« Sign Up For DNC's Debate Response Team | Main | Debate Open Thread »

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Time to Leave North Carolina

Posted by DavidNYC

I hate to say this, but I think it's time we pulled out of NC and focused on some more important fish. Mason-Dixon's newest poll has this to say (LVs, mid-July in parens):

Kerry: 43 (45)
Bush: 52 (48)
Undecided: 4 (7)
(MoE: ��4%)

That's an ugly decline, but I'm not basing my opinion on one poll alone. Since the RNC, we haven't done better than four or five points down in any poll, and several (such as this) show us further back. I know some of you get frustrated when the Kerry camp announces it is pulling out of a given state, and I sympathize: I want to fight as broad a campaign as we possibly can.

But at a certain point, you have to decide what the true battlegrounds are. As my mom might say, you need to pick your battles. We don't need NC in order to win it all. I'm not saying we should retreat to just five states, but I also don't think we should be spreading ourselves thin in twenty-two. I also think that Easley and Bowles will do well in their respective races, without a big Kerry-Edwards presence in the state.

I know I've been bullish on NC in the past, so call me a flip-flopper. (Hey, I'll be in good company.) But I think I'm just bowing to reality here. Thought if you can make a case why we should still run strong in NC, I want to hear it.

Posted at 05:17 PM in North Carolina | Technorati


MoE 4%... which means the score could be as close as Bush 48-47.

Then if the undecideds break 3-1 for Kerry, he wins 50-49!

Posted by: anon at September 30, 2004 05:59 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

How about Virginia? We could really do well there if we put the time into it. Imagine the shock on Bush's face when he is told he lost in Virginia!

Assuming a MOE, we could get swing voters to break for us and new registered Dems and take Virginia.

Posted by: Robert Marlye at September 30, 2004 06:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Unfortunately, despite popular misconceptions, that's not how margins of error work.

Posted by: DavidNYC at September 30, 2004 06:26 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I should point out here that the MoE is a statistical number. Polls can be outside the MoE (5% chance). Polls can also be at the extreme of the MoE, but the probability of that is fairly low. In short if a well-conducted poll shows a difference of 9%, then the difference could be 7 or 8%. It'll very rarely be 1%.

Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 06:31 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm inclined to agree that NC is not a legitimate target and I never suspected it would be, at least this election cycle. I'll wait until after the debate before concurring with a pullout, but either way, I would love to see the money spent on North Carolina be redirected to Arkansas or even Missouri.

Posted by: Mark at September 30, 2004 06:45 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I was mostly being flippant.

In 2000, Bush won NC by 13 points. And with no Nader vote to boot. Turning that around is a mighty task.

Posted by: anon at September 30, 2004 07:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

True the battleground states need the highest priority. But I think the local movement should keep the pressure on in North Carolina. This is just one poll. Other polls have Bush performing weaker. I also understand that the Dem Senate and Governor candidates are leading there, as well as Inez Tenenbaum in South Carolina. I think it's still worth a second tier effort.

Posted by: Inkan1969 at September 30, 2004 07:47 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I hate to say it, but as y'all know, I've never believed that NC was a swing state. Edwards has never been as popular here as he has been outside of the state. Had it been otherwise, I would have thought Kerry might have a chance in this state with Edwards on the ticket. No, money spent here by the Kerry campaign would have been much better spent in other states.

I realize some view me as cynical, but I really do try and view things with an unbiased eye.

Posted by: Pepe at September 30, 2004 08:11 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

It's time for Kerry to start looking at the EV map and figure out what is a winning strategy. He can still win this election, with the right strategy. As much as I wanted Kerry to win NC, and thought he had a chance with Edwards, I think Kerry has to figure out how to win. The three states he really needs to focus on are OH, PA, and especially FL. Those states will put him in the White House.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 08:14 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

You're right, Rock. OH, PA and FL are the Big Three. However, PA comes as a huge surprise to me, and it was not a state I even considered up for grabs as recently as a five weeks ago. Until that time, I was certain the election would come down to OH, FL and MO. Now MO looks lost, and no longer relevant.

I'm not optimistic about OH, no matter how many Kerry signs one poster here keeps seeing. That state leans GOP and most polls show it trending that way again this time around. PA really should be Kerry's, and FL is the one that is as unpredictable as can be with all the hurricanes that have hit it.

I am absolutely convinced that if PA swings to Bush, it's over, and probably in a landslide. That is to say, if PA goes under the Bush column, he could have won easily even without PA. If PA remains blue, and Kerry can pick up FL, he'll have a better than 50-50 chance of becoming our next president.

I'm really looking forward to the debates--I just wish they were true debates instead of basically face-to-face prepared responses with no interaction between the candidates. Still, pseudo debates are better than nothing.

Posted by: Pepe at September 30, 2004 08:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I think that it made sense for Kerry to spend money in NC in July to make use of the momentum he had and to see if the state could be in play later. He also had only till the Dem convention to spend.

Now however, both money and time are in short supply, so NC has to go.

I think Kerry will take PA -- the Rendell machine is great, and he has a slight advantage in the state anyway. Plus, Teresa has good influence in Pittsburgh for her philantrophy.

Oh, I agree looks darn hard. Florida is unpredictable, but if Kerry can get it, I think he's got a 75% chance of winning. He can even afford to lose Wisconsin then.

Posted by: erg at September 30, 2004 08:42 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pepe, One thing you have to understand about PA is that it has a very conservative rural voting block. It's as conservative as many southern states or rural part of OH. I went to college in PA, they called in the buckle in the Bible Belt. It's not a slam dunk for Dems. Dems have to get out the vote in urban parts of PA and fight for the suburbs to win.

BTW, Kerry did very well in the debate tonight. Bush was his typical bumbling self. Kerry was forceful and assertive, without coming off as too pompous, like Gore. He's much more comfortable debating than Gore.

Posted by: Rock_nj at September 30, 2004 10:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Questions about poll numbers and campaign budgets:

It seems to me that the biggest place the pollsters can go wrong is in how they pick their samples. The MoE assumes that the people they interview are a random grab from the population of people who will go to the polls. How do they choose these samples?

Are they calling people? If so, there's a big group of people they won't reach because lots of people block telemarketers (and pollsters) or have unlisted numbers. Then you have to assume that these people have voting behavior similar to those who do pick up their phones. Is that a good assumption? Maybe. I don't know.

Are they stopping people on the street? If so, which neighborhoods to they use? We know that some neighborhoods lean left and some lean right.

How do they pick their samples? However they do it, I don't think the MoE takes this uncertainty into account.

I started wondering about the polls because I donated to a couple of campaigns featured on Emily's List, both of which were thought to be tigh based on polls. In both cases, the outcomes were far from close. It really surprised me.

On budgets. I can't really tell how much money the Dems have or need. I know they've raised a lot. And I know there are a bunch of 527s that have raised a lot and are supporting the Dems. But these campaigns cost a remarkable amount of money. How many states can the Dems afford to go after?

So I don't know what to make of the North Carolina question because I'm not sure about the poll numbers and I'm not sure about how thinly the Dems' financial resources are actually spread.

I do know that I'm very nervous about pinning all hopes on FLA.

Posted by: PaulG at October 1, 2004 02:04 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

That's true about picking the sample. One thing that has made Zogby more successful than most pollsters in recent Presidential elections is the fact that he used representative sampling in his polling. He tried to estimate the percentage of Rs, Ds and Indys that would show up on election day, and polled based up this breakdown. It has worked brillantly for him. Too many firms just randomly call people, and perhaps get 45% Republicans, 38% Democrats and the rest indies, when in reality that's not who's going to show up on election day.

Gallup is apparently weighting their polls something like 40% Republican and 35% Democrat (when in reality the parties are something more like 37% D and 36% R nowadays), which is why they consistently have a pro-Bush bias to their polls. It's not giving a real picture of the election, and Gallup will probably have egg all over their faces on election eve.

Posted by: Rock_nj at October 1, 2004 08:33 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Well, maybe...

However, some good news in the Carolinas: An internal poll for the Tenenbaum campaign shows her 3 points up from DeMint in SC. It is a partisan poll, but it makes sense due to her hammering him over the sales tax issue. Go Inez!

We'll have to see what this debate brings. I thought Kerry creamed Bush, but the media is being kind of moderate.

Posted by: Nathaniel at October 1, 2004 12:06 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

As a North Carolinian here, I have to concur. We had high hopes this summer, after the Edwards nomination and a few tight polls. But Bush appears to be pulling away, and with so many other states down to the wire, they should put their resources there.

My only beef with the DNC is that I don't think they EVER took NC very seriously. They did a few ads, made a few announcements, but on the ground there's never been much of an operation. In some of the biggest metro areas, there's been NO operation.

They never really gave it a shot. Which is too bad -- post-convention, there could have been something.

Posted by: Flash at October 1, 2004 04:40 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Would you believe I saw a pro-Bush ralley today on Franklin Street, across of the UNC campus? There were about 50 or 60 college students with signs, chanting in front of the post office. It was almost surreal, as this is a town where 90% of the bumper stickers and signs that you see are for Kerry. It's just too bad the rest of NC isn't as liberal as we are here in Chapel Hill and Durham.

I have to respectfully disagree with Flash. I'm also a North Carolinian, and I don't think that Edwards generated any significant excitement here. Whatever excitement there was, it was pretty ephemeral. After all, Edwards was never all that popular here. Many Tarheels have long felt that he never did much for NC while in the Senate, because he was more preoccupied with his national aspirations.

Posted by: pepe at October 1, 2004 05:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

So, besides Florida and Ohio, is there any Bush2000 state that should get attention, if not North Carolina? Is Missouri a better shot? Or should one hold out hope of a some kind of three-state package like New Hampshire/Nevada/half of Colorado (which would also require that Kerry hang on in Wisconsin)? Those alternatives seem to be as much longshots as N.C.

Posted by: Jerome at October 1, 2004 09:15 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I agree with pepe that Edwards was never enormously popular in NC. And swinging NC from a state that gave Bush a 13 point advantage to a true contender in four years is no small challenge.

That being said, most of the polls over the summer were very encouraging. Almost all had Kerry/Edwards within a 5 point margin. But the Dems -- for better or worse -- never took it seriously. Only time will tell if ignoring NC in favor of, say, Ohio (I hear that they've basically pulled up stakes in Mizzou -- which means they're starting to put their eggs in a very small number of baskets) was the right strategy.

Me, I think NC was within range. But not anymore.

Posted by: Flash at October 1, 2004 10:22 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Quick follow-up: another reason that Kerry/Edwards giving up on NC is bad is because we've got some other big races here. Senate seat, governorship, one of the top 10 battleground legislatures -- everything will be down to the wire here. Some extra Dem exposure would have done a lot to pull those races into the win column (and that may be the only reason that Edwards keeps popping down here from time to time, aside from fundraising).

Posted by: Flash at October 1, 2004 10:25 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

another reason that Kerry/Edwards giving up on NC is bad is because we've got some other big races here.

You may have a point there, Flash. The most recent poll (Mason-Dixon) has Bowle's large lead down to just 1% over Burr. Still, I question the accuracy of the Mason-Dixon poll, as Bowles has had a pretty nice lead up until this poll, which came out yesterday.

Still, I don't think a presidential candidate is going to base his spending decisions on other races to help the party--not when the candidate is in a tight race and has to really do all he can to find the states that will enable him to reach 270 EVs. He'd be much better off helping his own cause by not spending money in states like NC and instead putting it into OH, FLA, PA. . . .

Posted by: pepe at October 2, 2004 08:01 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Jerome, Kerry is likely to pick up New Hampshire. WV looked possible, but seems to be culturally moving towards it's southern neighbors. Big MO is a place Kerry might be able to win with the right pieces falling into place. AR and CO are suprisingly close. NV seems possible, but a long shot.

It comes down to this, Kerry can lose Gore states like WI and IA, and still win the election by picking up a state like FL.

Posted by: Rock_nj at October 2, 2004 09:29 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

i would worry more about winning maryland, nj, and
mn than dream about nc and mo.if kerry can`t win all the gore states he has no chance of getting elected.maybe he can live without wisc because that is gone.he needs pa. and either florida or ohio to even have a remote chance.unless he destroys bush in the next two debates it will be tough.just hope for a big turnout and hope they have been undercounting democrats. my gut feeling is kerry may win the popular vote and bush could actually get re-elected by getting the ev again.

Posted by: joel at October 2, 2004 09:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

That is true. Kerry can't win without states like PA, NJ, and MD. I think he's counting on the traditionally strong Democratic get out the vote efforts in those states to put him over the top. I think polls showing those states close are a bit misleading. All of those states have more Dems, and Dems tend to be underpolled, and Democratic get out the vote drives usually drive up turnout for Dems, so I think Kerry will win all of these states comfortably by 5% or more. I agree, if any of these northeastern states turns Red on election night, Kerry is done, it will be a long night.

But, to win the White House Kerry needs to win at least two or three red states. NH is an obvious one. WV seemed possible, but not anymore. It comes down to mainly FL and OH as real possibilities. If Kerry won big MO it would really end Bush's chances quickly. I think Kerry has a shot at winning CO, NV and AR. But, he'll have to fight for them. CO has been surprisingly close this year. A lot of young liberal voters are registering this year and the state's hispanic population is increasing, with turnout being driven by a hispanic running for the Senate.

Posted by: Rock_nj at October 2, 2004 11:02 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

My nightmare about CO is that that damned initiative to split the state's EVs in half will pass (last I heard 60% of the state's residents back it). Let's say Kerry wins CO outright--it won't be much of a prize if it he has to share it with Bush. If that initiative passes, and it has a bearing on this race either way, I'm sure the party on the losing end will take it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court possibly deciding the outcome of yet another election involving Bush? Oy! The possibility is very disturbing.

Posted by: pepe at October 4, 2004 01:48 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I wouldn't really count NC all the way out. You have to understand some demographcs. Its all going to be about voter turnout. If the central part of the state votes, it may go the other way. I agree Edwards is a liability as much as asset. I felt screwed when he announced he was running for president and basically went AWOL in the Senate and left his seat open to Burr (endorsed by Helms and bragged about it!)! His performance in the VP debate was not anything close to the democratic primary debates.

That being said, I'm a North Carolinian and I got politically active and I've never been so before. Its central NC. Its not about polls, central North Carolinians are cellular. I also think Bush's "Boots or Flip Flop" billboards in south NC and north SC may backfire. Its just a matter of the right people voting. Its not a state I'd prioritize over say PA, but I wouldn't write it off yet either.

Posted by: Andrew C. Oliver at October 16, 2004 11:09 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I'm also a North Carolinian who lives in the most Democratic part of the state--the Chapel Hill/Durham part of the Triangle. I took a drive to Winston-Salem yesterday. Based on all the Bush/Burr bumper stickers and yard signs I saw over in the Piedmont, I felt like I was in a completely different state. Winston-Salem is quite conservative, and my guess is Charlotte is as bad or even worse. It's that area which will tip the scales in NC to Bush.

And now, as unlikely as this would have sounded even a month ago, it looks like this same area will also tip the scales for Burr--the GOP candidate running for Edwards' vacated Senate seat. If Burr wins, it'll be the first time in memory that both of NC's senators represent a single party. It's looking bleak, as Erskine Bowles has lost all momentum and has been free-falling here for several weeks. His eleven-point lead is now turned into a two-point deficit in that time. I'm actually more concerned about the defeat of Bowles than the defeat of Bush here in the Tar Heel State. Burr is extremely conservative, and I just cannot believe he's not only made this a race, but that he has pulled ahead. Bowles losing would be devastating to us Democrats--made all the more so, because this was so unanticipated by anyone.

From what I've read, Burr's negatitive ads (showing Bowles with Clinton) have done the most damage. I guess it's the equivalent of showing Bowles with the boogey man. For some reason, Clinton has never been popular in this state, which truly baffles me to no end. Of course I equally don't understand how Helmes could be as popular as he was here, either.

At any rate, if NC votes for Kerry/Edwards, that would mean some sort of major October surprise would have to take place, and Bush would lose in an epic landslide. Unless that happens, NC will be keeping its GOP streak alive in presidential elections.

Posted by: pepe at October 17, 2004 08:50 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

And now, as unlikely as this would have sounded even a month ago, it looks like this same area will also tip the scales for Burr--the GOP candidate running for Edwards' vacated Senate seat. If Burr wins, it'll be the first time in memory that both of NC's senators represent a single party.

did ya hear of Helms/Faircloth (Helms retired before Dole and Edwards beat Faircloth). That was only 6 years ago or so?

Bowles is an uninspiring candidate, he opposes gay marriage and isn't 100% against an amendment. I'll only be voting for Bowles because Burr showed himself huggin ol Jesse during the primary. Otherwise I think I'd just abstain from that particular one. You realize the Independant (the chief "progressive" rag of our area) decided to endorse NOBODY in the primary because Bowles was so uninspiring? http://indyweek.com/durham/2004-07-14/cover2.html

He'll get no base support because he's trying to look virtually indistinguishable from Burr. So senate has NOTHING to do with the presidential race.

All I'm saying is that it will strictly come down to central NC turnout. The voter registration drives were VERY active. I registered probably over 100 people myself. Nearly all were first time voters or people who were voting for the first time in NORTH CAROLINA (students etc). The "vote early" effort was also very active. I'll be voting today. You can't write this state completely off. Lastly, take a long view... Every borderline republican state that they have to spend money/time/trips on hurts them. The fact that W came here more than a few tiems and had to buy billboards to energize his base says something. The fact that my neighborhood of primarily upper middle class income earners has more Kerry signs than Bush, says something. You're underestimating a real difference in this state. I saw not half as many gore stickers/signs in the 2000 election....hell, I didn't have one.

Posted by: Andrew C. Oliver at October 17, 2004 02:02 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Andrew, Erskine Bowles is in favor of discriminating against gays? Are you sure? I could have sworn that he was opposed to gay marriage but in favor of gay unions with all the same rights as a married couple enjoy. Did he change his opinion? If you are correct about this, Bowles just lost my vote.

Posted by: pepe at October 17, 2004 05:44 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

So I voted today. I did all my research (the judicial campaigns are a real toughy!)


Erskine B. Bowles (D) in North Carolina has said he would support the amendment as a last resort, according to his campaign.

He's really ambiguous, he opposes but would support a gay marriage ban amendment as a "last resort"... What does that mean?

However, Burr is far worse and is really a tool of the special interests.


However, we digress. Today I went to vote at the BOE early and there was an actual line (I'm leaving for India on Wednesday and won't be back till after the election)! It will all come out to turnout. There were folks standing in front of the "No Campaigning beyond this point" sign with Kerry buttons. It will all come down to turnout in central NC.

Posted by: Andrew C. Oliver at October 17, 2004 11:17 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yeah, I found Bowles' "last resort" comment, too. Well, he's not getting my vote tomorrow. But I certainly won't vote for Burr, either. I just won't vote for either of them. Any candidate who is not gay friendly will not get my vote. Period.

Posted by: pepe at October 17, 2004 11:34 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Pope- I hear where youre coming from, but PLEASE reconsider. As a gay man, I proudly pulled the Bowles lever in downtown Raleigh on Day #1 of early voting. Stood in line to do it. Surely you understand that it would be political suicide to come out FIRMLY in support of gay marriage in this state. Burr would mop the FLOOR with Bowles.

I myself have to trust that, once Ersking wins his six years in the Senate, he will be able to move a bit to the left. NC is moving to the left, although sadly not far enough this year. With RTP, Asheville, Wilmington, and even Charlotte growing bluer, we'll be an extremely competitive battleground state in 2008. The groundwork is laid.

PLEASE dont concede a six year Senate post to a gay-bashing right wing fascist. I hate to vote lesser of two evils, but once WHOEVER wins here gets to DC, their true selves will show. Whose "true self" do you think will waver TOWARD civil rights for minorities over the next six years? Again, PLEASE reconsider.

Posted by: RNinNC at October 18, 2004 12:07 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yes I am gay, and I have to say you need to look at the overall record of the candidate. Don't not vote for him just because he is not an advocate for gay marriage. The sad truth is not many candidates can take that stand right now and be viable. Go for the lesser of two evils if you have to. There is no question at this point that the Repugs are totally homophobic in practice, whatever the individual candidate says.

Posted by: oddofme at October 18, 2004 03:30 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

I mostly agree with the comments above. I'm not gay but I'm not threatened by gay folks, don't support persecuting them, and think the Constitution should *add* rights and not take them away (we tried that before, see Al Capone). I abstained from a few local elections because both candidates miffed me and it really didn't matter. The Senate race is too important. If Burr wins, he'll set North Carolina back substantially. At least Dole is a do-nothing moderate with a name. Burr is a pretty bad guy. He totally serves Tobacco and the special intrests. Erskine is just a very unimpressive political type that will do no harm. The problem is that Burr will make his own wind and we'll end up with a right leaning senate. Lastly, if Congress decides the election (tie, no judicial decisions), don't you want at least Cheney gone? (Senate picks the VP, House picks the President)

Posted by: Andrew C. Oliver at October 18, 2004 09:51 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Saw the posts and wanted to say that I think we might be surpised by Charlotte this time around. I generally see 2 Kerry signs/stickers to every one of Bush's. I don't know if we'll win the city, but it's going to be very close here. I'm afraid the election will come down to what happens in the I-85 corridor. Gastionia, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem will be the deciders for the state.

Posted by: Jason - Charlotte at October 18, 2004 10:43 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

More evidence that NC is still in play: http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=76961

A late surge of more than 100,000 voter registrations has pushed the number of North Carolinians eligible to vote in the Nov. 2 general election to nearly 5.5 million.
The number of registered voters on the books through Saturday -- 5,472,854 -- is an increase of more than 446,000 since Jan. 1, raising the prospect of unexpected outcomes in a number of closely contested races.
Democrats in particular have benefited from last-minute registrations, with 45,880 of those added to the state's rolls between Oct. 9 and Saturday affiliating themselves with the party.

More Information

Voter Registration
More Information

NEW TO THE POLLS: A surge of people registering to vote before the Oct. 8 deadline means North Carolina likely will top 5.5 million eligible voters for the Nov. 2 general election.

FOUR YEARS AGO: There were 5.12 million North Carolinians who were eligible for the 2000 general election.

WHO GAINS?: Democrats have out-registered Republicans by more than 13,000 among voters hitting the rolls since Oct. 9. But analysts say people who register in mass drives often don't bother to vote.

COUNTY BY COUNTY: Among the counties that have seen the biggest jump in registrations: Durham; Mecklenburg; Orange; Union.

-- Associated Press

That's compared to 32,794 who registered as Republicans and 22,624 who did not affiliate with any party. Libertarians picked up 580 new registrants.

For the year to date, Democrats have gained 167,965 new voters, while Republicans have picked up 156,875 and 119,095 have registered as independents.
Its not over yet.

Posted by: Andrew C. Oliver at October 19, 2004 08:59 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment

Yow, just got to Durham yesterday to visit family on the way to FL. Now hearing again how close it could be here (Bowles-Burr too), esp. with the new registrations announced today. Was set on heading to Orlando tomorrow to work for ACT & LCV for 2 wks, but now again considering staying here til Nov.2. Hmmm....

Posted by: mike t at October 19, 2004 11:05 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment