Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 06:15:58 AM



Title: State Changes in 2004
Post by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 06:15:58 AM
hmm


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 06:16:29 AM
Changing from how it voted in 2000 to how it will vote in 2004.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: TheWildCard on March 22, 2004, 06:56:43 AM
I'd have to say Wisconsin


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 22, 2004, 07:42:37 AM

sorry but no way is Wisconsin the most marginal Dem state…while its result in 2000 was a very slim win for Gore, it was not as slim as Gore’s wins in NM and IA both of which I would say that while tossups are leaning to Bush this time around…factor in a less strong Nader run (in 2000 he got nearly 4%) and that adds between 1.5 and 2% IMHO to the Dem total…add to that the normal interchange of moderates who voted for one party last time but will vote for the other party this time around, which will probably have a very marginal effect and the Dems have the advantage…in addition the make up of its elected officials is overwhelmingly Democratic… the Governor and Lieutenant governor are Democrats, both Senators are Democrats, four of the eight congressmen are democrats and over 800,000 people took part in the Democratic primary this year…now that is a state which must be seen to lean solidly to the Democrats…admittedly it will be close, though I would hazard not as close as last time round, but it will only fall to the GOP after states such as NM, IA and MN…

Back to the original question for the GOP, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia are the most likely to be lost this time around… while for the Dems, Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico are probably the most at risk…                    


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 07:56:11 AM
Not Florida???  The last poll I saw had Kerry 8 points up.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: © tweed on March 22, 2004, 08:06:56 AM
New Mexico.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: minionofmidas on March 22, 2004, 08:11:08 AM
Other. Tied between NH and WV.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 22, 2004, 08:17:37 AM
New Mexico is very hard for Kerry to hold... WV is very hard for Bush to hold...
I voted other


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 22, 2004, 08:48:04 AM
I voted Iowa, but it's pretty hard to call, since there are a lot of tossups in this election.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 10:05:27 AM
Why does everyone keep saying New Mexico will be hard to hold???  This is mind boggling to me...  Bush lost last time because he was trounced in the hispanic vote...  which has now increased as a ratio of the total vote...  I also suspect Nader will poll less there.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 22, 2004, 10:25:18 AM
I agree that Iowa will probably be harder...but most importantly, people forget about PA, which I think Kerry will have trouble with...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on March 22, 2004, 01:56:08 PM
I also don't understand why everyone thinks NM will be tough for Kerry to win. Like Arizona, it's been trending more Democratic. If Kerry has a chance at Arizona, he has no chance of losing NM.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: angus on March 22, 2004, 01:58:51 PM
Given those choices:  NEW MEXICO.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Platypus on March 22, 2004, 03:19:02 PM
At this stage, I am 80% sure IA will swap, the highest probability in my mind, followed by NM and about 70%.

The highest for going GOP-dem is NH, followed by WV. I think FL is next because there could well be a massive turnout of ANGRY Floridian democrats this year.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: opebo on March 22, 2004, 03:21:17 PM
New Mexico and Iowa.   In fact those could be the *only* states that shift.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: 7,052,770 on March 22, 2004, 06:05:10 PM
Ohio


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 22, 2004, 06:17:30 PM

At this stage, I am 80% sure IA will swap, the highest probability in my mind, followed by NM and about 70%.

The highest for going GOP-dem is NH, followed by WV. I think FL is next because there could well be a massive turnout of ANGRY Floridian democrats this year.

What about Ohio...economic factors there should help the dems far more than in FL or NH


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: zachman on March 22, 2004, 07:55:46 PM
Of these Florida. Ohio gets second. Overall NH is 80% likely to switch and West Virginia is  probably second.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: bgwah on March 22, 2004, 08:20:18 PM
Party changes me sees:

1. Ohio to the dems
2. New Mexico to the reps
3. Florida to the dems



Although New Hampshire is missing from your poll, I think they have the biggest chance of switching.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: zachman on March 22, 2004, 08:22:04 PM
Jesus, who will you be voting for in November?


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: WMS on March 22, 2004, 10:13:27 PM
I've been wondering about something that y'all brought up in this topic...

How do you think New Mexico will go this year, and just as importantly, why? I of course have my own opinions but will not state them here since I don't want to bias any of the answers. I'm very curious what the opinion of others is about odd old New Mexico...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on March 22, 2004, 10:25:03 PM
Jesus, who will you be voting for in November?

Republicans think they know the answer to that - however, there are a lot of things the Republicans think they know, and are in fact clueless on :).


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: angus on March 22, 2004, 10:29:38 PM
I'll bite.  My boss is from NM and he's a flaming Democrat.  An angry vitriolic democrat obsessed with engaging in the sort of educational pop psychology that democrats are so fond of with Republicans such as Bush, Reagan, and Lincoln, in particular, and Hoover to a lesser extent.  He says there is no way NM is going to go to Bush.  Reason enough for me to think that it is.  But since I have other reasons, I'll state them.  Primarily, it's the inroads made by the GOP with the spanish-speaking population there.  Sure, they do not turn out to vote in great numbers like other segments, but every little bit helps.  All you need is 378 more!  Not to mention the fact it's prototypically southwestern.  Clean air and low taxes.  High-spirited cowboys and such.  I was in NM just a couple of months ago.  Saw lots of BC stickers.  And Margaret, a woman I knew in graduate school, the staunchest Republican I have ever met in my life couldn't wait to get out of Boston when she finished and head straight to New Mexico.  Which she did.  Promptly.  I realize that bit of anecdotal evidence may not mean much to most people.  But it does to me.  I say NM will go to Bush.  (somebody will drag this out eight months from now and make me eat it if Bush loses.)


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: WMS on March 23, 2004, 12:12:09 AM
Hooked. :D

Pretty good description except for the low taxes part. 50+ years of Democratic control does not = low taxes. :)
And we're so dependent on government for employment that if the feds decided to pull stakes and leave the population would implode like something out of the 1930's. ;D Still, not all Hispanics are alike...witness the NM polling results on gay marriage/civil union/const. amend. in another topic. This state may be borderline Democratic in voting, but it definitely leans in a socially conservative direction. So it certainly is possible for Bush to win...I'm just not sure the NM Reps are organized enough to take advantage of it...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: angus on March 23, 2004, 12:21:14 AM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: TheWildCard on March 23, 2004, 12:55:39 AM
I won't argue with you that my selection isn't the logical choice but I have a gut feeling on it...



sorry but no way is Wisconsin the most marginal Dem state…while its result in 2000 was a very slim win for Gore, it was not as slim as Gore’s wins in NM and IA both of which I would say that while tossups are leaning to Bush this time around…factor in a less strong Nader run (in 2000 he got nearly 4%) and that adds between 1.5 and 2% IMHO to the Dem total…add to that the normal interchange of moderates who voted for one party last time but will vote for the other party this time around, which will probably have a very marginal effect and the Dems have the advantage…in addition the make up of its elected officials is overwhelmingly Democratic… the Governor and Lieutenant governor are Democrats, both Senators are Democrats, four of the eight congressmen are democrats and over 800,000 people took part in the Democratic primary this year…now that is a state which must be seen to lean solidly to the Democrats…admittedly it will be close, though I would hazard not as close as last time round, but it will only fall to the GOP after states such as NM, IA and MN…

Back to the original question for the GOP, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia are the most likely to be lost this time around… while for the Dems, Iowa, Minnesota and New Mexico are probably the most at risk…                    



Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: minionofmidas on March 23, 2004, 04:16:28 AM
New Mexico might very well go Republican. I'd consider it a marginally Dem-leaning tossup, just that wee bit safer than WV or NH. Like, 57,5% chance of holding?


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: CTguy on March 23, 2004, 09:58:00 AM
I didn't put New Hampshire on the list because I think there is almost concensus that that state is more likely than not to go for Kerry.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2004, 11:23:42 AM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 23, 2004, 01:00:04 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2004, 01:01:38 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....

Even though I think the Hispanic vote is trending Bush, I do believe the majority still vote Dem? Anyway, Richardson should help with the Hispanic vote in NM.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 23, 2004, 01:08:02 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....

Even though I think the Hispanic vote is trending Bush, I do believe the majority still vote Dem? Anyway, Richardson should help with the Hispanic vote in NM.


Your proably right about Richardson helping Kerry....what was Richardson's margin when he got elected?...but i think the Hispanics trend to Bush not the GOP itself...i think that Jeb would also have apeal to them but then again his experaince is with Cubans...but as a texan its not suprisng that W is keen to apeal to and sucessful at apealing to Hispanic voters...but i dont think that is true for the rest of the GOP....
   


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: DarthKosh on March 23, 2004, 01:10:08 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....

Even though I think the Hispanic vote is trending Bush, I do believe the majority still vote Dem? Anyway, Richardson should help with the Hispanic vote in NM.


Your proably right about Richardson helping Kerry....what was Richardson's margin when he got elected?...but i think the Hispanics trend to Bush not the GOP itself...i think that Jeb would also have apeal to them but then again his experaince is with Cubans...but as a texan its not suprisng that W is keen to apeal to and sucessful at apealing to Hispanic voters...but i dont think that is true for the rest of the GOP....
   

Richardson had a weak opponet so it wouldn't really translate.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 23, 2004, 01:24:57 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....

Even though I think the Hispanic vote is trending Bush, I do believe the majority still vote Dem? Anyway, Richardson should help with the Hispanic vote in NM.


Your proably right about Richardson helping Kerry....what was Richardson's margin when he got elected?...but i think the Hispanics trend to Bush not the GOP itself...i think that Jeb would also have apeal to them but then again his experaince is with Cubans...but as a texan its not suprisng that W is keen to apeal to and sucessful at apealing to Hispanic voters...but i dont think that is true for the rest of the GOP....
   

Richardson had a weak opponet so it wouldn't really translate.

who...did the republican Gov from 2000...I saw him on that documentary by that Actor Philip Hoffman (I think that’s the actors name the blonde version of Jack Black) about the 2000 election...well did that Gov run for re-election (he was very pro-cannabis and other drug legalisation as I remember)...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: DarthKosh on March 23, 2004, 01:26:42 PM
Astute observations, all.  And we could talk about the convenience stores in northwestern NM and northeastern AZ with a few old brown bananas and a few loaves of bread and nothing else on empty shelves.  The third world right here in the four corners of the USA.  And the GOP is lacking in the 'compassionate' I realize.  It is a total guess.  I surrender.   :)

But be careful if you seriously attempt to call your taxes high.  Or expenses for that matter.  People here post from places where the taxes really are high.

Exactly. :) 52% of GDP anyone?

I think New Mexico is a basic tossup. I have it leaning VERY MARGINALLY to Kerry, but I'd say maybe 50.1% chance of going Kerry and 49.99% of going Bush, if you get what I mean. Richardson and more Hispanics is the basic argument for Kerry and the fact that the entire South-West is trending Dem.


But then again Hispanics could be a reason to give the advantage to Bush....are there any polls out showing how Bush is doing amoungst Hispanics at the moment....it really does come down to how Bush attempts to win over hispanic voters goes down with them IMHO....

Even though I think the Hispanic vote is trending Bush, I do believe the majority still vote Dem? Anyway, Richardson should help with the Hispanic vote in NM.


Your proably right about Richardson helping Kerry....what was Richardson's margin when he got elected?...but i think the Hispanics trend to Bush not the GOP itself...i think that Jeb would also have apeal to them but then again his experaince is with Cubans...but as a texan its not suprisng that W is keen to apeal to and sucessful at apealing to Hispanic voters...but i dont think that is true for the rest of the GOP....
   

Richardson had a weak opponet so it wouldn't really translate.

who...did the republican Gov from 2000...I saw him on that documentary by that Actor Philip Hoffman (I think that’s the actors name the blonde version of Jack Black) about the 2000 election...well did that Gov run for re-election (he was very pro-cannabis and other drug legalisation as I remember)...


I think he was term-limited.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Nation on March 23, 2004, 01:29:35 PM
I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2004, 01:33:59 PM
I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.

Add PA swinging, and you basically have my prediction. :)


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: DarthKosh on March 23, 2004, 01:44:05 PM
I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.

Add PA swinging, and you basically have my prediction. :)

I think Pa swings GOP.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 23, 2004, 02:10:48 PM
 


I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.

Add PA swinging, and you basically have my prediction. :)

I think Pa swings GOP.

really really doubt it.... PA is a second tier swing state...if the GOP wins there...then they will probably win FL, WV, NH, IA, NM and MN....a Bush swing of 3-4% would be needed to win PA...Gore did win there by 5% last time round...there are far far more marginal states


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on March 23, 2004, 03:44:47 PM
I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.

Add PA swinging, and you basically have my prediction. :)

I think Pa swings GOP.

That's what I said. :)

Ben,

it was 4.17%. And I think Kerry will underperform in the steel states, especially in PA...it's just my gut feeling.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: classical liberal on March 23, 2004, 04:37:05 PM
I think that after Bush bungled the protectionism he was pushing and especially after he renounced protectionism all together and began criticising his opponenent for supporting it he will be screwed amongst steelers, miners, and factory workers.  Considering that the additional profit to the manufacturing sector from the influx of foreign steel was not translated to higher pay for employees, Bush is probably screwed there too, ergo the 6% margin in Indiana after the latest poll.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 23, 2004, 06:34:03 PM
I'm thinking Iowa swings back to the GOP. New Hampshire will most likely go Dem, too.

Add PA swinging, and you basically have my prediction. :)

I think Pa swings GOP.

That's what I said. :)

Ben,

it was 4.17%. And I think Kerry will underperform in the steel states, especially in PA...it's just my gut feeling.


Why?... free trade and unemployment are big issues in these states (WV, OH and PA) and both will hurt Bush…added to this both the GOP and the Dems will be pouring massive amounts of money and ads into these states so I doubt either Bush or Kerry will sweep them…if Toomey gets nominated in PA then that will also probably help Kerry… remember there are 200,000 unemployed in OH!...how many of these will vote for Bush?...Kerry will do just as well as Gore in these states IMHO, he will also benefit from those in the steel industry who voted for Bush in 2000 and are now angry at him for repealing the steel tariffs…so I really disagree with your argument that Kerry will under perform in the steel states…on the balance of things he might do worse than Gore but he still has the advantage over Bush…and don’t underestimate those blue collar steel workers who voted Bush in 2000 and will be inclined towards Kerry this time around…    


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Kghadial on March 23, 2004, 07:24:48 PM
I think that after Bush bungled the protectionism he was pushing and especially after he renounced protectionism all together and began criticising his opponenent for supporting it he will be screwed amongst steelers, miners, and factory workers.  Considering that the additional profit to the manufacturing sector from the influx of foreign steel was not translated to higher pay for employees, Bush is probably screwed there too, ergo the 6% margin in Indiana after the latest poll.

A lot of Indiana republicans are mildly (well slightly more than mildly) social conservatives, but are not lockstep with the republicans in fiscal policy. That's how Bayh wins big. A lot of Bayh republicans are going to vote Kerry this time around even without Evan being on the ticket.  I'll say that Bush will lose half of his margin of victory in Indiana (winning only in the single digits). I used to think that Bayh couldn't bring Indiana into the Kerry column but more and more I think that it would be possible.  

When I went home recently I get the feeling that my home county (which hasn't went democrat since obviously '64)  is going to swing for Kerry this time around.  We had 2.9% unemployment at one point during the Clinton administration (hell even I at 15 got a $6.55 after-school job [which now a days is pretty damn good for a teenager in that county] ), and now its considerably higher and if you count discouraged workers unemployment is twice as high.

The issue of trade should kill Bush.  While I am a free-trade supporter his position is wacky.  He was for tariffs, and now he denounces those who would build economic isolationism walls. As Kerry says we do have to "level the playing field for the American worker" .  Bush seems fine with companies whose only export is sending their coporate headquarters to the Bahamas. He seems fine with the fact that its practically impossible to export anything to China or Japan.

Anecdotal evidence I have about Indiana's transformation:
My father works with a bunch West Virginian refugees, their coal mines closed, so they left to work in the county that once was the most dependent on manufacturing, in the nation. I feel bad for them, changing from one dying profession to another.  Solidly Reagan Democrat types, suporters of Dukakis (narrowly), then  half Clinton , half Perot/Bush in '92, Clinton '96, and heavy for Bush in '00 (oddly enough they talk alot about politics).  In any case my father, a pretty constant middle of the road democrat, has been passed by as they moved to Kerry's side.

Two of my good friends were for Bush in '00 because of guns, and now they are just as ABB as I am .

However, Indiana won't flip unless Bayh is on the ticket so ...

I say New Hampshire is most likely to flip, then Minnesota, then WV, then Ohio, then Florida, then NM, then Oregon, then Iowa, then Wisconsin, then Arizona,  then Missouri, then whatever state Brokaw is from :)


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: classical liberal on March 23, 2004, 07:53:39 PM
I think that Sen. Bayh on the ticket would secure MI, MN, WI, and IA against GOP inroads and pickup OH WV and IN for the Dems.  However, his party needs Indiana's senate seat.  If he had a successor who would be a sure shot to win that seat, Bayh would best serve his party by running.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Kghadial on March 23, 2004, 08:09:21 PM
Well Indiana is such a Republican state that I don't think we could have a Dem Senator who's name wasn't Bayh. Indianapolis's mayor Bart Peterson would be a good choice maybe, and I would like Fmr. Representative Roemer to go for it.  However if Indiana allows it then I think Bayh just runs to keep his seat and runs for VP, then when Kerry wins hopefully we will Give Governor Kernan his own term and he could send a Democrat to Washington to replace Bayh.  

Then we have the sticky situation of having an election in '06 for someone to finish off Bayh's term, and we would have find someone to run for Lugar's seat, assuming the old guy retires.

I think Bayh would only have an affect in Ohio and Indiana and Wisconsin and Michigan and none of the rest.  Only places who've heard news about Bayh on TV, ie. areas that get Cincy, Ft. Wayne, Chicago, or S. Bend TV are going to be swayed by Bayh.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Rev. Matthew on March 23, 2004, 08:17:35 PM
Florida most definatly :)


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: WMS on March 24, 2004, 11:41:22 PM
I've enjoyed the comments about His Majesty Bill Richardson...yep, I'm not one of his biggest fans. But he'll still help Kerry.

Anyway, I have some more poll data. Not a head-to-head matchup, sadly. It's long, but who else is doing New Mexico poll data? :)

Research & Polling, Inc. poll
In the Tuesday, March 23 Albuquerque Journal
"Sample of 330 registered New Mexico voters interviewed by telephone March 10-15." 'MoE: + or - 5%'

"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of President George W. Bush?" 43% FAVORABLE, 38% UNFAVORABLE, 15% MIXED FEELINGS/NEUTRAL, 4% DON'T KNOW/WON'T SAY

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of U.S. Senator John Kerry?" 44% FAVORABLE, 24% UNFAVORABLE, 18% MIXED FEELINGS/NEUTRAL, 14% DON'T KNOW/WON'T SAY
-R&P's head said that the unfavorable will probably rise once Bush's attacks get underway

-Hispanics: Kerry 55% FAVORABLE; Bush 44% FAVORABLE but also 43% FAVORABLE among Anglo voters, so support about equal by race

-Bush favored by 84% of Reps; Kerry favored by 61% of Dems; BOTH received 22% FAVORABLE ratings from members of the opposite party

-Independents: 37% FAVORABLE about Kerry; 29% FAVORABLE about Bush

-EQUAL ratings by men and women

-Albuquerque area (c. 1/3 of voters): 44% FAVORABLE about Kerry; 41% FAVORABLE about Bush.
-East and Northwest [not the reservations, but the oil patch]: 61% FAVORABLE to Bush and 56% FAVORABLE to Bush respectively
-North-Central: 70% FAVORABLE to Kerry

-74% of Baptists and 61% of other Protestants FAVORABLE to Bush; 64% of "other" religious preference and 54% of Catholics FAVORABLE to Kerry

Make of that what you will...

And, another poll, in the Wednesday, March 24 Albuquerque Journal, by Research & Polling (and yes, R&P and the Journal DO have an agreement)
"Sample of 330 registered New Mexico voters interviewed by telephone March 10-15." 'MoE: + or - 5%'

"Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Governor Bill Richardson?" 61% FAVORABLE, 20% UNFAVORABLE, 12% MIXED FEELINGS/NEUTRAL, 7% DON'T KNOW/WON'T SAY
-Reps: 43% FAVORABLE to 38% UNFAVORABLE
-Dems: 74% FAVORABLE
-78% of BOTH Hispanic and Catholic respondents FAVORABLE; 52% Anglo respondents FAVORABLE (to 25% UNFAVORABLE)
-most likely to be unfavorable: Reps (of course) and 'those listing no religious preference', but pluralities in both groups still FAVORABLE
-Independents: 58% FAVORABLE

-North-Central NM: 74% FAVORABLE
Northwest and East: 55% of BOTH areas FAVORABLE
-Albuquerque Metro Area: 60% FAVORABLE

-Richardson best among 18-34 year-olds (72% FAVORABLE); worst among 35-49 year-olds (55% FAVORABLE to 24% UNFAVORABLE)

Man, how many politicians would kill for numbers like that...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Ben. on March 25, 2004, 03:55:20 AM


-Richardson best among 18-34 year-olds (72% FAVORABLE); worst among 35-49 year-olds (55% FAVORABLE to 24% UNFAVORABLE)

Man, how many politicians would kill for numbers like that...

Wow...thats amazing... still dont think he should be on the ticket though and looks like he doesnt want to be either...


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: ian on March 25, 2004, 08:11:16 PM
My vote went to Florida, although I probably should have put "other" since Bush is screwing New Hampshire (with his environmental policies, which are destroying NH's lakes).  Jeb can't screw the Democrats this time b/c we know the kind of bull that he pulls during his brother's election.  We are going to win this time.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: ian on March 25, 2004, 08:19:05 PM

 I think FL is next because there could well be a massive turnout of ANGRY Floridian democrats this year.

No joke.  I agree.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: zachman on March 25, 2004, 09:44:27 PM
My vote went to Florida, although I probably should have put "other" since Bush is screwing New Hampshire (with his environmental policies, which are destroying NH's lakes).  Jeb can't screw the Democrats this time b/c we know the kind of bull that he pulls during his brother's election.  We are going to win this time.

His environmental policies don't have any effect here. We tend to overestimate the power of the issues, while in effect it is not a single issue that can turn a vote. Bush is seen as a phony here in NH, who is pushing his own agenda. We are still pretty undecided on Kerry though.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Beefalow and the Consumer on March 25, 2004, 10:24:36 PM

 I think FL is next because there could well be a massive turnout of ANGRY Floridian democrats this year.

No joke.  I agree.

I've said it before on this forum, and I'll say it again: Florida will come down to turnout.  The Panhandle Republicans will also come out en force.  It's going to be very very interesting.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: WMS on March 25, 2004, 10:46:49 PM


-Richardson best among 18-34 year-olds (72% FAVORABLE); worst among 35-49 year-olds (55% FAVORABLE to 24% UNFAVORABLE)

Man, how many politicians would kill for numbers like that...

Wow...thats amazing... still dont think he should be on the ticket though and looks like he doesnt want to be either...

Yes, there are probably better choices for VP out there. And, after all Richardson's said about how he's not going to run in 2004, he would face a bit of a firestorm in NM if he left now. I read somewhere that he wouldn't turn down a job as Secretary of State in a Kerry Administration... :)


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Rococo4 on March 25, 2004, 11:21:00 PM
Ohio WILL NOT switch over in 2004. Ohio is a socially conservative state - it will outweigh any job loss.  Kerry can not win Ohio.  

Also:  I have this talk of Bush only won Ohio in 2000 because Kerry pulled his money out.  Well, when that happened, Bush withdrew alot as well.  It was not as if Bush was campaigning around the state every day.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: opebo on March 26, 2004, 01:15:25 AM

 I think FL is next because there could well be a massive turnout of ANGRY Floridian democrats this year.

No joke.  I agree.

Well, these supposed mass numbers didn't turn out against Jeb.  I don't believe they exsist - Kerry will get the same votes Gore got in 2000 or less.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: angus on March 26, 2004, 01:15:43 PM
Given those choices:  NEW MEXICO.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/politics/campaign/23ECON.html


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 26, 2004, 02:17:41 PM
Ohio WILL NOT switch over in 2004. Ohio is a socially conservative state - it will outweigh any job loss.  Kerry can not win Ohio.  

Also:  I have this talk of Bush only won Ohio in 2000 because Kerry pulled his money out.  Well, when that happened, Bush withdrew alot as well.  It was not as if Bush was campaigning around the state every day.

Ohio has picked the winner in every Presidential Election since 1964 (it went for Tricky Dicky in 1960).

Gore actually gave up on Ohio early on in the campaign... and Bush still didn't crack 50%


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: Rococo4 on March 26, 2004, 02:45:45 PM
I meant Gore pulled out - not F. Kerry


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 02:38:51 PM

Playing the vorlon, huh?


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 16, 2004, 02:39:49 PM

No, actually someone started making new polls that were already cover, so I thought I would be nice to bump them back up.


Title: Re:State Changes in 2004
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 02:41:30 PM

No, actually someone started making new polls that were already cover, so I thought I would be nice to bump them back up.

Fair enough :)