms while in Congress? That would be a much more telling indicator of his integrity than the fact he'd never held office before.

If memory serves, current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist never held elected office before becoming a Senator from here in Tennessee several years ago (he was a surgeon).

By the way, Caesar - if you drew the map, what is that little thing off to the side? An asteroid getting ready to hit Baltimore?

Actually, having 147 electoral votes in the bag before the campaign starts is not a bad place to be, particularly since most of the polls showing Bush pick-ups of Red States are months old. Ohio is the key; if the Democrats are competitive there, it's a horse race.

It's Iraq. Jeez people, don't you know anything!

Semper Fi

You mean Iraq isn't the size of California? Bush lied!

I'd be interested in other maps from January before the election in 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988, et cetera.

The thing in the magnifying glass is definitely DC.

As a side note, if you follow the link to the map it lists New York as one of the four blue states which are "currently not considered in play."

"To summarize: Had working class parents, worked in textile mill with dad, worked his way through college and became a lawyer, advocate of families affected by negligence, after 20 years ran for Senate and beat incumbent, supported standard Democratic causes like education/environment/health care, served on Intelligence Committee and authored legislation regarding national security"

Yep, that scares me.

As for duplicitousness - it worked like a charm for one Bill Clinton.

I'm thinking of starting a contest to see who can tell me what that magnifying glass is all about. Any takers?

Oops! Didn't see the last post...very good Kurt.

Oh, JR actually got it right, first.

Blogging Caesar: Yep, that [Edwards' bio] scares me.

Why? Are you serious? If so, you really are a Republican. Edwards' bio doesn't frighten me even the teensiest amount.

I think the election will have less to do with who the Democrats nominate than with how the economy and Iraq are doing in six to eight months.

Having followed the news from Iraq closely the last few months, IMO events there will likely be enough to make Bush toast. Unless, that is, he hops on the bandwagon and proclaims Ayatollah Sistani the next Thomas Jefferson. He might be able to fool voters through November with that one.

"Why? Are you serious? If so, you really are a Republican. Edwards' bio doesn't frighten me even the teensiest amount."

First of all, yes I am a Republican, and I don't believe anybody's going to beat Bush. I agree with a recent poster here that the economy and Iraq are going to be the deciding factors in November (I'd add national security, also). I come to the opposite conclusion about them, though. Unless something unforeseen and disastrous
occurs, Bush will be re-elected.

That said, I believe Edwards may be the one to give Bush the toughest fight. I'll reiterate the reasons I mentioned in an earlier post:
1. His upbringing. He has the solid, down home heritage that will play well with a large spectrum of the electorate - especially swing voters.
2. His "fight for the little guy". Even though conservatives trashed him as a "millionaire trial lawyer", Edwards was able to portray himself as a man on mission to defend the downtrodden. It worked. And, considering that he is a millionaire trial lawyer, that's quite a feat!

Remember, Edwards was no where to be seen a month before Iowa - and yet finshed a very strong second. If he finishes 3rd or better in New Hampshire, watch out.

Blogging Caesar,

I see. You're afraid of Edwards because he's a good candidate, not because you think he's a dangerous nut. Yes?

I agree with a recent poster here that the economy and Iraq are going to be the deciding factors in November . . . Unless something unforeseen and disastrous occurs, Bush will be re-elected.

Blogging C. -- What do you foresee the situation in Iraq being this fall?

M.J.T.: Edwards' bio doesn't frighten me even the teensiest amount.

I'm not frightened by it, but this lawyer is leery of a trial lawyer who seems to get contributions overwhelmingly from other trial lawyers and then refuses to disclose their identities.

Mr. Edwards's Bundle of Secrets
Edwards breaks NH spending limits
"I raise money from individuals"

"Blogging Caesar,

I see. You're afraid of Edwards because he's a good candidate, not because you think he's a dangerous nut. Yes?"

Right. Now I understand the questions from you guys - a little confusion there. I was unclear. He's not a nut.

Swopa,
I think the US presence there will be less and less authoritative; the violence will be much less. Iraqi self-determination will be close at hand, if not already in place.

Oh My God!!! D.C. got washed out to sea?!!! Oh, the humanity! I knew this global warming thing was going to get us.

Oh My God!!! D.C. got washed out to sea?!!! Oh, the humanity! I knew this global warming thing was going to get us.

Hehe...

Yes, but remember, according to Al Gore, global warming is also responsible for horrendously cold winters too (?), so that perhaps, during the winter, the sea between the shores will freeze up and provide a land bridge for those poor souls out marooned on DC island.

BC,

Excuse me while I keep picking at this. :-)

Iraqi self-determination will be close at hand, if not already in place.

And how do you define "self-determination"? Will we give in to direct elections, as Sistani is demanding -- and if so, what will the aftermath of those elections be? Or will we insist on some alternative method -- and what will the reaction to that in Iraq be?

IMO, the more you think about these questions, the harder it gets to find a plausible scenario that helps Bush politically.

The fact we and the Iraqis are working out the details of Iraqi freedom, governance, and self-determination instead of Saddam working out the details of how many Iraqis to throw into the wood chipper today...

...is what helps Bush politically

Like I said, the more you think about these questions, the harder it gets.

So Daniel chooses not to think about them. :-)

See, if Bush could punt the ball downfield so that everyone was still "working out the details" in November, he'd be fine.

Unfortunately, by Bush's own decree, we're handing over sovereignty to somebody on July 1st. How that happens, and what the aftermath is, is going to play a major role in the election.

So you're going to have to step out of your gauzy optimism and face some hard facts. Just for example, what if one of the "details of Iraqi freedom" is several hundred thousand Shiites marching on the CPA in Baghdad to evict Bremer?

several hundred thousand Shiites marching on the CPA in Baghdad to evict Bremer?

...a liberal's dream!

Seriously Swopa, the Iraq war is a winning issue for Bush, hands down. Most Americans support removing Saddam and stand by Bush's effort to bring democracy to the country. This is a losing topic for Democrats to pursue, as none of the contending candidates have any better ideas or any credibility here.

Michael,

Speaking as one of those "liberal hawk and possibly voting for Bush but big fan of John Edwards" type of people you were mentioning, I have a question for you...

Would you vote for John Kerry?

The gap will probably close once a nominee is picked. And if it's Edwards, I think Bush will be in trouble. I like Edwards, and all my liberal hawk friends who say they might vote for Bush like Edwards too.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 22, 2004 11:16 PM

You can
"like" Edwards all you like. He is,though, a total fake. Your "liberal hawk friends" need to call me up. Then we will have a conversation.

And what kind of conversation would that be?

His case record is squeaky clean, he voted for the war, has been pretty damn consistent with sticking to it, suggested repealing the most-upper-bracket tax cuts to pay for reconstruction as not to add to the deficit, runs a hugely optimistic and Clintonesque campaign, has come up with all kinds of inventive neo-lib policy proposals as detailed in The New Republic, gives a shit about rural folk, has been the only democrat to really connect with rural interests, and actually speaks of helping out "poor" people every once in a while...yeah, he unabashedly speaks of the "poor", like Democrats used to do all the time.

John Edwards keeps Karl Rove up at night and you know it.

Time to update the map.
Latest poll shows Kerry (but none of the others) ahead of Bush in WA.

OKAY, GUYS...if you go to the "state-by-state" breakdown section, the author of the site has this to say about good 'ol Massachusetts:

"Solidly Gore in 2000. Solidly Dem in 2004. The worst state in the nation, politically speaking."

And this to say about Illinois:

"The land of Lincoln will be swept away in a Bush landslide - I know, I know, I'm a hopeless optimist! (And the GOP will keep the Senate seat, too.)"

I think we can fairly determine that his allegiances lie somewhere on the Right end of spectrum...propaganda, I fear...nothing more.

Let's get one thing straight folks: The country is not evenly divided between those who will vote Democrat and those who will vote Republican. The total of those numbers probably adds up to only forty percent of the electorate, maybe 45. The country is divided along several political spectrums but a large majority of voters tend to be quite moderate. They are turned off by extremes in both parties. When one candidate is able to succeed in painting the other as extreme, he will win. If neither is considered extreme other factors will take over. Clinton was able to smear Dole as a Gingrich Republican. In 2000, Gore was unable to tar Bush as an extremist to the vast moderates and Bush was unable to do the same to Gore. Hence the closeness of the election. When an incumbent is running, the election is always a referendum on his job performance. Way more often than not, the incumbent wins, often overwhelmingly. When the incumbent has lost, it has been because of economic calamity (Bush I was the exception because his election was largely accidental in the first place. He was elected because he dismantled Dukakis on every conceivable level and entered office with little genuine affection from either side. Because of this and the candidacies of Buchanan and Perot, Clinton was able to blow up a simple poorly timed recession into a Depression like disaster. The Dems. tried to do the same to Bush II. It will not work)
The country is trending Republican. Don't go by the results of one anamolous election. Look at COngress. It will likely stay Republican for some time to come. Yes. A Democrat can and will win the WHite House just as many Republicans one during the fifty years of Democratic dominance. But it will depend on the factors I state above. Bush is smart enough to know that the key to his election is appealing to that middle. This is why he favors tax cuts but also favors spending. He is in no way a fiscal conservative. He also finesses the social issues much like Clinton did to the left. Yes this country is pro-choice. But it is also decidedly moderate on reasonable restrictions on abortion. This is why Bush has refused to make a huge deal about overturning ROe v. Wade but signed the bill banning late term abortions.

The Democrats are not going to tar GW Bush as a right wing extremist. People just won't buy it as they did not about Reagan. And Americans instinctively reject the zero sum game economic views of the Democratic candidates. They know the key to prosperity is the growth of private business and that this will necessarily mean the growth of wealth among the wealthy. This is not a socialist country. I predict Bush will win handily. I would not be surprised if both New York and California are competitive and close.

The real crunch is coming in about ten years when the boomers bankrupt Medicare and Social Security. Then voters like myself who will be left with the burden will demand serious reform and we will see which party manages to propose it. This is the next chance for the Democrats to regain what was lost if they can come up with a real idea. Right now, foreign policy and security matters and on this a vast majority favors President Bush including support for the Iraq mission.

"the next chance for the Democrats to regain what was lost if they can come up with a real idea".....

A Privatized Welfare State, perhaps? Libertarian Paternalism? Maybe just the next Great Depression, I dunno.

The fact that even this wishful thinking model shows the Democratic nominee winning 147 electoral votes shows how divided this country really is. Traditionally, when you lose by more than 10 percentage points (and this model predicts the Democrat to lose by over 11 points), you're talking an electoral landslide.

The most obvious recent example of this is 1980, when Carter lost by "only" 10 points but won only 49 electoral votes. Dukakis lost to Daddy Bush by 8 points but won just 111 electoral votes. Bob Dole also lost by 8 points but took advantage of a better geographic base to win 159 electoral votes. What's new in our current politics is that the Democrats now have an electoral base of their own, something you certainly couldn't have said 20 years ago.

Anyway, any model that shows Illinois as a likely red state isn't worth taking remotely seriously.

Micheal,

The gap will probably close once a nominee is picked. And if it's Edwards, I think Bush will be in trouble. I like Edwards, and all my liberal hawk friends who say they might vote for Bush like Edwards too.

Bush in trouble with Edwards? I only wish so, he might take N.Carolina, but I doubt it. He would lose as much in the Midwest than possibly gain in the South. Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Michigan will go Bush, Illinois? Edwards might squeak it out, but let me put it this way, Bush polls better now that Reagan did in 1984, believe me, I remember, much to my pain. I am from Virginia and I know better. The South will never trade in a proven GOP Texan in for a liberal North Carolinian, no way!!! Even more so with an Edwards the rust belt could actually become more vulnerable in Bush's favor. Gains in the South!!! G.W, is not his Father, the political stars couldn't have lined up better for the Dems last time and look what he did, the Reddest ever!!! No way will that change. Michael I really am as liberal as you, but being older that even Roger (sorry Roger) he knows I am sure better like I know. I’ve lived in California, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida, nooo way!!! You’re youthful optimism is appealing though. I remember 1960 (eerily reminiscent of 2000) a history of the ones I remember.

1944 Roosevelt 53.4% Dewey 45.9% vague memory

1948 Truman 49.6% Dewey 45.1%

1952 Eisenhower 55.1% Stevenson 44.4%

1952 Eisenhower 57.4% Stevenson 42%

1960 Kennedy 49.7% Nixon 49.5% definite voter irregularity, Florida childs play in comparison

1964 Johnson 61.1% Goldwater 38.5%

1968 Nixon 43.4% Humphrey 42.7%

1972 Nixon 60.7% McGovern 37.5%

1976 Carter 50.1% Ford 48%

1980 Reagan 50.7% Carter 41%

1984 Reagan 58.8% Carter 40.6%

1988 Bush 53.6% Dukakis 45.6%

1992 Clinton 43.3% Bush 40.6%

1996 Clinton 49.6% Dole 42.3%

2000 Bush 47.9% Gore 48.3%

I wish people were more capable of putting emotions aside and be more objective see it for what it is. Also this divided nation stuff I have heard, it goes in 15-20 year cycles, but never stays that way. The most persistent popular vote getter was Eisenhower and Stevenson was a good candidate, a very good candidate, no McGovern for sure. In fact Edwards is a joke compared to Stevenson, sorry. Historically only the following are most relevant.

1960 Kennedy 49.7% Nixon 49.5%
1964 Johnson 61.1% Goldwater 38.5%
look at the vote totals, this is the one that spooks me the most. I remember what people were saying about Kennedy, he had to prove himself not very different from Dubya (only I voted for Kennedy) unfortunately we don’t have a 1964 election result with Kennedy running, I suspect it would been a little less margin, probably in the 55-58% range, but still a landslide, this is because Johnson probably saved the Democrats from the split that happened in 1968 (George Wallace carrying much of the South) which leads to the next scenario….

1968 Nixon 43.4% Humphrey 42.7%
1972 Nixon 60.7% McGovern 37.5%
look at the vote totals, this is the one is also very close. I remember well, Humphery was a victom of a split in the base of the Democratic Party (George Wallace). This is the only chance the Democrats would have today, a split Republican base. This will not happen to the Republicans. In this model in1968 Nixon is as G.W. Bush 2000, now forward to 1972, a huge nightmare scenario, hopefully they will do better than McGovern.

1980 Reagan 50.7% Carter 41%
1984 Reagan 58.8% Carter 40.6%
I actually believe this scenario is the least relevant of the three. But the economic scenario is what is most relevant, I remember how vulnerable Reagan looked in 1983, the wind definitely at his back in 1984, I see the same for Dubya.

Michael, I believe we are in 1964 as if Kennedy lived so I say 55-58% of the popular vote with at least 40 states small or not. There were will be coattails for Bush. How much,? I don’t know but there will be gains. This is not heart felt wishful thinking it is my life wisdom as shallow as that may seem to some. To believe otherwise is to hope against history.and sound reasoning

A few more things.

Michael, notice never a back to back close election, this will not change. Bush will either lose big or win big, incumbents are never narrowly re-elected.

Notice how many won with less than 50% and read the next election

1948 Truman dropped out because of Korea and the economy. I remember Korea, we lost over 50,000 in less than 2 years!!!, in Vietnam terms this would have been hundreds of thousands of lives, 600 in Iraq in one year? Bush is not in the danger Truman was in.

1968 Lovable Nixon went from 43% to 61% that is a perfect storm, unfortunately 1974 was the perfect disaster.

1992 Clinton went from 43 to 49 percent, this is about the increase Bush will have (maybe a little better with no Perot in there), just starting from 49 % that gives him the 55 to 58 percent that I project.

This is my prediction as a Democrat who in full disclosure will vote for Bush as my fist Republican ever. No wishful thinking, go with Edwards on principle, but don’t let itchy excitement cause delusion. Since WWII every popular Republican has averaged about 58% when going for re-election, I don’t see the difference this time around emotions or wishes notwithstanding.

Thanks Ralph, that's a good job of explaining the history.

One thing tho -- I wish you had put in the electoral votes for each of those as well, since that is what actually determines the winner. The popular vote is an interesting (and fun) statistic to look at, but nothing more.

Sorry 1984 should read Mondale where it read's Carter. A dizzying post.

Daniel,

I actually had a electoral college analysis as my first thought, however that is way too interesting, the map has flipped!!! Red is blue and blue is red. It would have been way too tempting to start breaking down electoral votes into further analysis so I resisted. Remember these are election this old guy remembers, way to much personal history to even go there. I remember the fipped map of the 40-60's. Also, it would probably drive Michael crazy too, the post length was pushing it anyway.

Ralph you are a frickin' genius, my friend. I'm a college student, political science major, and it sure is great to see someone else picking up on all the Bush-Kennedy similarities. And you're dead-on in saying that this is 1964 had Kennedy lived, ABSOLUTELY DEAD-ON. Well, the bizarro conservative 1964 that is. And, if you go with the concept of "regimes", it plays out eerily well even beyond 1964, too.

Reagan and FDR both got the ball rolling, in their respective eras, one to the Left and one to the Right. Both served more than one term.

Truman and Herbert Walker Bush, both members of their respective dominant "regimes", were then left with the rather difficult and thankless task of continuing the march and trying to live up to their predecessors. Both truly only served one term of their own.

Clinton and Eisenhower, members of the minority "regimes", both then applied the brakes and pulled things ever-so-slightly back to the Center with their moderate approach. Both served two terms and accomplished very little.

Kennedy and Bush, members of the dominant "regimes" reasserting themselves, both took the nation further from Center and "got the country moving again". Both actually lost the popular vote, Bush officially/Kennedy unofficially.

And if you take this theory to its logical end you can pretty much prove the connection another way...as far as I know I'm the first person to catch this (at least at my university): If the Liberal Regime began in 1932 and the Conservative Regime in 1980, you can break down the electoral votes.

From '32 to '60, the Dems won 2,644 electoral votes/the Reps 1,555. That essentially means that 62.96737% of the electoral votes went to the dominant regime between the years of 1932 and 1960.

From '80 to 2000, the Reps won 2,038 electoral votes/the Dems 1,189. The dominant regime here netted 63.15463%.

That's a difference of 0.18726%! No way that's a coincidence!

History is indeed profoundly repeating itself (and I for one am anxiously awaiting a Republican Party meltdown in 2008 when the Religious Right demands action on Roe vs. Wade and other cultural issues they've been patiently waiting to move on for all these years). My generation is incredibly libertarian when it comes to social issues, we're not likely to swallow much "moral majority" crap about Abortion, God, and Gays. The Republican Party will rip itself apart, 1968 style.

Ralph,

Haaaaaaa...looks like I did all that electoral college dirty work for you ahead of time. You must have posted that as I was typing my message! You're a genius, you know your history, and you see the connections. Kudos and much respect. It's hard to believe more people haven't caught on to this, by now.

Grant,

Thank you,

Actually I got the following a few weeks ago from some here or at Rogers sight and copied it check this out...

THE SITUATION

The war that is going on in the Democratic Party right now is very reminiscent of what the Republicans went through in 1964. I would not have characterized it in such gloomy terms but it is true. Let us draw some comparisons.

1)Republicans control the whitehouse from 1952-1960
Republicans control congress in 1952 lose control in 1954

Democrats controlled the whitehouse from 1992-2000
Democrats control congress in 1992 lose control in 1994

3) Republicans win a disputed election in 2000
Voter fraud believed by embittered other side.
Incumbent Vice President is the loser.

Democrats win a disputed election in 1960
Voter fraud believed by embittered other side.
Incumbent Vice President is the loser.

4) 1960 disputed election produces a likable popular President.
People wonder if he is up to the job.
Proves himself in responding to national crises

2000 disputed election produces a likable popular President.
People wonder if he is up to the job.
Proves himself in responding to national crises

5) 1960 Democratic President introduces huge tax cuts
Republicans warn of high deficits and a busted budget
Expanding economy is the result

2000 Republican President introduces huge tax cuts
Democrats warn of high deficits and a busted budget
Expanding economy is the result

6) 1960+ Democratic Party gains in affiliation
2000+ Republican Party gains in affiliation

QUESTION FOR DEMOCRATS WHO IS YOUR BARRY GOLDWATER – WHO IS YOUR RONALD REAGAN?

WHO IS YOUR POTENTIAL NIXON - YOUR PERSON WITH THE BEST SHOT OF WINNING AND SETTING YOUR PARTY BACK?

Who is Nixon (Hillary? / Gore?) The Republican's will definately be challanged it is hard to hold a true majority without challenges. Their is one possible altering difference. What if JFK had lived, how would that have effected the outcome? If Dubya lives it will partially give answer that. Can he stem the tide and we will be able to stem such carnage? Definately some fun "fictional" pondering.

Anyway people don't turn a blind eye to history, it will repeat itself at some level.

I think Kennedy would have suffered Johnson's fate, frankly. Vietnam would have sank just about any president and Kennedy was every bit as pro-war as Johnson...true quagmires are like that, you get sucked in and you're up to your neck before you know it.

As for Bush's second term (because, believe me, there will be one), the big question is where do they go from here...stack the Supreme Court with pro-life judges but does he dare move on it?...keep cutting taxes, of course, but how well will that sell in a booming economy?...privatize social security and freak out the senior citizens?...take a stand on same-sex marriage but does he call for a constitutional amendment?

I'm really wondering these days what the FULL conservative agenda will look like for the next 4 years. If anyone has any idea, let me know.

Grant,

I also ironically was a college student during Kennedy’s presidency, but my political science major was long in coming. I got it through living it and realizing that deja-vu feeling for what it was. I did’nt say it in my last post but have said many times Ronald Reagan = FDR, his shadow looms large and still drives policy, what do you think neo-liberalism is? Look it up in a dictionary and you will see a picture of Milton Freedman. That is was what moderate Bill Clinton did, NAFTA, Welfare Reform? Clinton finished a lot of Reagan things. I’m a Democrat and am honest enough to say this. Democrat’s decrying Reaganomics is a joke, we for the most part are living it.

Roe vs. Wade is a killer, I am very pro-choice but as I said in an earlier post I hate activist judges, abortion should be legal, but a Star Chamber of Judges was not the way too go about it. Personally I myself have grown more states right's on many difficult issues like gay marriage because some things just can't be nationalized before their time without provoking conflict. To do otherwise is to basically declare war. This is sometimes necessary, civil rights, slavery, but abortion? Sorry even I see that one, not in the constitution. Have the gut’s to do it right! I know this is a cop out, but our Founding Fathers really saw it that way. Finding things in the constitution that aren’t there is scary.

Bush will privatize social security, the fallout, who knows and who cares. I was born during the depression, it doesn’t freak me out. He will not declare a war on marriage, like abortion should be dealt with on a state level until the issue matures. No Constitutional Amendment.

Anyway Grant I hope some people read what you and I have said on the historical positions of the parties because it isn’t something a few of us “War Liberals” are going to change, maybe “War Liberals” voting for Edwards will give Bush 55% instead of 57%, but that is about it, that you for your supportive work and your welcome for mine.

I wonder what would happen if Dean teamed up with Sharpton for the South & Midwest. Their core supporters (left-wingers, eco-activists, gays, blacks) are a strong complement to each other.

Iowa & New Hampshire may be first, but they hold relatively few delegates.

I don't think GW is any sort of lock in 2004 - especially given the content of his SOTU address the other night. If he continues to grow the power and cost of Govt in non-military/security areas he risks alienating his base to the extent that many of them stay home on the first Tuesday in November 2004.

Check out: http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg.asp
for a better, more articulate treatment of this risk.

If Dean got the nomination with Sharpton as his running mate, I'd predict a landslide victory for Bush as every Democrat with a shred of sanity held their nose and voted Republican.

Though it would provide wonderful material for bloggers in the months running up to the election.

If you actually think Bush is going to take Illinois, to pick an example -- if, in other words, you think that this is an accurate portrayal of what 2000 will be like -- then as a Partisan Democrat, I have more to rejoice for than I had at first thought. Complacency is the enemy of politics, and the Republicans are about to move from complacency into disastrous feelings of inevitability.

Grant, Edwards is a trial lawyer. He knows nothing, or couldn't possibly know he did know something, if he did. He is a total fake. I tried to tell you ignoramuses that Dean is an airhead. I forgive you, but you are still an ignoramus if you think Edwards is not a fake. My sister has reccommended that Gore now endorse Edwards, and so on, until only Lieberman is left. Then we can have an actual election. Forget the conversation. [I'm kidding.]

Steve, the Terrorists' only hope is to unelect Bush. We who know this are not going to stay home, as we want to live.

Bush's devious plan regarding the deficit is to lock up all gov't spending into entitlements, thus eliminating discretionary spending. Then congresspeople will be unable to be bought, and will not be able to buy much themselves. Inflation will shrink government. Then we will all be happy, except for the poor, who do not exist. And the French who, much to their dismay and eternal anguish, do exist. And the Democrats, who insist on existing in spite of all detriments, much as do the Communists, since they are all parasites. Hey, it's legal to be a parasite. But it is also legal to apply a parasiticide, even should the second amendment be repealed, a stringent goal of Democrats and Communists, to say nothing of the Crime Lobby. No, I will not stay at home.

Joe Peden:
pls explain why the poor do not exist. Regarding the existence of the French, I recall a quote by Mark Twain: Man started existence a little lower than the angels, and has been getting a little lower ever since, and now in the hierarchy of creation ranks somewhere between the angels and the French.

Joe Peden:
pls explain why the poor do not exist.

The poor do not exist because we have made them not exist, in the U.S.. Can you find one poor person? If you can, then you will make the person not poor, if you have the balls of your conviction. I have the balls, and have made these people not exist. The Gov't never helped me. Take a look at the issue. I am currently searching the St.Louis, Mo., area to try to find the poor. A bunch of them live right next door to my sister. But they don't know they are poor. So why bother them? They have a 3 story house, with a basement. They have 4 cars. They have 3 dogs and 2 rabbits. Who knows what else they have? Only one person in their house works: she works 4 hours a day, on the days she works, which amounts to about 4 times per month. Their children, about 4 of them, seem intent upon climbing onto my siser's roof, to get the things which they have thrown up there. I stopped this logic by advising them that it would be much more interesting for them to throw stuff upon their own roof, since it had a steeper slope, and would thus rocket off at an exciting speed. They took to this idea instinctively, and the rocks upon my sister's roof started to not appear. It must be a miracle of Gov't money which caused this. Otherwise I cannot explain why the poor do not exist.

Ok, the map has been updated today (1/24/04) and...

...Illinois has turned blue (the backsliders)

Hey, here's an idea for the fellow running this site. On April 1, for 24 hours, display the entire map, all 50 states, in blue!

Or would that be more appropriate for Halloween?

;-)

That's a great idea! I'll do it!!!

Can't wait 'til April Fool's!

Grant,

One late edition to our analysis.

Hoover = Carter.

Both were unfortunate one term Presidents. Hoover was the result of the Stock Market Crash & Depression, Carter the Result of Inflation & Recession. Both had very long ex-Presidencies focusing on humanitarian projects. People think Carter is a model ex-President, he doesn’t come close to Hoover.

Recap...

Hoover = Carter.
FDR = Reagan
Truman = Bush I
Eisenhower = Clinton
Kennedy = Bush
Nixon = ? + (George Wallace = ?)

Grant, Who will split the GOP base and on what issues? My best guess…

In 1968 it was Civil Rights vs Segregation.

In 2008 it will be Libertarians vs Social Conservatives

Anyone reading this and scrathing there heads just scroll up and read posts by Ralph or Grant before you say anything

If Edwards is talking about the poor, he's in the wrong business. The purpose of government is not to help the poor. The single purpose of government is to bear the sword of justice, to the end of maintaining law and order. Helping the poor is the job of private individuals.

Ralph,

Nixon=HRC

It's almost too perfect a parallel!

= )

Although another comparison I like is FDR, who saved capitalism via an injection of socialism (infuriating true believers on both sides), with Bush II, who is attempting to save welfare statism with an injection of capitalism (ditto on the fury).

Similar foreign policies too.

Mr. Peden,

Thank you. Now I understand. Perfectly.

Because I try to stay honest....

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040124/nysa010a_1.html

Maybe it is a 50/50 country. It might be an interesting year.

Ged of Earthsea,

I believe Hillary makes the most sense in playing this role, but she'll only win if the Republican base gets split ala Humphrey/Wallace style (Libertarian/Social Conservative) in place of (Civil Rights/Segregation) We will see. History can be altered if people understand where they are and are hugely skillful. But with the usual blinders on, it is usually inevitable.

Regarding the poor, I almost forgot: both my sister and I are poor. She drives a 1988 Acura, I drive a 1990 GMC. My vehicle is the worst looking one in St.Louis. I do own 2 houses, which seems to be necessary if one is to be poor. My main house has no electricity. But I do have 4 outhouses. I sometimes shoot Elk, just to stay alive, but must travel to Oregon to do this, since the Buffalo have been exterminated. My squaws have all left me, or have been stolen by the White Man. They can have 'em. When in St. Louis, I live in the "Railroad Estates", which feature a train going by only 20 yards off, about every hour. My compatriots are all poor. We don't really fucking care.

You all like Edwards because he looks good on TV, he isn't GWB, and you don't know shit about him.

Quick (no googling allowed) - what's he done in the Senate? What has he said about his votes to filibuster judicial nominees?

What has he said should be done about Iran? Syria? North Korea?

What does he propose to do about health care? What taxes would he raise to pay for it?

Where does he stand on NAFTA? Free trade?

All candidates get a honeymoon when they first make it into the top tier. Edwards is having his now. He already has a scandal cued up and ready to roll, as his fundraising practices demonstrate a certain, ahh, flexible attitude toward legal compliance. Plus, if Edwards starts getting too much traction, the Clinton machine will see him as a threat to Hillary. The one place you do not want to be is between Hillary and the 2008 nomination, so I predict Edwards is in for some pretty tough sledding soon.

Ralph,

"I believe Hillary makes the most sense in playing this role, but she'll only win if the Republican base gets split ala Humphrey/Wallace style (Libertarian/Social Conservative) in place of (Civil Rights/Segregation)"

Funny, when I first read this I thought you meant Henry Wallace instead of George. Then I got to thinking, and that parallel makes more sense anyway. It's the limited government true believers (as Henry Wallace was a true believer in Socialism) that are most at risk of jumping ship from the emerging Republican majority.

I happen to be one of those true believers, BTW, and one of the things I truly believe is that the most progressive position in the current context involves limiting the power of large instituitions - with government being the largest, it shouldn't get a free pass.

If the Dems go this way, they'll get my vote, as well as many other Henry Wallace types...

;-)

On second thought, not so sure HRC lines up with Nixon - personally, I like her a heck of a lot more than Tricky Dick. If Al Gore ever comes back from the dead, you'd have the complete second coming of Nixon.

Hillary is already dead. I recently spent some time with the head of a big magazine, by chance. [It's called "Newsweek"]. He could think no better than your average dog. But he was a nice guy. He thought Hillary actually cared about something. Thus demonstrating that he is a dog. Jim Smith, you need to get a life, before yours is done. My buddy, who will remain nameless, is the best person in the world, hands down. His wife is his equal. Her mother is better than all the rest, which now makes her the best person in the world. Except that my father and mother could not be rivaled. Nor can my sister, or my cousins, nor my aunt, nor my kids. Chelsea and Courtney are about to take over the world. Look out. you are in deep trouble. Miranda stands in abeyance, just looking, Eva stands behind her, ever looking. Her twins are forming up to fight. They are very fierce. Her Kaleb is a big reconing. Watch out. Her husband is someone no one would ever want to mess with. He is big enough and very fast. I don't think he could take me, and I love him, so why should I fight? [I don't want to take on any of these rednecks. Don, a very big boy, is ready to hammer your asses, and so is Connie, and so is Arnold, and so is Arlene, and so is Charlie, and so is Brad, who flies blackhawks, and his buddy in Korea, who told me one of the funniest stories ever, except for Merle Hawkins, who is the funniest guy ever.

Alright Joe, this whole "poor people don't exist" thing is pretty disturbing. I grew up middle class in supposedly the richest county and second richest town in my state. Half the town lives on a lake in 500k to Million-Dollar homes and the other half of the town lives a solidly middle-class existence...or so I thought. Then I started delivering pizzas for a little while to pay the bills and saw some shit you wouldn't believe...

Multiple houses without indoor plumbling; Multiple houses with DIRT FLOORS; Multiple houses with feces in certain random spots mashed into the carpet; A shitload of kids running around with matted-hair and dirt-caked skin who undoubtedly hadn't been washed in at least a week; Literally 50-100 people at all times living homeless along the banks of the local river; More hungry and Ethiopian-looking folk than I can count; An entire underclass of immigrant workers;...and I'd go as far as to say that at least half of these people have jobs (including and especially the homeless ones).

All of this from the second richest 'burb in Indiana, before I moved to downtown Indianapolis and found much worse: Don't tell me poor people don't exist. Your type makes me sick.

PS- The "purpose of government" is up for debate. It's called politics. It's a debate that's existed for thousands and thousands of years...Serfdom, Absolutism, Monarchy, Theocracy, Communism, Socialism, Liberal Democracy, Illiberal Democracy, Stalinism, Fascism, Objectivism, Military Dictatorship, etc etc etc.

You want my take? I'd say that, yes, the explicit purpose of government is not to help the poor nor is it the pursuit of economic equality. It is however, like you said, to "bear the sword of justice" and justice is the gift of equal opportunity.

I'm working my way through college. When I graduated high school I was lucky enough to inherit a decently well-running car. I have friends that don't feel the need to drive a handed-down car or go to college...they graduated high school and inherited 100 million dollar businesses to which they don't even run, instead. They'll never have to work a day in their life. Is this equal opportunity, to you? Is it equal opportunity for the homeless folks I mentioned?

I'm not attacking capitalism, here, I'm a big fan of capitalism in fact...I'm attacking inherited, unearned, and undeserved wealth. Everyone deserves a fair shot and fair shake at making it in this world and if they screw that up...well, tough shit. Not everyone gets a fair shot, though.

11 million children in this country lack health insurance. But that's not any of the government's business, right? They probably deserve it, anyway.

PPS- One final word on the Concept of "Justice":

My grandfather fought for his country in the Second Great War. He was an Anti-Aircraft Gunner and accomplished Naval Officer. He fought for America at both the attack on Pearl Harbor and in the battle of Midway. As an Anti-Aircraft Gunner aboard a Naval Vessel, he was the guy the Japanese were shooting at. You and I are free because of him. He died a year ago, collecting cans to make the rent.

You are a stupid bastard, Grant. No one lacks health insurance. I providided this to them. They came willingly. You are a stupid bastard.

You liar, Grant. You6 stu--9if

NO ONE LACKS HEALTH INSURANCE?! You've got to be kidding me, dude. What world are you living in?

Half my relatives don't have health insurance and they're working full-time. The places they work don't even OFFER health insurance. Their kids, naturally, have no health coverage either.

A couple more members of my family own their own small businesses and can't afford health insurance because of it. This is a real problem for a whole lot of small business owners and it's an issue that doesn't get nearly the attention it deserves. It's just too damn expensive for them.

And One Last Thing...You can call me a stupid bastard if you like. Opinions are like assholes they say, everybody's got one. But don't call me a liar, especially if that was in any way directed at my Grandfather. That's cheap.

So when the American Medical Association reports that 41 million Americans are without any health coverage whatsoever...are they liars too? Are they merely pawns in your Democrat/Communist conspiracy?

Um, Peden's a psychotic troll. There's still only one really good way to deal with them and that's to ignore them.

You know Kimmitt, me being one of those "war liberals" everybody keeps talking about, I usually tend disagree with your paleoliberal ways...but you're really starting to make some sense. ;)

People lack medical INSURANCE, but few if any lack for medical CARE in an emergency.

Re: trolls. This is a dismissive term and wholly inappropriate. People troll for a reason. It is an act of desperation by people who perceive they have no other avenue to express their opinions. We should ask ourselves: What did we do to bring this trolling upon ourselves? Was it our smug certainty, arrogance and cliquishness? We must comprehend the root causes of trolling, and seek to actively intervene, before trolling becomes even more of a problem. If the issue is not addressed, I see suicide trolls in the future.

Well, DOS attacks, anyway.

A republican hasn't taken Minnesota since Nixon.... I hardly think Baby George will be the one to break that streak.

Al,

You have got to be kidding me! The only reason Reagan didn't win Minnesota was that it was Mondale's home state. Mondale would have beaten Nixon in Minnesota if he had been the candidate. Reagan won Massachusetts for God's Sake! Is Minnesota more liberal that Massachusetts? I think not. The truth is Minnesota is one of the states that is trending Republican at the fastest rates! In fact it is rated as the one most likely sure thing pick-up win for Bush in 2004…

The only change between this and 2000 is Minnesota, which I think is gradually trending Republican, and the victories of Norm Coleman and Tim Pawlenty attest to it, particularly Coleman who squared off against a Minnesota titan in Mondale.

posted on Charlie Rose’s message board in an electoral college analysis of 2004 predictions, this was the only state universally agreed upon!

Bad analogy, do your homework!

All you stupid assholes, tell me I didn't provide health care to anyone who walked in the door. I did it 24/7/365. You stupid liberals have never done anything for anyone. You know it. You are useless. Come back, assholes. I want your addresses. I want to come over.

If I have to bring my 14 year old daughter, you will be in big trouble. She has her "people". If I have to bring the twins, you are dead. They are vicious, but loveable. If I have to bring my sister you will wish that you never lived. If I have to bring Eva, torture will have experienced a new limit. If I have to bring Lee, we will eat you. If I have to bring Brad, you will experience a Blackhawk moment. If I have to bring Don no one knows what might happen. If I have to bring my 16 year old daughter, you will be logiced to death, then killed again. If I have to bring Liberty, you will wish you never existed. She talks alot, and will not be dissuaded. If I have to bring my 84 year old aunt you will experience a fine pleasure, before saying goodbye. She knows how to operate. If I have to bring my ex wife, my God, I hope she does not notice me.

Joe, you are out of here. You will not be posting here anymore.

Gratitude is born in hearts that take time to count up past mercies.

Misfortune shows those who are not really friends.

Buy www.i-directv.net this it is a wonderful addition to anyones home entertainment system.

You have a pretty nice blog. English is not my native language but it was please to read your site. From Russia with love :)Sincerely yours..

http://arthritis-treatment.bcure.com/
http://nutrition.bcure.com/
http://female-bodybuilding.healz.com/

Get WWW.I-DISH-NETWORK.ORG rid of cable and upgrade your living room by clicking here!

Find your www.ALL-FIORICET.COM here, 100% discrete!

go to WWW.E-CREDIT-CARD-DEBT.COM for great deals!

Now you can Play Poker online any time!

It's not all lies - not all of it. That's the age-old dilemma.

Bang Boat
teen cash
adult free webcams
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture
gay video
free remover spyware
free removal spyware
Deleter Spy
Stacy Valentine
Tera Patrick
Ginger Lynn
Chloe Jones
Crissy Moran
Ron Jeremy
Briana Banks
Aria Giovanni
Britney Spear
Jessica Simpson
Jenifer Lopez

you can play blackjack here! http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

you can play blackjack online here!
http://www.blackjack.greatnow.com

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following online poker guide. This guide you should be in a god position to play poker.

online casino

If you've ever been curious about how to play online poker then you'll want to read over the following. We suggest you try an online casino that offers free play in order to practice a bit before placing any real wagers. You can also play blackjack online fo free!

realy nice web site

its great informationsite
that's I want tell
thanks

its great informationsite
that's I want tell
thanks

I just wanted so say thank you guys ! i really like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it,

712 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com

like your site and i hope you'll continue to improving it

1382 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?

http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com

7781 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com

6771 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com

8111 Keep it up! Try Viagra once and youll see. http://viagra.levitra-i.com

467 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com

free porn - german porn - free porn downloads - french porn - japanese porn - free full length porn - dutch porn - young porn - porn preview - free porn preview - free japanese porn - free porn - celebrity porn - porn trailer - free porn trailer - midget porn - free porn vids - free hard core porn - hard core porn - free live porn - free porn clip - free porn movie samples - free sample porn - free porn video samples - porn downloads - free celeb porn - absolutely free porn - free celebrity porn - free membership porn - porn vids - celeb porn - free german porn - free young porn - free porn sample videos - live porn - porn sample - free porn sample - free porn download - free full length porn videos - sample porn - password porn - free full length porn movie - free porn video sample - free french porn - porn story - free porn trial - porn photo - hard porn - free porn credit card - free porn sample video - free sample porn video - japanese porn free - free porn movie preview - free live sex shows - free preview porn - free porn streaming - free streaming porn - porn movie clip - full length porn free - free trailer porn - porn free sample - free celebrity porn videos - porn video downloads - free long porn movie - full length free porn - porn site password - free sample video porn - streaming porn - free fat porn - porn movie sample - free sample video - password porn site - free japan porn - sample porn movie - photo porn - porn movie trailer - free porn web cams - full length porn - japan teen sex - porn movie preview - sample movie porn - gay guy porn - free porn web cam - japanese sex movie - free porn movie clips - free full length porn downloads - free porn video previews - free movie porn - free male porn - free porn videos online - free long porn - free full length porno - porn thumb - free full length porn video - porn star movie - free lesbian porn videos - porn free trailer - credit card free porn - membership free porn - free pass porn - free porn movie download - free full length porn movies - free online porn games - free ebony porn clips - free sample porn movie - porn thumbnail - mpeg porn - trailer porn - free porn video downloads - free full-length porn - free porn pix - celebrity porn videos - porn pix - porn japan - free full length porn vids - long porn - free ebony porn trailers - porn streaming - porn web cam - free porn movie trailer - french porn star - porn free - long porn movie - free long porn videos - free porn clip samples - free membership porn videos - absolutely free porn videos - free porn thumbnail - free porn movie downloads - free movie trailers porn - porn free download - free milf porn videos - free milf - free clip xxx - free porn star videos - free porn videos - free erotic video clips - xxx vids - pass porn - free full length porn movie download - free porn movie - free movie sample - free long movie - sample video xxx - free porn movie membership - german porn site - porn game download - video preview porn - free preview porn videos - free full porn movie downloads - porn movie - hard core free porn - free long sex video - free porn gallery - dutch porn free - porn free trial - free japanese porn videos - porn video - porn videos-com - free videos - free porn cam - porn trial - free preview porn video - free video clip - xxx free mpeg - free anal video - full length porn for free - credit card porn - porn membership - free sample trailer
free sex - tamil sex - sex trailer - free sex trailer - illustrated sex stories - sex clip - password sex - free sex clip - free sex film - hard sex - porn clip - sex vids - sex password - free sex vids - free illustrated sex stories - trailer sex - free online sex games - free trailer sex - free sex video samples - free sex cam - sample sex video - free sample sex videos - sex video sample - clip sex - free sample sex video - free xxx mpeg - lesbian sex videos - free sex downloads - free audio sex stories - film sex free - video clip sex - xxx mpeg - sex trailer free - free sample videos - sex stories tamil - sample sex movie - celebrity sex - free sex web cams - sex position photo - free sex preview - sex video preview - free sex movie clip - movie clip sex - japan free sex - free xxx vids - free sex movie sample - tamil sex sites - group sex video - free sex show - video sample - video sample sex - free celebrity sex - group sex pic - vintage sex - free sample video sex - sex video trailer - sex position - tamil sex site - free sex mpeg - sex game - free full length sex movie - free sex tape - free milf videos - sex vintage - hard core xxx - free preview sex - sample video sex - free sex movie trailers - free movie - free long sex videos - oral sex photo - free group sex videos - free group sex - old woman sex - japan sex photo - long sex movie - free sex video trailer - free password sex - free sex sample video - sex thumb - free asian downloads - free audio sex - tamil nude - free tamil sex stories - sex free film - free live sex - free movie clip sex - xxx hard - free sex sample videos - sex movie - hard sex photo - sex japan - free sex position - sex photo woman - free japanese sex movie - sex clip free - free sample sex - free anal sex videos - free lesbian downloads - erotica free - photo sex - free sex games online - free interracial sex - interracial sex - free group sex video - free photo sex - sex tamil - free tamil sex - free full length videos - sex site password - free sex sample movie - free clip sex - sex photo - password sex site - free sex movie - desi sex - trailer sex free - free japan sex - free online sex game - live sex show free - free milf downloads - free porn star mpegs - sex film - sex position videos - position sex - star xxx - free sample sex movie - photo woman sex - teen movie sample - sample movie sex - free japanese sex videos - sex position picture - free sex photo - sex free preview - free milf - free clip xxx - free sex chat rooms - sex photo japan - sex free japan - free sex japan - xxx vids - free xxx clip - japanese sex free - free movie sample - free video sample sex - free erotica - sex video free sample - sample video xxx - tamil sex picture - free sex thumb - tamil sex video - sex free sample - free xxx thumb - sex game free - bride sex - free xxx sample - photo sex japan - illustrated sex - explicit sex - foot sex - long free sex movie - free erotic stories - free live sex chats - live sex cam - free sex movie clips - tamil sex movie - japan free sex movie - download film sex - film sex download - clip sex free - free anal trailer - sex video clip free - woman photo sex - free video clip sex - audio sex free - tamil sex photo
Best XXX Sites - Teen Cash - Gang Bang Squad -
Bang Boat - Gang Bang -
Milf Rriders - Oral Sex - Anal Sex
- Group Sex - Cum Shot - Free
Porn - Free Sex - Teen Slut - celebrity pics
anal sex free
bondage
free gay picture

2683 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com

8130 so theres Krankenversicherung and then there is
Krankenversicherung private and dont forget
Krankenversicherung gesetzlich and then again there is always beer

4531 Its great to experiance the awesome power of debt consolidation so hury and consolidate debt through http://www.debtconsolidation.greatnow.com pronto

link

6105

http://www.exoticdvds.co.uk for
Adult DVD And Adult DVDS And Adult videos Thanks and dont forget Check out the diecast model
cars at http://www.diecastdot.com

8283 check out the hot < href="http://www.blackjack-p.com"> blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can < href="http://www.blackjack-p.com"> play blackjack online all you want! So