Talk Elections

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: ElectionAtlas on November 12, 2003, 10:15:13 PM



Title: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ElectionAtlas on November 12, 2003, 10:15:13 PM
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 13, 2003, 03:49:30 AM
Dave, it may be a little too late to suggest changes in color-coding for your map repeating 2000 results, but I found the shades to red associated with >50  and >60 to be too similar.
Also since the difference between getting 50.16% (Washington) and getting 54.60% (Illinois)  in the last election makes all the difference with regard to predicting competitiveness in the next election, Might I suggest having more than one category for 50-60%?

As to the predictive maps, I myself plan to have four completely different colors
Solid Republican – Dark Blue
Lean Republican – Light Blue
Tossup  - White or gray
Lean Democrat – Light Red
Solid Democrat– Dark Red


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 13, 2003, 03:52:00 AM
Well I seem to be obsessed with colors today. :)Darthkosh you seem to have mixed up Red and Blue states by assigning Red to the GOp and vice versa.

I was much shocked to see your map before I realised this :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2003, 04:50:24 AM
Wow! The Dems pick up Utah and the GOP picks up Rhode Island ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 10:37:09 AM
Wow! The Dems pick up Utah and the GOP picks up Rhode Island ;)

I screwed up.  Just look at the ev cout for now and i will get around to changing it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 10:37:40 AM
Well I seem to be obsessed with colors today. :)Darthkosh you seem to have mixed up Red and Blue states by assigning Red to the GOp and vice versa.

I was much shocked to see your map before I realised this :D

I just relized I did that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 13, 2003, 01:53:07 PM
I fixed it and it looks like Bush won't win Rhode Island.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 15, 2003, 03:26:24 PM
Well people, I have some good news and bad news as regards my map. The bad news (perhaps good for some :) ) is that I feel unable to make my map with useful predictions as of right now.

The main reason is that the Democratic challenger is not yet known. My picks would vary considerably depending upon that factor. I feel uncomfortable deciding upon how states would turn based on a generic democratic candidate when I know full well that I would have to revise them next year. For Instance if Clark wins then Arkansas goes from Lean Rep to Lean Dem. The same applies to West Virginia if Gephardt is the candidate. If Dean wins a whole bunch of tossups become Lean Rep.  

Thus I am not going to put up a map with solid predictions yet. However since the others have taken so much effort on theirs; I feel compelled to make a contribution. I have put up a map detailing the margins of victory in 2000 for the most competitive states (in my opinion).  All other states I expect to remain in the same column as they were in 2000. I trust this will be of use to the others in their analysis. (Please refer to the color key on the right)

I am still in the process of completing my analysis. If I find that there are comparatively few states where it ALL depends on the Dem. nominee I will definitely put up my map in a week or so. Till then, have fun evryone :-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on November 15, 2003, 08:05:57 PM
As of now my prediction is based on a scenario where Howard Dean is the Democratic candidate (due to him being the current front runner). However, should the tide turn in favour of another candidate I would change my prediction accordingly. But similar thoughts have definitely crossed my mind, Ryan. It's just that nothing's gonna stop me from taking part in a good ole prediction game. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 17, 2003, 11:29:27 AM
Sorry I forgot to post this earlier. Its a really good electoral college calculator. I've found it very useful in my calculations and hope you will too :D

http://www.grayraven.com/ec/


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 17, 2003, 11:54:02 AM
Well I've just posted my first prediction map. I can't say I put a lot of faith in it. :-) I haven't assumed a democratic nominee but have tried to consider a "generic" democrat.
Obviously a number of changes will occur in my map depending upon the candidate. For Instance if Clark wins then Arkansas goes from Lean Rep to Lean Dem. The same applies to West Virginia if Gephardt is the candidate. If Dean wins a whole bunch of states like Nevada become Lean Rep.

I'm not going to go too much into detail as to why I have assigned states the way I have but will be happy to field any specific queries.

Remember that the Confidence map is not my picks but is info put up for the benefit of everybody else. I have put up a map detailing the margins of victory in 2000 for the most competitive states. Except for one or two I consider them all to be competitive and not till a Dem nominee is selected can I definitely assign any to the D or R Column. All other states (in yellow) I expect to remain in the same column as they were in 2000. I trust this will be of use to the others in their analysis.

(Please remember to refer to the color key on the right)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 17, 2003, 01:17:38 PM
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on November 19, 2003, 11:37:52 AM
Yeah, I noticed that too. Well done Edwards, give the man the Presidency. ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 19, 2003, 02:05:38 PM
Yeah, I noticed that too. Well done Edwards, give the man the Presidency. ;D

LOL yeah he's leading in at least one respect. Btw as to EC calculators I genuinely find Dave's the simplest and easiest to use. I'd recommend it for your calculations. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 19, 2003, 07:38:21 PM
I'll have to agree, Dave's is the best and simpliest Electoral Vote calcuator to use.

 The most difficult to use?
-Grandma's hand-held solar powered pocket calculator, with only 16 buttons at best...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MinnyBean on November 19, 2003, 09:32:18 PM
I submitted my predictions today for the 2004 presidential election.  I am looking forward to electing a Democratic candidate into office.  It is my prediction that whomever is nominated will be the next President.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2003, 01:06:37 PM
Including Sharpton ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Kevinstat on November 21, 2003, 09:16:33 PM
When looking at my prediction map, just imagine the Kentucky and Tennessee colors are reversed, with Kentucky being Bush >60% and Tennessee being Bush >50%.  I had meant to do have it that way originally but I guess my subconscience liked the north-south color difference line between Virginia and Kentucky on the one hand and North Carolina and Tenessee on the other.  I tried to correct it but forgot to give my password and so I decided to just post this disclaimer here.  I think I won't submit a new map until my predictions actually change.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 22, 2003, 10:01:29 AM
Here is my oulook for 2004, which is based on the idea of a Dean/Clark ticket vs. Bush.

The Democrats will have a lock on three big states, which are NY, Illinois, and California.  Arkansas maybe on that list because the state tends to go for native sons.  Potential leaners are Washington, PA, Michagan, and much of New England.    

Confidence: 223 EV

The Republicans strongest states are Texas, Indiana, West Virginia, and Georgia.  They seem to have a lock on much of the West, except for Montana, which went to the Dems in 1992.  However, this was because of a strong 3rd party candidate.  
The deep South except for Louisiana and Florida are strongly Republican, and Virginia is a leaner.   Still, if there is a Dean/Clark candidacy then Bush will have a very tough fight ahead of him.

Confidence: 143 EV

Tossups are all over the place, especially in the Midwest, the South, and the Southwest.  In New England the questionable states are Maine and NH.  Oregon is also in this category, so is Nevada and Colorado.  But the biggest tossup states are OHIO and FLORIDA, which are usually swing states.  Clinton got Ohio in '92 and '96 and Bush got it in 2000.  Florida seems to go back and forth between parties.  Bush I got it 1992 and Clinton had it in 1996, and whether or not Bush junior got it in 2000 remains questionable.  I think if one candidate gets both Ohio and Florida then the election is theirs for the taking.   But I still think the election is going to be a very close one.

Confidence: 172 EV  
 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 22, 2003, 11:56:44 AM
Um... did you just say that West Virginia is one of Bush's safest states???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 23, 2003, 09:24:22 AM
Update on the predictions:

So far 16 forum members have made predictions and in general are predicting another close election:

Dem Average: 254 EV, Bush Average 284 EV

Indeed, 11 of the 16 predictions are for a close election similar to victories by Kennedy, Carter, Bush II, with <305 EV.

Just two predictions, both for Bush, are for a solid win of the scale seen by Clinton (>370 EV): Beet Juice 373, and htmldon 370.

Interestingly, there is only one landslide predictions of the scale seen by Reagan, Bush I, Nixon, Johnson (>400 EV): Bandit73 prediction of Dem 443

Assuming we actaully know what we are doing, it will be interesting to see if the average predictions steadily move towards the final result, or will the average fluctuate with recent news and poll reuslts?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2003, 09:52:00 AM
I think that it'll fluctuate a lot.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 23, 2003, 01:06:38 PM
Yes, I believe that West Virginia will be a Bush state in 2004 because of the Dems strong environmental agenda.  After all, WV is a major coal mining area.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2003, 03:37:39 PM
How much do you actually know about either WV or Miners?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 23, 2003, 03:52:38 PM
Yes, I believe that West Virginia will be a Bush state in 2004 because of the Dems strong environmental agenda.  After all, WV is a major coal mining area.

The reason Bush won WV in 2000 is because the Democrats have a strong environmental record!
The Clinton environmental policies severely affected the coal mining industry leading to mine shut downs, throwing people out of work, and a economic downturn.  
WV had the second biggest swing of any state from 1996 (Clinton by 15%) to Bush in 2000 (by 6%), a net 21% change.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on November 23, 2003, 06:19:26 PM
thanks a lot Zork, I could not have said it better myself.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 24, 2003, 02:55:25 AM
I submitted my predictions today for the 2004 presidential election.  I am looking forward to electing a Democratic candidate into office.  It is my prediction that whomever is nominated will be the next President.

LOL I gotta say that I'm impressed that you submitted a reasonably non-partisan and neutral analysis inspite of your obviously strong views.
I had expected a copy of the 1964 map or something :P ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 24, 2003, 01:05:56 PM
2000 was a fluke. The Dems did very badly in Appalachia in 2000 due to:
a) Kyoto
b) "Modernisation"(which has got worse recently).
c) Guns

Look at recent results in Appalachia.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: timroman on November 24, 2003, 03:39:53 PM
I have to say, Dave's electoral college calculator is quite nice.  The only way to make it better would be to add a map that would show the results you choose...

The old one that I used (http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/calculator.html) didn't have a map either.

TR


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 25, 2003, 03:28:29 PM
Although I am not a fan of Howard Dean, and i'm Britsih to boot, writing off his chances in the south is a dangerous trap. Disregarding his Condederate flag statement, he may tap into disgruntled southern voters both black and white if he plays his cards right. He is a supporter of gun ownership, which could appeal to many (Not that I am trying to make any assumptions of gun ownership based on state) A southern running mate would also help Dean. If he ran with Clarke, Arkansas would fall to the Democrats, not only because of Clarke, but because of an inbuilt Clinton-era political mechanism which could be put into effect. Louisiana is also a likely target state especially when looking at the recent gubernatorial race. I feel Florida, despite the closeness of 2000, is out of the Dems reach in 2004, as are Georgia and Tennessee. Kentucky could be persuaded and i wouldn't rule out North and South Carolina. North Carolina would be a target if John Edwards can make a good shot at the nomination or if he is selected as Dean's or any other candidates running mate. The 'high' war veteran concentration in South Carolina could also see this state as a close call if Wesley Clarke is involved, but it is likely to remain Republican. Gains in the south are needed by the Dems if they are in danger of loosing ground in northern states such as Oregon, Maine and Minnesota.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 25, 2003, 03:43:15 PM
NC's economic situation is looking bleak at present, and it'll get worse if the E.U imposes tariffs on textiles as revenge for the tariffs on steel.

SC is a Dem no no. SC gave Clinton under 40% in 1992(but, I hear you cry, so did FL. True but Perot ran well in FL) and is not going to go Dem until they rebuild in SC's northern counties.

Don't rule out GA, it's prone to sudden and unpredictible swings in opinion.
But because of the above don't predict a pick-up either.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 25, 2003, 09:24:01 PM
Illegal Aliens could decide 2004 Winner?
Interesting article  in National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/latest.asp#019982
Since Congressional seats are apportioned based on populaiton in a state, not citizens, CA illegal immigrants and non-rsident aliens result in about 6 addional EV for CA.  Should the Democrat win by a few EV, one could make the argument that those EV were due to the non-resident and illegal aliens in CA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 26, 2003, 09:16:51 AM
Realpolitik,
You and I have had this discussion before.  Forget the South.  The cultural divide between the national Democrats and southern whites is waaaay too huge.  You keep implying the possibility that somehow economic issues might trump cultural and social issues in the minds of Southern voters.  It has never happened before and is even less likely today when that cultural gap is larger than it has ever been.  I know you are not predicting a GOP loss in Virginia, Georgia, and NC, but the fact that you even mention it as a possibility tells me you severely underestimate the very conservative nature of the southern region of the country.  Believe me, nothing would delight me more than to have a Howard Dean take his core message to the South. in a general election.

I firmly believe there is a Liberal Democratic cacoon on both coasts whereby Democrats are so isolated from the rest of the country that they actually believe what plays in New York, Los Angelos, and Boston is not going  to bother the "folks" in Raleigh, NC.  They get this by constantly talking amongst themselves and having no exposure whatsoever to people in "flyover country".  They literally live in a cacoon.  It doesn't help their situation at all that the Democratic candidates are madly dashing even further to the left to capture the lefty activists that form the majority of Democratic primary voters.  That will get the nomination, but what good is the nomination if the nominee gets buried in the general election?

Read Zell Miller's book.  It will be an eye opener.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 10:05:59 AM
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 26, 2003, 11:25:27 AM
I'm afraid that's the kind of stuff Democrats are reading and buying into these days and there lies the Dems problem in a nutshell.   It may make them feel good and all of that, but it's no recipe for winning a general election.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a partisan and I admit it.  That's why I have no problem with liberals ceding the middle to the Republican Party.  Nominate Howard Dean.  Buy into Franken, Michael Moore. the hollywood left, the whole thing.  I'm just saying that you can't afford to run too far left or right if you want to win.

How far left has the Dem Party veered?  Well, case in point is Florida which was 50-50 in the last election.  Mason-Dixon released a poll yesterday showing none of the current Dem candidates within 20 points of Bush in Florida.  BTW, Mason-Dixon hit Florida right on in 2000 and was right on the button in the 2002 governor's race.  You are alienating a hell of a lot of swing voters when you go from 50-50 to 20 down.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 12:27:42 PM
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 26, 2003, 02:52:49 PM
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?

www.edwards2004.org


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on November 26, 2003, 04:34:24 PM
Here's something to play with. Say that history was different. Say that for some unknown reason (however farfetched!) Carter defeats Reagan in 1980. Who would be up for election in 1984 and how would history have progessed presidentially since then? I have a feeling Mondale would have been up for election in 1984, after being veep for 8 years, what about the Republicans? What about 88? Let the imagination run riot!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 26, 2003, 04:53:34 PM
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?
It's just John Edwards...just to let you know. Not Jonathan. The nickname for Jonathan is JON. John, per se, is a name. Nicknames for JOHN include, Johnny and Jack.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2003, 12:42:42 PM
Actually "John" is a shortend name. He was baptised as "Johnny".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 27, 2003, 03:05:11 PM
There's a better EV calculator on John Edward's website(!)
What is the web-address for Jonathan Edwards?

U can get the EV calculator itself on

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on November 27, 2003, 05:07:30 PM
Actually "John" is a shortend name. He was baptised as "Johnny".
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I looked it up and you're right. :) However, I knew his full name wasn't Jonathan.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 27, 2003, 07:49:40 PM
Okay, I'm having a heapload of problems in uploading the gif files and I've spent enough time on it and in addition, how do you change colors, etc.?  Paint?  If so, just a TAD bit too much time.  So I'm just gonna say my predictions here:

Now, this is only assuming it'll be Bush vs. Dean.  If Clark gets it, Arkansas goes to lean Democrat.  To me, there's very little change from 2000.  Due to the fact I believe Democrats still don't hold a clear message, Bush looks like he'll recapture the election.  Even if Dean wins the Democratic nominee, we're literally seeing McGovern/Dukakis II.  America really don't want an extreme President, you gotta be near the middle.  With that being said.........

you can bet your bottom dollar these 8 states will be STRONG Democrat (come election day 2004, the Democrat contender will capture these states/district):  Vermont (even if Dean doesn't get it), Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York (even if the RNC is held in NYC and Bush gives the 9/11 "feel," I still think NY is gonna be strongly Democrat), New Jersey, Maryland, Washington DC (DUH?), Illinois, and California (even with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at the helm, I still think California will be strongly Democrat).

likewise these are 21 STRONG Republican:  Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana (this one was kinda tough, almost lean Republican, but I'll go with strong), Ohio (I want to say tossup, but I'm actually gonna gonna go on a limb and say strong), Tennessee (likewise with Indiana), Alabama, Mississippi, the whole tornado alley really (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and duh Texas), Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado (same boat as Indiana but not only I think lean probably, but almost a tossup, but I'm gonna go with the gut feeling of strong), Utah, and Alaska.

true tossups in my eyes will be these 11 states:  Maine (and if I had to choose, I'd say lean Democrat), New Hampshire (I'm gonna go with gut and say lean Democrat), Pennsylvania (I'd say lean Republican if I had to choose), West Virginia (lean Democrat), Florida (I'm gonna go with slight Republican here, but it's still a tossup), Wisconsin (I'd lean slightly to the Republican side), Minnesota (this one can really go anywhere, hence a tossup, but I will play safe and say lean Republican), Iowa (lean Democrat), Nevada (this one is really tough....but I will go with gut and say lean Democrat), New Mexico (I'm gonna go for lean Republican here, this is my home state and I know we have a Democrat Governor, but I have this sense we're gonna vote Republican because we don't know Dean or Clark all too well), Oregon (this is a tough one, I WANT to say strong Democrat, but this one is a tossup)

the 3 lean Republican states are:  Missouri (although it's almost a tossup for me to be honest), Louisiana (same case for Missouri), Arizona (same case for Missouri),

I don't know lean or strong, but these will be Democrat states:  Connecticut, Delaware, Michigan, Washington, Hawai'i

I don't know lean or strong, but these will be Republican states:  Kentucky, Arkansas (again, this is if Dean captures it, Clark is a whole nother story)

I know my issues and reasonings for the way I chose each state by the way :-)

With that, I say Bush will win 307-231 (EV)

Breakdown percentages I see it like this (not including tossups, as these are just brute predictions):
Maine - >40% Democrat
New Hampshire - >40% Democrat
Vermont - >80% Democrat
Rhode Island - >80% Democrat
Connecticut - >50% Democrat
New York - >80% Democrat
New Jersey - >80% Democrat
Pennsylvania - >40% Republican
Delaware - >50% Democrat
Maryland - >70% Democrat
Washington DC - >80% Democrat
West Virginia - >40% Democrat
Virginia - >70% Republican
North Carolina - >80% Republican
South Carolina - >80% Republican
Georgia - >80% Republican
Florida - >40% Republican
Michigan - >40% Democrat
Ohio - >50% Republican
Indiana - >60% Republican
Kentucky - >40% Republican
Tennessee - >60% Republican
Alabama - >80% Republican
Mississippi - >80% Republican
Wisconsin - >40% Republican
Illinois - >80% Democrat
Minnesota - >40% Republican
Iowa - >40% Democrat
Missouri - >40% Republican
Arkansas - >40% Republican
Louisiana - >40% Republican
North Dakota - >80% Republican
South Dakota - >80% Republican
Nebraska - >80% Republican
Kansas - >80% Republican
Oklahoma - >80% Republican
Texas - >80% Republican
Montana - >80% Republican
Idaho - >80% Republican
Wyoming - >80% Republican
Colorado - >60% Republican
Utah - >80% Republican
Nevada - >40% Democrat
New Mexico - >40% Republican
Arizona - >40% Republican
Washington - >50% Democrat
Oregon - >40% Democrat
California - >60% Democrat
Alaska - >80% Republican
Hawai'i - >50% Democrat

I welcome any response(s) - I'll try my best and check this site every now and then.  

my 2008 predictions are in the appropriate forum.  Check it out *soon*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 27, 2003, 09:58:04 PM
I think you just about nailed it state by state.  I can't really can't see a state that I'd argue much with - percentages are about right I'd say.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on November 28, 2003, 12:13:14 AM
How far left has the Dem Party veered?  Well, case in point is Florida which was 50-50 in the last election.  Mason-Dixon released a poll yesterday showing none of the current Dem candidates within 20 points of Bush in Florida.  BTW, Mason-Dixon hit Florida right on in 2000 and was right on the button in the 2002 governor's race.  You are alienating a hell of a lot of swing voters when you go from 50-50 to 20 down.

If what you say is true, Lieberman is not within 20 points of Bush in Florida either, so how can the problem be that Democrats are too far left as you say?

Also I wouldn't categorize the entire West and Northeast as a "cocoon", they are the most populated regions in the country, and together are more populated than the South and Plains states. If Republicans can win elections, It's because the Northeast elects a lot of moderate Republicans (like Olympia Snowe) and because they have an advantage in the swing region, the Midwest right now, probably due to Bush's personal windfall from 9/11 and the feel-good (but troubled) war.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 28, 2003, 03:54:27 AM
Mikey welcome aboard, I too am much impressed with your analysis. :)
Got kinda Deja Vu feeling when I read ur state by state analysis :D

A couple of questions:

- Why is Hawaii not in the definite Strong Dem column??

- For that matter how about Connecticut, Delaware?? I realise they COULD go GOP but only in a landslide and in that case, a couple more from the Strong Dem column would join them.

- In my opinion Kentucky works the other way around for the GOP. Its safe except for a landslide.

- Why is La. and not Tenn. a GOP lean??

that's enough for starters :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 28, 2003, 04:00:46 AM
Okay, I'm having a heapload of problems in uploading the gif files and I've spent enough time on it and in addition, how do you change colors, etc.?  Paint?  If so, just a TAD bit too much time.

Lol we've all had our share. There is another forum thread for technical issues with predictions. Post a run-down of ur probs there and the big guy (Dave) will help ya out.
As for the coloring in paint taking time; what feature are you using? Mine took five minutes using the "fill with color" feature. I'd recommend that. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 28, 2003, 03:26:35 PM
Actually, I think a lot of your percentages are way off Mikey. You have a lot of states going more than 80% for one candidate or the other, and almost certainly neither candidate will get over 80% of the vote in any state except for the Democrats in the District of Columbia. The last time any candidate topped 80% of the vote in any of the 50 states was Johnson in Rhode Island and Goldwater in Mississippi in 1964, and likewise Bush would have to win a landslide of equal proportions to Johnson's to even have a chance at 80% of the vote anywhere (Utah or Wyoming the most likely possibilities).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 29, 2003, 09:04:07 AM
Yes... I was wondering about that...
I just can't see the GOP winning 80% in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia etc...

Or the Dems winning 80% in Illinois, New York, New Jersey etc...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on November 29, 2003, 02:26:07 PM
Bush will Carry the Same States as he did in 2000 but Pick Up Iowa & Minn


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 03:36:55 PM
Well I cant be certain about this and mikey will no doubt clarify it but I think the percentages are CHANCES OF A PARTY WINNING the states altogether not their actual percentages there.

If you look at it from that angle most of them make sense. You guys shoulda thought of that :-) Why would somebody who had preceded it by such a reasonable analysis predict such wacky percentages????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 29, 2003, 05:26:15 PM
I thought of that possibility too, but then why would he have some states going >40% Democrat or Republican? They sure look like actual predictions of percentages to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on November 29, 2003, 08:33:27 PM
I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 30, 2003, 03:30:56 AM
no doubt - I doubt any state will allow a candidate capture 80%+ of the vote.  That's why I hate predicting brute numbers.  All I'm gonna say it's either lean or strong, so hence:

Maine:  lean Dem
New Hampshire:  lean Dem
Vermont:  strong Dem
Massachusetts:  strong Dem
Rhode Island:  strong Dem
Connecticut:  lean Dem
New York:  strong Dem
New Jersey:  strong Dem
Pennsylvania:  lean Rep
Delaware:  lean Dem
Maryland:  strong Dem
Washington DC:  strong Dem
West Virginia:  lean Dem
Virginia:  strong Rep
North Carolina:  strong Rep
South Carolina:  strong Rep
Georgia:  strong Rep
Florida:  lean Rep
Michigan:  lean Dem
Ohio:  lean Rep
Indiana:  strong Rep
Kentucky:  lean Rep
Tennessee:  lean Rep
Alabama:  strong Rep
Mississippi:  strong Rep
Wisconsin:  lean Rep
Illinois:  strong Dem
Minnesota:  lean Rep
Iowa:  lean Dem
Missouri:  lean Rep
Arkansas:  lean Rep
Louisiana:  lean Rep
tornado alley:  strong Rep (don't feel like typing each damn state :-)
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah:  strong Rep
Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona:  lean Rep
Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California:  lean Dem
Alaska:  strong Rep
Hawai'i:  lean Dem


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 06:09:20 AM
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 30, 2003, 07:34:07 AM
At the Presidential level?  Not a chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 12:29:24 PM
Nice analysis. A question. Why is Washington state in solid Democrat??

I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 12:34:59 PM
Nevada, Washington, Oregon, California:  lean Dem
Hawai'i:  lean Dem

All good except for California and Hawaii.............lean Dem?????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on November 30, 2003, 02:23:58 PM
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.

The Rep gov was unpopular and it affect the race.  I believe Tenn will not be all that close.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on November 30, 2003, 02:41:10 PM
One interesting thing about Hawaii over the years is that it has had a strong tendency to favor incumbent Presidents. In years in which there has been an incumbent Republican (1972, 1976, 1984, 1992) Hawaii was actually not much (if any) more Democratic than the national average, but when there has been an open race or a Democratic incumbent, it votes much more Democratic (especially when there is a Dem incumbent, as in 1964, 1980, and 1996). It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues, but if it does, than Hawaii could reasonably be expected to be only in the lean Dem column.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 02:55:54 PM
Tennesse is almost always very close and has been since the Civil War ended(although lots of people in Eastern Tennesse still seem to belive that a Democrat-Confederate government rules TN from Richmond, VA and that Abe' Lincon's troops have yet to reach them... but enough of that)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mikeyc on November 30, 2003, 04:47:08 PM
Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on November 30, 2003, 06:32:41 PM
No northern Democrat has carried Tenn since '48 (border state Truman from Mo.).  The last 4 northern dems have gotten killed - Humphrey 68 actually finished 3rd in that election.  McGovern lost by 38.  Mondale lost by 18.  Dukakis lost by 16.  

Dean has as much chance of making Tenn competitive as Bush has of making a run in Massachusetts.  It aint gonna happen in either case.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on December 01, 2003, 09:41:49 AM
Based on the 2000 contest and the current circumstances in most states by the summer (i.e the democratic convention) this is how I see the states looking. Dean I would say will very probably be the Democratic nominee with Clarke as his running mate. Dean will do poorly in many southern states…but in states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia next to Gephardt he is best placed to exploit traditional blue collar democratic support amongst Union members and those states which went narrowly to Gore should still go to Dean as the Nader vote will almost certainly go to him in a big way.

The Lean Democratic States are going to be easier to win for the republicans than the lean republican states however I stick by my predictions.      


Alabama (9 EV) – Solid Republican    
Alaska  (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Arizona (10 EV) – Lean Republican
Arkansas (6 EV) – Lean Republican
California (55 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Colorado (9 EV) – Lean Republican    
Connecticut (7 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Delaware (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
D.C. (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Florida (27 EV) – Lean Republican    
Georgia (15 EV) – Solid Republican    
Hawaii (4 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Idaho (4 EV) – Solid Republican    
Illinois (21 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Indiana (11 EV) – Solid Republican    
Iowa (7 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Kansas (6 EV) – Solid Republican  
Kentucky (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
Louisiana (9 EV) – Solid Republican  
Maine (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Maryland (10 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Massachusetts (12 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Michigan (17 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Minnesota (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Mississippi (6 EV) – Solid Republican    
Missouri (11 EV) – Lean Republican  
Montana (3 EV) – Lean Republican    
Nebraska (5 EV) – Solid Republican    
Nevada (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Hampshire (4 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Jersey (15 EV) – Solid Democratic      
New Mexico (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New York (31 EV) – SOLID Democratic  
North Carolina (15 EV) – Lean Republican    
North Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Ohio (20 EV) – Lean Republican    
Oklahoma (7 EV) – Solid Republican  
Oregon (7 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Pennsylvania (21 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Rhode Island (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
South Carolina (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
South Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Tennessee (11 EV) – Lean Republican    
Texas (34 EV) – Solid Republican  
Utah (5 EV) – Solid Republican  
Vermont (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Virginia (13 EV) – Solid Republican    
Washington (11 EV) – Lean Democratic    
West Virginia (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wisconsin (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wyoming (3 EV) – Solid Republican  
 
As for Congressional races I wouldn’t expect much change the Democrats will lose in Georgia for sure however Florida and North Carolina will be more competitive. In the North Dean’s troopers and the Union’s will be beating on doors and galvanising the apathetic to vote for Democratic candidates while in the South the GOP will run riot effectively cancelling each other out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 01, 2003, 11:17:23 AM
No northern Democrat has carried Tenn since '48 (border state Truman from Mo.).  The last 4 northern dems have gotten killed - Humphrey 68 actually finished 3rd in that election.  McGovern lost by 38.  Mondale lost by 18.  Dukakis lost by 16.  

Dean has as much chance of making Tenn competitive as Bush has of making a run in Massachusetts.  It aint gonna happen in either case.

1968 is a bad example and you know it.
But the Dems have yet to choose their candidate anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 01, 2003, 02:24:15 PM
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 01, 2003, 02:52:01 PM
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%

Bush 54%
Dean 45%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on December 01, 2003, 02:55:37 PM
Well Yeah but the most I could say about either state is that the Democratic margin will be smaller than in 2000 (unless, as I have repeatedly mentioned, its a landslide year either way)

The recent gubernatorial elections signify a better organized state party which can turn out their base and that means a larger republican vote but not near a majority in either case.

Arnold and Lingle run as LOCAL republicans and actually almost as Independents. A LOT of their voters would never consider voting for Bush- Just like I keep assuring people that the recent Dem victory in La. does not mean even a marginal change at the national level. The antipathy towards the national democratic party is as strong as ever. Same for these states. If we are looking at a reasonably close election, they should be solid democrat.

And if at all I agree to change that I might change California because of a huge uncommitted if left-tending independent electorate who could TECHNICALLY vote GOP. Hawaii has a much stronger democratic base.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Hawaii's record as a bell-weather. I would caution against using bellwethers that didn&#8217;t work in 2000. For example Delaware has voted for the winning candidate for the TEN elections from 1960 through 1996. In 2000 it voted for the loser and by a huge margin. Proponents of its bell-weather status failed to note it had become increasingly democratic and only retained bellwether status in the 90's because the democrats happened to win both the elections held later that decade.  



Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 01, 2003, 03:56:48 PM
Well Yeah but the most I could say about either state is that the Democratic margin will be smaller than in 2000 (unless, as I have repeatedly mentioned, its a landslide year either way)

The recent gubernatorial elections signify a better organized state party which can turn out their base and that means a larger republican vote but not near a majority in either case.

Arnold and Lingle run as LOCAL republicans and actually almost as Independents. A LOT of their voters would never consider voting for Bush- Just like I keep assuring people that the recent Dem victory in La. does not mean even a marginal change at the national level. The antipathy towards the national democratic party is as strong as ever. Same for these states. If we are looking at a reasonably close election, they should be solid democrat.

And if at all I agree to change that I might change California because of a huge uncommitted if left-tending independent electorate who could TECHNICALLY vote GOP. Hawaii has a much stronger democratic base.

I wouldn't put too much stock in Hawaii's record as a bell-weather. I would caution against using bellwethers that didn&#8217;t work in 2000. For example Delaware has voted for the winning candidate for the TEN elections from 1960 through 1996. In 2000 it voted for the loser and by a huge margin. Proponents of its bell-weather status failed to note it had become increasingly democratic and only retained bellwether status in the 90's because the democrats happened to win both the elections held later that decade.  



Ryan:  both California and Hawai'i (only my predictions) are gonna be lean Democrat unlike strong because of Arnold Schwarzenegger and recent Republican gubernatorial grabs in Hawai'i.  Just "hunches."  In addition, Hawai'i has a history of voting for the "right guy" (i.e. the winner of elections), but they've been Democrat for quite a few years now.  Again, a hunch...I can't see a DEVASTATING Democrat victory in either state.

Like i saind in the wrong govenors thread.  Local Politics.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 04:48:44 PM
But a dean north vs Bush South = + Bush/GOp for Senate races.


Based on the 2000 contest and the current circumstances in most states by the summer (i.e the democratic convention) this is how I see the states looking. Dean I would say will very probably be the Democratic nominee with Clarke as his running mate. Dean will do poorly in many southern states…but in states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia next to Gephardt he is best placed to exploit traditional blue collar democratic support amongst Union members and those states which went narrowly to Gore should still go to Dean as the Nader vote will almost certainly go to him in a big way.

The Lean Democratic States are going to be easier to win for the republicans than the lean republican states however I stick by my predictions.      


Alabama (9 EV) – Solid Republican    
Alaska  (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Arizona (10 EV) – Lean Republican
Arkansas (6 EV) – Lean Republican
California (55 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Colorado (9 EV) – Lean Republican    
Connecticut (7 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Delaware (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
D.C. (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Florida (27 EV) – Lean Republican    
Georgia (15 EV) – Solid Republican    
Hawaii (4 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Idaho (4 EV) – Solid Republican    
Illinois (21 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Indiana (11 EV) – Solid Republican    
Iowa (7 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Kansas (6 EV) – Solid Republican  
Kentucky (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
Louisiana (9 EV) – Solid Republican  
Maine (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Maryland (10 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Massachusetts (12 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Michigan (17 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Minnesota (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Mississippi (6 EV) – Solid Republican    
Missouri (11 EV) – Lean Republican  
Montana (3 EV) – Lean Republican    
Nebraska (5 EV) – Solid Republican    
Nevada (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Hampshire (4 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Jersey (15 EV) – Solid Democratic      
New Mexico (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New York (31 EV) – SOLID Democratic  
North Carolina (15 EV) – Lean Republican    
North Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Ohio (20 EV) – Lean Republican    
Oklahoma (7 EV) – Solid Republican  
Oregon (7 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Pennsylvania (21 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Rhode Island (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
South Carolina (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
South Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Tennessee (11 EV) – Lean Republican    
Texas (34 EV) – Solid Republican  
Utah (5 EV) – Solid Republican  
Vermont (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Virginia (13 EV) – Solid Republican    
Washington (11 EV) – Lean Democratic    
West Virginia (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wisconsin (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wyoming (3 EV) – Solid Republican  
 
As for Congressional races I wouldn’t expect much change the Democrats will lose in Georgia for sure however Florida and North Carolina will be more competitive. In the North Dean’s troopers and the Union’s will be beating on doors and galvanising the apathetic to vote for Democratic candidates while in the South the GOP will run riot effectively cancelling each other out.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 01, 2003, 05:49:20 PM
The Election will be Deacied by the People with 53% to Bush & Dean 45%

Bush 54%
Dean 45%

It just keeps going up doesn't it?!
Allow me to boost the numbers.

Bush: 56%
Dean: 43%



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 01, 2003, 07:09:26 PM
<1968 is a bad example and you know it>

Not a bad example at all.  I don't know where you get that.  It is entirely reflective of  the weakness of every other Northern lib Dem running in Tenn since then.  As a matter of fact, 68  was CLOSE compared to elections since.  McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got drubbed worse.

You are right, Dean hasn't been nominated yet.  However, you can substitute Kerry's name, Gephart, whoever....Northern liberals get squashed in the South.  Good grief.  If Gore gets beat by 4% and it's his state, what do you think will happen to Dean and company.

I keep telling you.  Forget the South.  No amount of wishful thinking is going to change the fact that there is no historical trend pointing to a competitive race in Tennessee between Bush and this bunch.  None whatsoever.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on December 01, 2003, 07:55:00 PM
Nice analysis. A question. Why is Washington state in solid Democrat??

I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).

Regarding Washington state:

I was on the fence between putting it in Solid or Lean Dem. I decided to put it in Solid Dem because of an increasing minority population and the fact that after '94 Dems have won both 2/2 pres. races, 2/2 gov. races, 2/2 senate races, and have picked up 4 House seats. But again, it could go either way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 01, 2003, 08:57:51 PM
I believe that the only Sputhern states that the Dems have a chance at are Arkansas, Florida, and Tennessee.  

Arkansas may go to the Dems if Clark is on the ticket and Florida was a dead heat in 2000, so there is a chance.  

Tennessee could go to the Dems if Clark is on the ticket and if the Democratic nominee does not press the gun issue too much.  Al Gore kept talking about Columbine and he ended up losing his home state to Bush.  

The Dems could also get Louisiana, Clinton had it in 1992 and 1996 but now it is in my tossup category because Gore lost it by 130,000 votes.    

Oh, and Happy Holidays to all.    



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 01, 2003, 08:58:55 PM
Sorry about the typeo in the first sentence it should be "Southern"  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ryan on December 02, 2003, 02:29:10 AM
There is a modify option which you can use. Comes in handy :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 02, 2003, 04:27:28 AM
Quote
Not a bad example at all.  I don't know where you get that.  It is entirely reflective of  the weakness of every other Northern lib Dem running in Tenn since then.  As a matter of fact, 68  was CLOSE compared to elections since.  McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got drubbed worse.

I'm getting at the presence of a certain George Corley Wallace running as an independent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 02, 2003, 08:03:13 AM
For many Southern whites who had never until then voted for a Republican, Wallace was a temporary way station in their migration from the national Democratic Party.  By 72, those Southern whites had gone all the way over to the Republicans.  It is interesting that Nixon's 72 vote almost exactly equaled the sum of the 68 Nixon plus Wallace percentages in southern state after state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 02, 2003, 08:44:58 AM
Not true... in the Upper South areas that went for Wallace in '68 now usually go Dem, and in the Deep South... well most of the Deep South went VERY strongly for Goldwater in '64...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 02, 2003, 12:41:58 PM
Don't forget, the main reason why the Deep South went to Goldwater in 1964 was Johnson signing the Civil Rights acts earlier in the year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 02, 2003, 06:00:57 PM
I thought the civil rights acts were signed in 1965, that is the ones you always hear about.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 02, 2003, 06:58:15 PM
That was the Voting Rights Act that you are thinking of that was passed in 1965. The main Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 02, 2003, 10:07:54 PM
In 64 the Civil Rights Bill was pushed thru Congess by Johnson.  Whites in the deep South responded by voting against Johnson and for Goldwater who had voted against it in the Senate.

Johnson in 64 was still able to carry enough whites in the rest of the South to still carry Tennessee, NC, Va, Fla, Ark, Louisiana.

However, by 68 the white vote came undone even in those states and the Dem national ticket lost all those states.  Many of those whites got their first taste of voting for someone other than the Dem nominee for the first time in their life.  While they were not able to pull the Republican lever, many whites pulled the lever for Wallace and thus broke the habit of voting straight Democratic.  The next election in 72 saw the migration complete as Wallace was not on the ballot and studies show the Wallace voters broke around 85% Nixon, 15% McGovern.  Realignment was complete in the South and the white vote in the South has since gone overwhelmingly Republican.  In fact, even native southerner Carter lost the white vote (it was closer in 76) in the South even though he won all Southern states due to carrying 90% of the black vote.  Even HIS white % declined significantly in 80 after it became apparent after his first term that he was no conservative.

The Dem. Party can count on between 25 and 30% of the Southern white vote in a Presidential election.  Look for Dean to fall short of 25% in the South if he's nominated in 04.  They can expect to garner enough white votes to win some Senate and governor's races PROVIDING they run as moderates or moderate conservatives (eg. Gov. Warner in Va or former governor Hodges in SC).  Unfortnately for Democrats, the national Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that any of these 9 guys running against W will get buried in the old confederacy.  In other words, wave bye bye to 153 electoral votes.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on December 02, 2003, 11:55:08 PM
The national Democratic party has only moved to the left if you assume that Dean will win the nomination as well as total control of the party. Not all of the "9 guys" are really so far to the left. Obviously there is Lieberman, if he is so far to the left that he would "get buried" in the South, the South is truly finished as a competitive electoral region, and future elections will be decided in the Midwest and West. Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all very moderate; supporting the war is at right-wing if not moderate position.

And it's not true that Democrats can win in the South just by being moderate. Look at Ronnie Musgrove-- he campaigned as conservatively as possible and emphasized his support of Bush, but he lost anyway. And Blanco would have lost in Louisiana if not for the racist white vote in Northern Louisiana which went heavily for Bush in 2000 but voted 52% against Jindal.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 12:26:44 AM
Actually Goldwater won Louisiana in 1964.
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 03, 2003, 12:40:31 AM
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.
Neither do I. Arkansas isn't THAT Republican. It is one of the few southern states that could very well go Democratic. Gore could have even carried Arkansas, as well as his home state of Tennessee, if he didn't distant himself so much from President Clinton.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 03, 2003, 01:09:25 AM
AR is not that republican but it is a socially conservative state.

Hutchinson lost last year not b/c Pryor was trong or that he was GOp but b/c Hutchinson treated his ex wife poorly and people hated that.

Also Lincoln is moderate as is Huckabee, mod -right.

So a liberal can scratch AR from the list.  Clark as a fov son coud be competitive, but don't se ehim getting nomination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 03, 2003, 08:23:50 AM
<Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all VERY moderate>

Oh please.  Very moderate?  You haven't been watching the same Democratic debates I have.

<And it's not true that Dems can win the South just by being moderate.>

I didn't say they could.  I was simply saying they nave NO chance at all running as a liberal.

However, here is a fact you may want to consider before you stick Arkansas and Louisiana in the Dem column.  No NON-Southern Dem nominee has carried a single Southern state since 1968 and that includes Arkansas and Louisiana.  In fact, "buried" is a perfect description of how those candidates fared in those states.

But hey, pour the resources in down there boys if you think you can win.  The more money Dems divert from say Ohio and Pa. to the South, the better.  

I think you aren't being very realistic.  I'd love to say Bush is competitive in Mass and Rhode Island.  Damned reality keeps getting in the way though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 03, 2003, 03:17:10 PM
Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

The poll, conducted before and after the president’s trip, found "substantial immediate" improvement in Mr. Bush’s job approval (up from 56 percent to 61 percent), disapproval (down from 41 percent to 36 percent) and likability (up from 65 percent to 72 percent).



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lt. Gov. Immy on December 03, 2003, 07:30:55 PM
I just added my map today.  It's nothing special, just the 2000 results with NH, WV, and NV switiching to the Ds.  I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 11:23:43 PM
And the same poll shows that by a 51-41 margin people feel things are on the wrong track rather than the right direction.
And another poll shows the generic Dem nominee beating Bush 48-42.
The polls are all over the place right now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 04, 2003, 12:05:10 AM
Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

The poll, conducted before and after the president’s trip, found "substantial immediate" improvement in Mr. Bush’s job approval (up from 56 percent to 61 percent), disapproval (down from 41 percent to 36 percent) and likability (up from 65 percent to 72 percent).


 

I see you have done your research but my question is whether or not this organization has partisan leanings.  





Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 10:17:13 AM
Well got the report from CBS and that polling group has been used many times in the past.  It showed Bush's numbers when down at 52 and now on the up swing, with the improving economy; signing of Medicare Bill, and trip to Iraq to see the troops.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 01:07:48 PM
Indeed, it did. And as I pointed out, the same poll still has a majority saying that things are on the wrong track. So I guess the question is which way will people vote who approve of Bush's performance but feel that things are on the wrong track?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WONK on December 04, 2003, 05:08:54 PM
CBS PARTISAN???   NO WAY!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 05:11:19 PM
I know that would be very hard to believe, but it MAY be true :)




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 05:16:16 PM
I don't see any evidence to suggest that they are, or at the very least to suggest that they would put media bias over ratings and thus advertising revenue. The media are businesses like any other and ratings are number 1 priority to them, with any political bias clearly being less important...you have to do that to stay in business.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Flying Dog on December 04, 2003, 09:37:52 PM
I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.
Your not alone im pulling for gephardt to. But dont give up hope dean is not the nomminee just yet


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 05, 2003, 01:10:51 AM
The kkey is IA, if Gep wins there it could even be a convention nomination with Dean/Kerry in NH, and Edwards/Clark and dare I say sharpton in SC ( 12% and 2d in latest poll, got to mention him I GUESS, sigh) and Lieberman, Clark etc in other Feb 3 contests.

It could be wide open after Feb 3

OR Dean sweeps and it is over.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 05, 2003, 09:22:31 AM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 05, 2003, 06:42:03 PM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on December 06, 2003, 04:02:53 AM
I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 06, 2003, 01:25:22 PM
Let the People Chose who they want in the White House in November 4 2004 i want Bush but if dose win thats fine too


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 06, 2003, 02:07:56 PM
Let the People Chose who they want in the White House in November 4 2004 i want Bush but if dose win thats fine too
You seem very ambivalent. If you want Bush to win, you should definitely care if he loses. However, with ambivalence comes acceptance. You're willing to accept whatever happens, and that’s good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 07, 2003, 12:41:55 PM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.

Dean has the support of major unions and the ultra left.  The will help him win the nom.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 07, 2003, 06:26:58 PM
Dean will win the nomination and go down in November something like 54 - 46.  Pretty substantial win considering we are a 50 - 50 nation.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 08, 2003, 10:38:22 AM
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 08, 2003, 11:34:40 AM
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Biggest Dem voting block in SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ElectionAtlas on December 08, 2003, 09:05:04 PM
There is a new "deluxe" version of the electoral college calculator in the 2004 section.  This includes a dynamic bar graph and a map generator. As I mention in the Weblog entry, the state-polygons are currently quite rough and will be refined in due time.
Enjoy,
Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 08, 2003, 09:13:44 PM
I applaud your Deluxe Version of the Electoral Vote calculator, Dave. But, it’s weird how the states of Michigan, Hawaii, and Alaska are so....”abstract”. lol ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 12, 2003, 10:19:00 PM
Update Forum Predicitons:
We now have a total of 68 2004 Predicitions and  the average is 270 for Bush and 268 for the Dem.  This shows a *tightening* of the race since Dec 1 when the average prediction was 282 for Bush.  However, the average masks a continuing divergence of predicitons, with a range from Bush 459 to Bush only 137.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on December 12, 2003, 11:10:04 PM
I'll throw in a prediction of my own.  This one is for a race between Bush and Dean.  I think that Bush will manage to retain every state that he won in 2000.  In, addition, he will pick up Minnisota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maine and perhapesd Washinton and Michigan.  My feeling is that even with Arnold, there won't be a Republican gain in California.  However, Arnold's presence and stumping for Bush will, I predict cause a rise in Bush's numbers in that, state, at least for a while, causing the Democrats to spend money their and considering thier already streached resources after a hard fought primary, that's something that will become a nessesary evil for them (if you recall, Gore didn't spend a dime in California in 2000).  So Bush will be able to pick up several states that he lost in 2000, even against a Dick Gephart or Joe Liebermann, let alone Howard Dean.

Bush won't carry California, but in the end, it will make a big difference in the election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Cairo_East on December 13, 2003, 05:41:04 PM
IMO, all but 12 states are tossup at this stage.  There is just too much that can happen in 11 months.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 13, 2003, 07:48:23 PM
IMO, all but 12 states are tossup at this stage.  There is just too much that can happen in 11 months.

Maybe ten are toossups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 13, 2003, 08:11:10 PM
Lets see:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico,, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin could go either way in 2004.  27 states.

Bush best case scenario: 512-26 win
Dean best case scenario: 368-170 win

So there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 13, 2003, 11:03:03 PM
encouraging to see wide poll with Bush ahead in NH.  Not all defining this early, but with Dean close by state wise and him leading by big numbers there and Dems pounding the airwaves all year, nice to see BUSH still way ahead.

I eventually think NH will come off the tossup board and go for GOP as NH is so anti-tax and won't stomach Dean's tax proposals.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on December 14, 2003, 02:02:09 AM
Greetings from the Empire State:

Well, things are heating up in this presidential campaign, and Gore endorsing Dean puts him in a very good position.  But its still early and anything could happen.   Some of my political friends think that with this endorsement, Dean may clinch the nomination, however I think they maybe jumping the gun a little.  

Personally, I am excited about the possibility of a Dean - Clark ticket, or vice versa.  If these two are on the same ticket then the Dems have the best shot at winning the White House.  The Dems still need to realize that they need Southern Electoral Votes in order to win the election.    

See you all later.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 14, 2003, 05:48:33 AM
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 09:14:25 AM
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South

Let him be.  He is not going to win it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on December 14, 2003, 08:05:00 PM
He should really concentrate on holding onto the Gore states. But by reaching out to the South, although he won't win it, he may just make himself moderate enough to win votes in the battleground states in the Midwest and West.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 08:35:08 PM
He should really concentrate on holding onto the Gore states. But by reaching out to the South, although he won't win it, he may just make himself moderate enough to win votes in the battleground states in the Midwest and West.

By reaching into the unwinable for Dean he open himself to loose the close Gore states or more.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 14, 2003, 11:28:39 PM
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 15, 2003, 09:16:04 AM
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.

They  won't dump him they love him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 15, 2003, 04:35:14 PM
Yep but so do we :); just different reasons.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 15, 2003, 05:04:47 PM
Yep but so do we :); just different reasons.



True.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 15, 2003, 09:27:54 PM
Approximate tally of Bush against Dems with the following platforms:

Bush is a good guy. I respect the War on Terror, believe in it, and will continue it. Tax cuts are god too. Still, I disagree with the Medicare reform bill as it currently stands.

Bayh: 55%
Bush: 45%

Bush has mismanaged the war which I support in principle. Repeal the tax cuts!

Lieberman: 52%
Bush: 48%

Give peace a chance! No war! Ever! I don't care how many Americans they blow upo, they're victims of society, and they have a different moral system! Long live Al Qaedaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bush 53%
Dean 47%

More taxes! We need more money so we can build more bureaucracy so we will need more money so we will build more bureaucracy so we will need more.....

Bush 55%
Dean 45%

The sky is orange. In the middle of the day. Really. I'm serious. Vote for me.

Bush: 57%
Dean 43%

Boing!
Bush: 60%
Rubber Ball: 40%

Just so you know what we're up against. There are so many interests that just HAVE to vote dem, the slightest bit of sense on there part would carry the day.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ElectionAtlas on December 16, 2003, 10:04:12 PM
I have compiled a (dynamic - it will evolve) user prediction map for the 2004 election from the over 100 user-submissions thus-far.  There are two ways of compiling the data:  The state map is compiled from the median winning candidate / percentage for each state.  The overall total from these data are added. A second method is to take the median of the total electoral vote from the predictions.  Both of these results are shown on the Prediction 2004 summary page.

Interestingly, not much change is predicted from 2000... only WV (as of this writing) changes from Bush > 50% to Bush > 40%.

Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 17, 2003, 08:03:20 AM
Approximate tally of Bush against Dems with the following platforms:

Bush is a good guy. I respect the War on Terror, believe in it, and will continue it. Tax cuts are god too. Still, I disagree with the Medicare reform bill as it currently stands.

Bayh: 55%
Bush: 45%

Bush has mismanaged the war which I support in principle. Repeal the tax cuts!

Lieberman: 52%
Bush: 48%

Give peace a chance! No war! Ever! I don't care how many Americans they blow upo, they're victims of society, and they have a different moral system! Long live Al Qaedaaaaaaaaaaa!

Bush 53%
Dean 47%

More taxes! We need more money so we can build more bureaucracy so we will need more money so we will build more bureaucracy so we will need more.....

Bush 55%
Dean 45%

The sky is orange. In the middle of the day. Really. I'm serious. Vote for me.

Bush: 57%
Dean 43%

Boing!
Bush: 60%
Rubber Ball: 40%

Just so you know what we're up against. There are so many interests that just HAVE to vote dem, the slightest bit of sense on there part would carry the day.
If anyone was at loss for a definition of a rant, you now are not.
Long live al-qaeda line?  Not funny.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 17, 2003, 09:35:32 AM

Interestingly, not much change is predicted from 2000... only WV (as of this writing) changes from Bush > 50% to Bush > 40%.

Dave

I think that may be because the 2000 election is treated as if it was permanant by a lot of people on the internet...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 17, 2003, 11:08:09 PM
I did not ascribe those words or even thoughts to Dean, you will notice. Just posted it as a hypothetical platform. What would I be ranting about, anyway?

Yeah, 2000 election has been given too much importance in terms of permanent trends. Next years map will look very, very different. Mwa ha ha ha ha!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2003, 04:44:28 AM
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 18, 2003, 09:06:01 AM
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...

Maybe or maybe not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 18, 2003, 10:30:01 AM
I haven't seen any Democrats say that there will be a big Dem win in the EC.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 18, 2003, 12:21:09 PM
No. Most democrats predicting a victory see it as a repeat of Bush-Gore, with a few more states swinging dem. GOPers are much more likely to predict huge win, or even (as I do) a landslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 18, 2003, 01:10:52 PM
No. Most democrats predicting a victory see it as a repeat of Bush-Gore, with a few more states swinging dem. GOPers are much more likely to predict huge win, or even (as I do) a landslide.

With Dean as the nom it will be a big win for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 18, 2003, 03:23:17 PM
What happend to being objective?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 18, 2003, 07:03:33 PM
Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on December 19, 2003, 01:11:28 AM
Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 19, 2003, 08:17:10 AM
Quite an accomplishment?  Against Howard Dean?  Hardly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 10:16:45 AM
Wonderful technical changes, it is all so easy now!!

I have added my prediction, which is based on the assumption that the race gets close. If it doesn't there is no real point in making predictions; Bush wins and there is nothing to it. If the race gets close the reasonable swing states, which a party might lose from the last election, would be: Dems: Iowa, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin and Oregon, Reps: Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and West Virginia. (You all know why so I won't go into that).

This gives the following number of vulnerable EVs: Dems 39, Reps 35. Considering that the Dems are 18 EVs down to begin with there isn't much to hope for. Some of you would probably like to put Lousiana, Arkansas and Florida among the weak states. The two latter I've made lean states, but local politics are irrelevant.

Comments are welcome!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 19, 2003, 10:52:32 AM
PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:44:03 PM
I still think that Dean will not get the turnout from the middle Gore gotten.

PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on December 19, 2003, 01:46:42 PM
People will chose who they want to put States in the bush Side or Democarts Side


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:50:39 PM
People will chose who they want to put States in the bush Side or Democarts Side


Who said they wouldn't?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on December 19, 2003, 01:53:14 PM
Wait, I think I just gt a joke by John! See, if the emocRAts are democARts, then you put states in them like in a grocery store.... or.... something....

Maybe Limberman means that he's physically fit, ie fiscally fit! Ha ha, good one, John. And Shapapatron sounds techno, maybe that is an ironic jab at Sharpton's modernity, ie, really he's a throwback to the past. And Swwager souds like a sucking noise, meaing he's pulling the California center away from dems. Hey, John is pretty funny! Anyone want to have a go at interpreting some of his other jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 01:55:46 PM
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 01:56:59 PM
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

Anybody can make a joke whenever they want in here.  It's not against the rules.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 02:00:28 PM
I'm not against making jokes. I just doubt that someone would dedicate a lot of time to joining a forum wih making jokes as the only purpose. That is fine by me, I love jokes, I just wouldn't have that as my only activity in a serious forum.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 19, 2003, 05:22:55 PM
I find it hard to believe John has a problem spelling, it is far too contrived! I mean Joe Limberman?!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 08:57:37 PM
I find it hard to believe John has a problem spelling, it is far too contrived! I mean Joe Limberman?!

It is possible that Joe was a gymnist.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 19, 2003, 11:08:53 PM
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 19, 2003, 11:53:22 PM
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 20, 2003, 04:46:23 AM
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

America is more important than most European states. Also, it is a matter on national ego. Americans have a tradition of not caring and not knowing about anything else besided their own country, living in their own little world, which occurs in most big states (China, France, Japan, the UK, etc). This works because you are big enough. It wouldn't work for Swedes since we live in a so small country!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 20, 2003, 08:00:27 AM
Because with our electiuons we will rule the world.

Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

America is more important than most European states. Also, it is a matter on national ego. Americans have a tradition of not caring and not knowing about anything else besided their own country, living in their own little world, which occurs in most big states (China, France, Japan, the UK, etc). This works because you are big enough. It wouldn't work for Swedes since we live in a so small country!

Unlike Europe, America is practically an island that is why we only care about us.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 20, 2003, 10:27:00 AM
Is this the ghost of G.P.Nye?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 20, 2003, 12:00:36 PM
As a citizen of the UK, the 2004 election is importnant to me because the USA has a lot of influence. Decisions made by Bush for instance on the US economy, rebound not only on Wall Street but in London too. From my albeit limited experience, most Brits prefer the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether they are Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat voters themselves. The British public hate incompitent, 'folksy' politicians usually, so there was a strong dislike of George Bush even before the events of Iraq. I can remember most people I talked to thought highly of Clinton and wanted Gore to win in 2000. While I supported Bush's stance on Iraq (more to do with Tony Blair's assurances rather than Bush's), I hope he is defeated in 2004.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 21, 2003, 01:20:59 AM
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 21, 2003, 02:27:34 AM
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

Well, that depends on if Blair can get re-elected himself.

And they always say that you become friends with people who are most like you. So OF COURSE your British friends want Bush to win again....they are REPUBLICANS like you! (or think like a Republican anyway) lol ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 21, 2003, 05:25:39 AM
Blair won't have any trouble getting re-elected.
Trust me on this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 21, 2003, 10:32:43 AM
Yes, you are right. Blair is a shoe-in come 2005/6. Blair does have a strong working relationship with Bush, but ideologically they clash. Blair and Clinton saw eye to eye on far more things than Blair and Bush do, and I would imagine that if a Democrat is elected in 2004, they will have just as strong a relationship. I have a sneaking suspicion that Blair wouldn't mind if Bush lost...as long as it's not to Dean!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 21, 2003, 10:54:04 AM
Agreed, although I doubt he would have any serious problems with Dean.
Kuchinich on the other hand...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 21, 2003, 01:11:25 PM
No, some are some aren't I have lotso f friend son both sides of the aisle and across political spectrum across the world.


Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

Well, that depends on if Blair can get re-elected himself.

And they always say that you become friends with people who are most like you. So OF COURSE your British friends want Bush to win again....they are REPUBLICANS like you! (or think like a Republican anyway) lol ;D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 22, 2003, 07:19:11 AM
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

As a British citizen I am concerned what happens in the US, since it has a large impact on the UK. America catches a cold, the world sneezes, as the saying goes. For this reason I would prefer a Democrat to win the 2004 election. Democrats I believe are less isolationist, more internationalist and generally foster better international relations. This has to be a good thing. This is probably why pretty much all foreigners would prefer to see Dean in the white house than Bush. Bush just doesn't cut it with me. He comes across as a bit of a hick, no offense intended. He is more of a hunting, gun-toting, Bubba than an international statesmen. As someone said earlier this makes the British feel very uneasy! The vast majority of Britons distrust or have negative opinions of Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 22, 2003, 09:20:32 AM
I agree that most Europeans would prefer Dean.  

Dean would carry western Europe handily.  Perhaps Howie needs to move to France and run for something.  He'll get slaughtered here.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: English on December 22, 2003, 10:30:21 AM
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 22, 2003, 11:22:31 AM
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)

Most people in Sweden think, quite rightly, that the Democrats pretty much correponds with the Swedish right, whereas the Republicans are off the edge! It can be seen, for example, that the Swedish left, left of centre, centre, right of centre and right hate Bush. The "conservative", or rather libertarian, right is split on whether to hate him or not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 22, 2003, 12:05:37 PM
Although it has to be noted that the Swedish "right" would be considered as leftish is most other countries!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 22, 2003, 02:44:26 PM
Although it has to be noted that the Swedish "right" would be considered as leftish is most other countries!

Well, yeah, I suppose so...
Though, we have liberals (European ones), we just don't have any conservatives. Still, to cut taxes to, say, Finnish levels of 43% of GDP is seen as madly radical in Sweden, so I guess you are right.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 23, 2003, 08:22:03 PM
Pennsylvania...I think will stay democratic.

Pennsylvania is basically a 3 region state.

The Southeast which consists of Philly and its burbs has been trending democratic and probably will continue to do so for the forseeable future. Southeastern PA is more like the Northeast as a whole...even the Republicans which usually have 49/51% of suburban registration (democrats still don't break the 40% mark there yet) are pretty liberal-the democrats in the city or the burbs go without saying. These republicans or the regionites as a whole probably will go for someone like Dean or Clark in the plus 60% range. Sad to say, but its true, and its the fastest growing part of the state.

The central PA...carville called it Alabama...very republican, very conservative...Bush should carry the T of pennsylvania easily...just a matter if its in the high 50%s or low 60%s.

But Bush's waffling on tariffs (which in my view should never have been implemented in the first place, but I'm from the SE anyway) will likely cost him the West of the state, where the GOP had been making large inroads...and making up the loses it had incurred back east. Now that Bush has removed the tariffs, he's likely to alienate voters in that area...probably costing him the state--then again, the state had been trending democratic since nov 2002 anyway with a democratic governor whose sure to use his weight to tip the state to the Ds anyway.

The bigger problem is not Pennsylvania, Bush doesn't have to win PA...its West Virginia, a state thats probably going to be hit the hardest by no more tariffs and has a strong democratic registration edge. Coupled with Ohio (Republicans haven't won the white house without it). Bush could be in serious trouble in the former steel belt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 23, 2003, 08:34:43 PM
Not against a Howard Dean type.  Ohio stays comfortably Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 24, 2003, 04:20:55 AM
I agree with bullmoose's analysis of PA(one question: do you think that any House members might be threatend by the steel tariffs? And another: why is the strong GOP area in the centre of PA called the "T"? It looks more like a "Z")

Bush would struggle to keep WV anyway("No child behind" f***** up WV budget), but the Tariff's could be a killer for him there.

Ohio is a more conservative state than PA or WV, but it was close last time and a GOP congressman has said it's a tossup so I suppose it is.

Another state that the Tariffs issue could hurt Bush in is Arkansas(seriously!), but he's probably givin AR up already.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 24, 2003, 10:51:33 AM
Why would bush give up arkansas, he won it last time.  Plus it is socially conservative state like Bush, and Dean will definately not play well there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 24, 2003, 04:24:01 PM
If I were Dem strategists, I'd worry more about defending states such as Wisconsin, Oregon, Iowa, and New Mexico where Gore scraped by with 1/2 of one percent or less.  Might even worry about Minn where the margin was a slender 2%.  There's a much greater chance that these states switch sides than for Arkansas (won by Bush by 6%) changing hands.

Realpolitik is once again completely discounting the cultural conservatism of the red states.  Howard Dean won't come within 15 points of carryinjg Arkansas.  I suspect he's in for a disappointment when it comes to West Virginia as well.  People in these two states are no more going to turn national security over to Howard Dean than a man in the moon.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 24, 2003, 08:03:17 PM
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 24, 2003, 08:10:49 PM
I always thought it looked more like an "I" (with large top and a large bottom)[although the bottom runs into Pittsburgh and suburban Philly and some of those counties can go democratic so its more accurate to call it a T-the entire stateline with New York goes Republican, Erie county on occasion as well)

PA politics is confusing at times. In national elections for president, the SE has voted for the more liberal (socially) candidate as long as he doesn't talk about borrowing and spending (fiscally moderate or even conservative) the West is the opposite. So in congressional elections (especially now that the GOP has drawn the districts to favor them) the East votes for Moderate, fiscally conservative republicans [free traders] or similarly positioned democrats [you don't get a liberal democrat outside the city for congressional races] while out west the republicans and democrats tend to be protectionist, socially conservative candidates.

Thats why the SE where the counties around philly are very republican, yet vote for Clinton and Gore into the 60% range while the west is predominantly democratic around Pittsburgh and Erie yet has been voting Republican as of late. So I doubt congressional candidates will be hurt since they likely share the views of their consituents. Bush however, (who was supposed to be a free trade guy) might get hurt out west.


Just a hunch though...11 months is still pretty early to predict.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 24, 2003, 08:43:53 PM
Arkansas and Louisiana will vote for a northern liberal when pigs fly.  It's not going to be easy for Dean to try to slide to the center after he's run hard left for months before and during the primaries.  Also, Bush has 170 million during the primary season to define Dean as the leftist he is.  Think of all that beautiful footage the Bush campaign will have of Dean playing to the left base during all those Democratic debates.  They will run it in their ads over and over and over.......


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: they don't love you like i love you on December 25, 2003, 11:32:20 PM
you all are really underestimating Dean. He's hardly some ultra-liberal, and is really much more like Clinton than anything else. He's even to the right of Kerry and probably even Clark. What type of ultraliberal has an A rating from the NRA? Calling him an Al-qaeda sympathizer is just ridiculous, and incredibly immature.

anyway, I don't think Minnesota will go to Bush. Whle Gore did win it by only about 2%, Nader took around 5%. He won't get that much this time. If he runs again, he'll make very little of an impact due to the far left just wanting Bush out. I'd say his run would be more comparable to Buchanan's last year.

anyway, the breakdown of Minnesota. First you have the Twin Cities. These are solidly Democratic and Bush doesn't have a prayer of making it anywhere in here. However Nader got 10% in Minneapolis. Like I said before, that won't happen this time. So it means more solidly Democratic votes. Then there's the northwest. While this area is fairly socially conservative, it is still one of the most solidly Democratic regions of the country. Gore got over 60% in Duluth and even did well in the outer surrounding parts of it. This is actually the most solidly Democratic part of the state, since Humphrey won it over Jesse Ventura, while Ventura won the Twin Cities. If it comes close to a Republican, it's due to gun issues, since it's a big hunting region. A pro-gun Democrat like Dean is unbeatable here. He'll get at least 55% here, and over 60% in the Twin Cities.

Then there's the south where I live. This is a pretty diverse region. Some towns like Albert Lea are traditionally Democratic and remain it. Others like Rochester are pretty Republican. There are lots of college towns here (including where I live and go to school). The district here narrowly went to Bush due to the large influence of the western part and Rochester, but it can be won. Neutralizing the gun issue will also help big time.

The Twin Cities suburbs range from how inward they are, the innermost being very Democratic to the outer ones being solidly Republican. However the ones where the majority of the population lives are a socially liberal/fiscally conservative bunch. Bush won most of these places by narrow margins, but with his far right social record to attack him on, and a fiscally conservative Democrat like Dean against him, it could tilt Democratic.

Then there's the west. While not as solidly Republican as the Dakotas, it is still pretty Republican. Bush will still do fine here. However I don't think it'll be enough. As for Minnesota having a Republican governor, that won't help. He's pretty unpopular, and isn't liked by anyone besides the Republican base, the 44% who elected.

And Pennsylvania will also stay Democratic. After all Rendell won in a landslide and he was the mayor of an ultra liberal city following a popular Republican governor. If he can do it, a governor of a rural state like Dean sure can.

I'm trying to put up my map, but my comp keeps screwing up when I submit it. I'll keep trying though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:34:47 AM
Nader only won 5% in MN last time because of LaDuke, who seems to be popular in the North of the state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:40:24 AM
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 06:47:44 AM
I always thought it looked more like an "I" (with large top and a large bottom)[although the bottom runs into Pittsburgh and suburban Philly and some of those counties can go democratic so its more accurate to call it a T-the entire stateline with New York goes Republican, Erie county on occasion as well)

PA politics is confusing at times. In national elections for president, the SE has voted for the more liberal (socially) candidate as long as he doesn't talk about borrowing and spending (fiscally moderate or even conservative) the West is the opposite. So in congressional elections (especially now that the GOP has drawn the districts to favor them) the East votes for Moderate, fiscally conservative republicans [free traders] or similarly positioned democrats [you don't get a liberal democrat outside the city for congressional races] while out west the republicans and democrats tend to be protectionist, socially conservative candidates.

Thats why the SE where the counties around philly are very republican, yet vote for Clinton and Gore into the 60% range while the west is predominantly democratic around Pittsburgh and Erie yet has been voting Republican as of late. So I doubt congressional candidates will be hurt since they likely share the views of their consituents. Bush however, (who was supposed to be a free trade guy) might get hurt out west.


Just a hunch though...11 months is still pretty early to predict.

The area where Democrats NEVER get elected looks like a Z.
PA is a weird state, that's certainly true, but I've always liked it anyway... probably because it's so quirky...

I'm still a bit confused as to where the Scranton/Wilkes-Barr area fits in to the East-T-West model... is it a piece of the West in the East???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 08:46:18 AM
Bush remains popular in Arkansas.  Last time I looked, Huckabee wasn't going to be on the presidential ballot.  Bush is on the ballot - and thank the lord his opponent is going to be Dean.  Write it down, Bush will carry Arkansas by at least 15 points.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:03:50 PM
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 12:07:21 PM
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


Clinton won the state because he was from it.  With Dean as the nom  Bush will take by at least 10 percent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:14:00 PM
Evidence? Dean hasn't said anything nasty about Bill has he?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 12:38:14 PM
<Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democratic leaning state by 15%.  Stop being partisan please....>

Partisan?  Bush's father beat Dukakis by 15.  McGovern lost by 23.  Mondale lost by 18.  Those are the last 3 northern liberals on the presidential ballot in Arkansas and the results.  Those are the voting trends in Arkansas when the voters there are presented with an opportunity to vote for a northern liberal.  My prediction is quite clearly based on past presidential voting trends, not partisanship.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 12:39:03 PM
Evidence? Dean hasn't said anything nasty about Bill has he?

Other then he's republican-lite no.  What i said was that the only reason Clinton won Ark was because he was from it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:39:36 PM
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 01:03:45 PM
Bush carried Arkansas by about 6% in '00.  Expect him to take it by about 10% in 2004.

Steel Tarriffs hurt Bush in WV, PA, and OH mostly.  Pa and OH are big electorally, and PA and WV now swing to Dean.  OH is still a toss.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 01:36:18 PM
Arkansas will depend on the candidate, Clark would win AR in a cakewalk, but I'm not sure about the others YET.

BTW please drop the Northern Liberal argument, McGovern and Mondale were both from the midwest.

Bush won't win PA now and is in big trouble in WV.
But he doesn't really need them.
He does need OH and it's a toss-up now...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 01:57:14 PM
Bush can win without all three.  278-Ohio=258+Minnesota+Iowa=275, and a victory.  And he will probably add New Mexico in his sleep.  The election will be decided in the midwest, period.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 03:18:02 PM
Drop the northern liberal argument?   Fine.  Non southern liberal if you prefer.  No non southern liberal has carried Arkansas since 1960.  Satisfied?  Unless we're talking about a southernor (Clinton, Carter) it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference where the lib comes from....McGovern and Mondale from the MW or Dukakis from NE...or Dean from New England for that matter.

Clark would win Arkansas in a cakewalk?  Where do you get this stuff?

Ohio is a tossup?  Uh, Bush is leading every Dem candidate by 8 - 20 points and with that kind of spread nationally there is absolutely no way Dean or anyone else is running even in Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 26, 2003, 03:54:33 PM
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

Agreed!  No Republican will win DC in my lifetime (perhaps a good argument why it shoudl never be a state?)

But just to be fair, Minnybean, Tends, and Lovebites prediction of a 538-0 Bush loss are almost as insane, given that Bush won 3 states in 2000 by greater than 40% over Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 03:55:03 PM
Ohio is a tossup.  And you talk about liberals living in a cacoon, where have you been with Bush's repeal of the steel tariffs?  On your own little separate planet?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 26, 2003, 03:56:06 PM
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

Agreed!  No Republican will win DC in my lifetime (perhaps a good argument why it shoudl never be a state?)

But just to be fair, Minnybean, Tends, and Lovebites prediction of a 538-0 Bush loss are almost as insane, given that Bush won 3 states in 2000 by greater than 40% over Gore.

If Bush gets a five to ten point swing in his direction it will be a lanslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 04:38:45 PM
Ohio is not a tossup steel tariffs or no.  The latest national poll has Bush over Dean 55 - 37.  No way a Republican leaning state like Ohio is a "tossup" with national numbers like that.  BTW, the latest numbers came well AFTER Bush announced he was repealing the steel tariffs.  No cacoon here.  It's called reality my friend.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 26, 2003, 05:00:21 PM
Currently, it is obvious that Bush will win. So talking about current polls isn't necessary. If the elction were held today Bush would win. If it is a close race, similar to 2000, Bush will probably win as well. The Dems need a lot to go their way, and currently nothing is. And that's the bottom line. And you can't accuse me for living in a cacoon, since I don't want that to happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:02:22 PM
Bush winning 55-37% means an 18.5% swing from 2000, so Bush picks up (with his margin of victory in parentheses):

Maine (13%)
Vermont (2%)
New Jersey (2%)
Maryland (1%)
Delaware (5%)
Washington (8%)
Oregon (11.5%)
California (6%)
New Mexico (12%)
Michigan (13%)
Wisconsin (12%)
Iowa (12%)
Illinois (5.5%)

So that leaves Dean with Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, DC, and Hawaii.  I hope that demonstrates to you that polls mean slightly less than nothing before the conventions, and especially before anyone is nominated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 05:08:26 PM
The only poll that counts is the one next November.  I think we can all agree on that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 05:15:41 PM
With polls you should never read the headline figure, look for % undecided+other and adjust accordingly.
Also check out the outfit that conducted the poll for bias, and adjust accordingly.
Then accept that polls are a waste of time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bullmoose88 on December 26, 2003, 05:18:15 PM
Bush only has 55% in Ohio?

one year before his re-election?

When they talk about incumbents (usually senators) polling only in the low to mid 50s 11 or 12 months before an election in a state, it usually means those incumbents are vulnerable.

Bush is likely safe in Ohio, for now, but given he won it in 2000 and supposedly has high approval ratings, for him to only get 55% right now (as elections draw to a close, undecideds usually favor the challenger) is kinda low.

In PA Bush only breaks 50% in a few polls. Granted he has an 8-11point edge over Dean, but when you can't or barely break 50% 11 months before, you are more vulnerable than you think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:32:15 PM
Bush only has 55% in Ohio?

one year before his re-election?

When they talk about incumbents (usually senators) polling only in the low to mid 50s 11 or 12 months before an election in a state, it usually means those incumbents are vulnerable.

Bush is likely safe in Ohio, for now, but given he won it in 2000 and supposedly has high approval ratings, for him to only get 55% right now (as elections draw to a close, undecideds usually favor the challenger) is kinda low.

In PA Bush only breaks 50% in a few polls. Granted he has an 8-11point edge over Dean, but when you can't or barely break 50% 11 months before, you are more vulnerable than you think.
No, he has 55% nationally.  I have not found an Ohio poll.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 05:36:49 PM
Nor have I seen any specific Ohio polls.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:41:23 PM
Nor have I seen any specific Ohio polls.
Haha, this is the first time I have found myself in agreement with you, Agcat!  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 07:04:12 PM
There is a website entitled the Hedgehog Report  It contains daily polls from around the nation.  State Dem primary polls, state general election matchup polls, Dean vs Bush, Kerry vs Bush etc.  Quite interesting.  It's worth a look for all us political junkies.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 07:43:40 PM
What's the web adress?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 26, 2003, 10:13:45 PM
www.davidwissing.com

A guy out of Maryland maintains and updates the site.  If you scroll down on the site you get a lot of primary state Democratic polls that are hard to find anywhere else - Wisconsin, Georgia, Arizona, and Oklahoma for example.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 27, 2003, 04:15:27 AM
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 27, 2003, 10:27:09 AM
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  
Yes.  Polls mean nothing right now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 27, 2003, 12:17:52 PM
When I look at these polls it doesn't really seem that Dean is doing worse against Bush than the supposedly more electable and well-known candidates, such as Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman or Edwards. Is that just lack of name-recognition?  

Wait until Bush starts going after Dean.  And with Deans temper it's going to be fun.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on December 28, 2003, 11:03:39 AM
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 12:20:55 PM
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.

I am not aware of the 31-31-31 theory. Is there a brief explanation? And btw is voter turnout included or excluded in polls and so on, since turnout is so low in the US I would have thought it important. If you have 31% of the elctorate that would be enough with a turnout of 55%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 02:21:42 PM
Most of you are probably aware of the 31-31-31 theory. For the first time since it was analysed, America is split into three even camps of Dems, Reps and Inds. That 31% who hold no affiliation are those who will decide the election. Theres no point in either party trying to target the 31% in their own camp, those votes are in the bag. This trend should lead to a more 'centrist' political campaign. Deans campaign for one, is skewed in favour of those he knows are going to vote for him anyway. This is a big mistake. Several months for now it will be down to Dean versus one other candidate. Because the 'anti-Dean' vote is so split between Clark, Lieberman Edwards and Kerry (purposely ignoring the other 3 candidates) I think the odds are still against Dean even at this stage.

That ads up to 93%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on December 28, 2003, 02:29:05 PM
Gustaf, you've hit on a good point about polls and voter turnout.

In a close election, the party that best mobilizes its base will probably win.  Each party has certain segments that would never vote for the other party, but might stay home if they are not happy with the candidates, or even go over to a third party.

In 2000, both parties had problems with their base, with many Christian conservatives staying home, and thereby costing Bush the popular vote.  On the Democratic side, there was Ralph Nader, who siphoned votes away from Gore in certain critical states, most notably Florida.

Polls that don't take likelihood of voting into account can be seriously flawed.  This is a very hard thing to gauge, which is why the polls are sometimes unreliable in predicting the winner.

Nixon had his 40-40-20 theory, that each party would receive 40% of the voters regardless, and that the 20% of the swing voters would decide the election.  There are some theories out now saying that the percentage of swing voters is down to 10%, and that therefore makes it more important for a party to mobilize its base than to go for swing voters.  Maybe this is the theory that Dean is using.

The 31-31-31 theory goes the other way.

Different presidential candidates have used different strategies.  Both Nixon and Clinton used the "last vote" strategy, meaning that they would push as far as they could to the "frontier" of their support (left for Nixon, right for Clinton) as they could without endangering their base.  Others, like Reagan, have mainly concentrated on keeping their base happy, and following through on several core ideas.

Bush seems to be emulating the Clinton strategy, with his massive increases in government spending and the prescription drug care plan.  Dean seems to be going for the base.  We'll see which approach is more successful.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 02:47:42 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 03:31:07 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

The truth about that is Dean can not move to the center even if he wants to.  If he tries Bush bring out tape of him before and during the primaries.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 03:33:09 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 03:34:26 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 03:55:34 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 28, 2003, 04:13:10 PM
Bush IS on 55% in Ohio, but only 49% in Mississippi, and only 51% in Georgia.
He is actually polling worse in much of the Deep South than nationally.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:16:33 PM
Bush IS on 55% in Ohio, but only 49% in Mississippi, and only 51% in Georgia.
He is actually polling worse in much of the Deep South than nationally.


Again, do you have a link?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:20:27 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:23:57 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
I asked him for a link already, no reason to explode, buddy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:28:10 PM
Gustaf, you've hit on a good point about polls and voter turnout.

In a close election, the party that best mobilizes its base will probably win.  Each party has certain segments that would never vote for the other party, but might stay home if they are not happy with the candidates, or even go over to a third party.

In 2000, both parties had problems with their base, with many Christian conservatives staying home, and thereby costing Bush the popular vote.  On the Democratic side, there was Ralph Nader, who siphoned votes away from Gore in certain critical states, most notably Florida.

Polls that don't take likelihood of voting into account can be seriously flawed.  This is a very hard thing to gauge, which is why the polls are sometimes unreliable in predicting the winner.

Nixon had his 40-40-20 theory, that each party would receive 40% of the voters regardless, and that the 20% of the swing voters would decide the election.  There are some theories out now saying that the percentage of swing voters is down to 10%, and that therefore makes it more important for a party to mobilize its base than to go for swing voters.  Maybe this is the theory that Dean is using.

The 31-31-31 theory goes the other way.

Different presidential candidates have used different strategies.  Both Nixon and Clinton used the "last vote" strategy, meaning that they would push as far as they could to the "frontier" of their support (left for Nixon, right for Clinton) as they could without endangering their base.  Others, like Reagan, have mainly concentrated on keeping their base happy, and following through on several core ideas.

Bush seems to be emulating the Clinton strategy, with his massive increases in government spending and the prescription drug care plan.  Dean seems to be going for the base.  We'll see which approach is more successful.

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:32:59 PM
Explode?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:33:47 PM

?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:33:56 PM
Yes, explode at Realpolitik.  I already asked him for a link.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:36:22 PM

Ah. I get it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:37:24 PM
Lets' see if agcat gets it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:39:18 PM
I just reread my thread in search of the "explosion" and still couldn't find what the hell you are talking about.

However, I'll be anxiously awaiting that link.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:41:16 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:43:29 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:44:49 PM
I don't understand what you are trying to say, Gustaf.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 04:45:18 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:47:31 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 04:47:51 PM
Move on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:53:33 PM
Agreed.  We will move on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 04:53:56 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 04:57:41 PM
HUH???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 05:05:18 PM

You used explode. Agcat posted "explode?". I didn't get where he had gotten explode from. Then I saw that you had written it down. Then I mixed up his misunderstanding with mine, so I thought you were going to show him when explode was posted first but you didn't. OK? I am tired and thick. Let's move on...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Demrepdan on December 28, 2003, 05:05:36 PM
No way  a Republican polling in the high 50s nationally is polling 10 points behing that figure in the deep South.  

Get real.
One explosion for you.

The word explosion isn't actually in the quote...

He means he "exploded" with anger...

He did get a little SNIPPY when he said..."get real".
At least Dan gets me.

I got confused. I didn't recognise the word explode when Agcat introduced it. Then I found it in your post. So I thought that was what you were trying to show and...whatever, never mind...

lol...oh boy...lets just...pretend like it never happend. Nothing was ever said about exploding...back to where we were before all this confusion. Where were we anyway?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 05:07:06 PM
We were....
Realpolitik is supposed to be posting a link to a poll that shows Bush at a 49% re-elect # in the deep south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on December 28, 2003, 05:16:07 PM

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 05:22:31 PM

Well, thank you! Nice words are always appreciated! Now I get what the 31-31-31 thing is all about. But I am wondering if anyone know how the polls are made in this respect? If we suppose that turnout is higher among Reps and Dems than among undecided (which one would suppose) then the undecided wouldn't matter so much. If the polls are actually based on the electorate, and not on likely voters, then 35-40% would actually be well enough, if you just get all of them to vote. That seems wrong since the polls then would make no sense. But if you try to exclude people from polls it can easily backfire. Anyone got insights in what polling institutes do here?

Accurate polls must gauge the probability that a person will actually vote, and discount the opinions of those unlikely to vote.  People can be asked if they plan to vote, but they may not answer truthfully.  They can also be asked if they voted in the last election, or if they are even registered.  Statistically, adjustments can be made to determine voting likelihood, and discounting the opinions of those unlikely to vote.

As far as the undecideds go, they are also a problem, so certain assumptions have to be made there too, depending upon how far away the election is.  Generally speaking, voters who are undecided close to the election will probably break in favor of the challenger rather than the incumbent, since being undecided that late implies reservations about the incumbent.  In addition, other questions can be asked to determine the direction in which the voter is likely to lean.

It's true that Republicans generally have a better turnout than Democrats because their voters are generally more motivated.  But it may not be as true as it used to be.

I think I get your point about needing 35-40% of the electorate to win.  The actual number is lower, given our low voter turnout.  But I don't think it can be looked at that way for the reason you mentioned -- the people you count on to vote for your candidate must turn out.  So I think the only way to look at it is in terms of likely voters.

All these complications point out why it's so difficult to accurately predict winners in elections.

I know that in Sweden attempts to predict elections based on likeliness of people voting failed miserably. They actually gave worse results than those ignoring turn-out. This happened both before our last election when the right was boosted in the polls due to higher turn-out, which didn't materailze on election day, and in our referendum, where everyone thought the yes-side would do better than the polls b/c they were showned to ave higher turn-out, but they actually did worse.  

I'm not an expert but these things are really hard to predict.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:25:44 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 06:38:38 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:50:46 PM
I don't know about hate, but it sure is not a responsible position for the President of the United States to take.

Pretty academic though.  Dean is never going to make it to the White House -  unless he takes the tour.  I hear it's pretty good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:51:04 PM
Dean can hop to the center during the general election, so his being so far left shouldn't be a big deal.  Even now, he isn't all that liberal, buthis rhetoric is.  Bush went far right no stop McCain and moved back towards the middle in 2000, so dean can do the same.  But still, it is about Bush, not the Democratic candidate.

Everyone is "demonizing" Dean right now, as a CRAZY far left liberal. Why? What has he done that seems so liberal? And don't give me any SOCIALLY liberal examples, like his singing the gay civil unions law in Vermont as Governor. Democrats don't think Dean can win, so they attack him with all their might. Republicans know deep down (not all Republicans, just the smart ones) that Dean could possibly beat Bush, so they attack him with all their might as well. I think Dean will move more to the center when it comes to the general election. He has already had some right wing views expressed already. Like he's against gun control. Does that sound liberal to you? So he will inexorably move to the center during the general election. He HAS to.

The only message is that Bush is evil and so is america.

I won't argue that he has harped on in one way or another that Bush is evil. But you're saying that he has alluded that America is evil?! Oh get off it! That sounds like a Limbaugh trick. If you hate the President, you hate this country. Blah blah blah. What the hell ever happend to freedom?

Dean by worshiping at the altar of the UN puts the Un above our country.  That is hate of this country.
Riiight.....

What i understand from listening to him that he would rather negotiate why the city is burning then fight.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:55:22 PM
I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:56:26 PM
I believe Dean's latest position is that he "would have gone into Iraq if we had gotten the PERMISSION of the UN".

Good one Howard.

That is a leftist position.  I said it before it may work in the primaries but not in the general.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:57:13 PM
That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 06:58:00 PM
That's why he needs to sign up for the White House tour.

Dean has to many yes-men and hardcore leftist around him and it will drag him down.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 06:59:23 PM
I share a love of Howard Dean with liberal Democrats - for slightly different reasons.  Ha


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 07:00:40 PM
I share a love of Howard Dean with liberal Democrats - for slightly different reasons.  Ha

Watching Howard Dean is like watching a NASCAR race.  Because no matter what people say they only watch for one reason.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 28, 2003, 07:00:54 PM
Bickering among conservatives...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 28, 2003, 07:01:23 PM
It's gonna be a fun ride.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 28, 2003, 07:02:04 PM

A very fun ride.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on December 28, 2003, 08:36:21 PM
Prediction update:  Over 300 predictions now entered!
158/306 predictors predict a Bush win with the average EV Bush = 291 and Democratic nominee = 247.  Although the average is still pretty close to the 2000 results, a bigger Bush  trend has developed over the last 100 predictions:
59/100 predict a Bush win, Bush  313 EV,  Democrat  225.  Most strikingly,  the number of landslide wins (>350 EV) predicted for Bush among the last 100 predictions is 36, almost 5 times the number of democratic landslides (7) predicted.  So at this point in time the collective wisdom of the Forum posters is for a modest Bush win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2003, 06:19:56 AM
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 29, 2003, 08:16:39 AM
interesting site


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 29, 2003, 08:29:14 AM
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

This site has been posted once before by someone and then been posted again by me, so this is the third time. But everyone seem equally happy each time...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 09:51:03 AM
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...
At least you weren't lying... :)
Bush is under 50% in Alabama but it shouldn't be a concern.  The Dem only has 30% there, and a candidate like Dean wouldn't have a prayer.  dean really can only make a run at Arkansas, Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Louisiana in the south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 29, 2003, 09:57:44 AM
I bookmarked the site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 10:05:50 AM
I would, but I have bookmarked 150 things and it is mighty cluttered up there....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 29, 2003, 11:39:45 AM
I would, but I have bookmarked 150 things and it is mighty cluttered up there....

I have too many bookmarks now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 11:49:17 AM
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 29, 2003, 11:53:57 AM
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.

too much trouble.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 29, 2003, 12:00:23 PM
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...
At least you weren't lying... :)
Bush is under 50% in Alabama but it shouldn't be a concern.  The Dem only has 30% there, and a candidate like Dean wouldn't have a prayer.  dean really can only make a run at Arkansas, Florida, and maybe Tennessee and Louisiana in the south.

You mean Mississippi? the only poll from AL was by an outfit I have never heard of and is outdated. But then I always used to get MS and AL confused as well... :)

The methodology of that poll is interesting and quite useful in that it shows the Incumbent's score and the score of people certain to vote against the incumbent, but also the people who will probably vote against the incumbent in a seperate list.

Most people seem to think that Dean is certain to be the Democrat nominee so a generic score is probably closer to a Dean score than one for any other candidate.

Bush seems(if the polls are even vaugely accurate) to have some problems in the Deep South at the moment(but why? Iraq causualties? poverty? general anti-incumbency? other?) and It'll be interesting to see if it stays this way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 12:12:30 PM
Well for one not a lot of people are focused on General election yet.  It is a ways off and still waiting for Dems to pick a nominee.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 29, 2003, 12:18:46 PM
made afew seperate folders in my favorites for national politics and newspapers by states and  such.

Just make sub categories.
I'm too lazy for that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 29, 2003, 12:47:31 PM
oh my you guys sometimes leae yourselves wide open to a good slam :)

a democrat lazy, no come on!  :) :) he he


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 05:42:59 AM
I noticed before when I checked, that after, what I think was hundreds of predictions, the median was actually that every single state would vote like they did in 2000. Points at a lack of fantasy, don't you think? :) According to Jvravnsbo it is leaning republican now, so maybe people are really making predictions now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 05:52:56 AM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 07:07:12 AM
I do it on balance of probabilities(ie: current polling shows that Bush might struggle to hold MS but I'm not sure either way, so I put it as a low D on the prediction map but tossup on the confidance map)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 07:57:41 AM
I do it on balance of probabilities(ie: current polling shows that Bush might struggle to hold MS but I'm not sure either way, so I put it as a low D on the prediction map but tossup on the confidance map)

I just loked up your prediction map. It's interesting...you kind of go against the general view in predicting the dems doing well in the south but worse than in 2000 in other places (NM, NV, NH, etc). You have given most of the tossup EVs to the GOP, but that is acceptable since you still put the Dems as winner and is one yourself!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 08:09:36 AM
At the moment it looks as though Bush is polling worse in the Deep South than in most of the rest of the U.S(and this came as a shock to me. Mind you the last governor in the Deep South to be re-elected was Mike Foster in 1999...)
My map is also based on the presumption that the Dems will fight over the economy and possibly causalities in Iraq, not on social issues(and if they want to win that's what they have to do)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 09:08:24 AM
In 2000, Bush carried 72% of congressional districts in the 11 state South - almost half of those with 60% plus percentages.  This was against southernor Gore.  Don't expect a Howard Dean to do nearly as well against Bush in 2004.  However, republicans would welcome the Dems throwing as many resources as they want to at the South.  A little over half of the Southern congressional districts represented by Dems in the South were carried by Bush.  In other words, southern whites, while they sometimes vote for moderate southerners at the local level, are presidential Republicans through and through.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:45:15 AM
I wasn't talking about polls here, but real polls.  In recent weeks PA, FL, MO, NH and many others have come out with Bush in a huge lead over Dean or Clark or whomever.


I noticed before when I checked, that after, what I think was hundreds of predictions, the median was actually that every single state would vote like they did in 2000. Points at a lack of fantasy, don't you think? :) According to Jvravnsbo it is leaning republican now, so maybe people are really making predictions now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:47:20 AM
Yes last re-elected was in 1999, and I guess that is if you don't count FL being in the deep south.

However the GOP did just elect governors in SC, MS, AL, AR (Hey this was a reelection in 2002) so to just say reelection is a bit misleading.


At the moment it looks as though Bush is polling worse in the Deep South than in most of the rest of the U.S(and this came as a shock to me. Mind you the last governor in the Deep South to be re-elected was Mike Foster in 1999...)
My map is also based on the presumption that the Dems will fight over the economy and possibly causalities in Iraq, not on social issues(and if they want to win that's what they have to do)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 09:49:23 AM
Especially when Dean says we need to stop talking about "God, guns and Gays" and then comes out last weeka nd says he will talk more about his religion int he south.  He announced that.

FLIP FLOP--people are and will see through that.


In 2000, Bush carried 72% of congressional districts in the 11 state South - almost half of those with 60% plus percentages.  This was against southernor Gore.  Don't expect a Howard Dean to do nearly as well against Bush in 2004.  However, republicans would welcome the Dems throwing as many resources as they want to at the South.  A little over half of the Southern congressional districts represented by Dems in the South were carried by Bush.  In other words, southern whites, while they sometimes vote for moderate southerners at the local level, are presidential Republicans through and through.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 10:06:10 AM
Just because whites in a southern district choose to elect a Democrat to Congress, doesn't mean they will swallow a national Democrat as President.  For instance, in Texas, there were 6 districts represented by Democrats in congress but carried handily by Bush.  5 of 6 by at least 60 - 40.  Southern whites are presidential Republicans.  Dems trying to project the election of some Dem victories at the congressional or state wide office level to mean that automatically transfers to a Dean vote as President are living in a fantasy world.  There just isn't any empirical evidence to suggest that.  None.

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 10:15:39 AM
Plus as I've said they are voting for CONSERVATIVE to MODERATE dems in congress, Dean is neither.

Here is a story about Kentucky and how the state Dem party is struggling, esp note how they are strugggling with the national parties stands ona lot of issues.

---
Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home
 
     Related Stories

Party Chief Won't Break Up Scuffles
December 30, 2003
  Times Headlines  
 
Democrats Losing the Lease on Their Old Kentucky Home
 
 
Party Chief Won't Break Up Scuffles
 
 
Kerry Tackles Dean in a Backyard Battle
 
 
Money Pours In for Dean, Clark
 
 
Gephardt Proposes More for Disabled
 
 
more >
 
   
       
 
 
 
 
 POLITICS  
 
 KENTUCKY  
 
 KENTUCKY DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICS  
 
 DEMOCRATIC PARTY  
 

 

   
 
 
 
 
 
   
By John M. Glionna, Times Staff Writer


LA GRANGE, Ky. — Dethroned Democrat John Black stands on his front porch and gazes ruefully across the street at the City Hall building that had been his life. The longtime public official was voted out of office last month — just one victim of a Republican fervor that has galloped clear across this horse-breeding state.

"It's over," he says softly, pacing in his socks on a cold Kentucky morning. After serving 10 years as mayor and two terms as judge executive, an office similar to county supervisor, Black sighs, "My political career is history, all because I'm a Democrat. And that's just a crying shame."

Kentucky is among a handful of states close to the Deep South — including West Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Arkansas — that Bill Clinton carried in 1992 and 1996, but that George W. Bush won in 2000. Experts predict that the Democrats probably need to win some of them back to capture the presidency in 2004. .

Democrats once held unquestioned sway in Kentucky. But no more. The state recently elected its first GOP governor in 32 years. The GOP also has made gains from the coal fields in the east to the white-fenced horse stables of suburban Lexington. And this political transformation in Kentucky illustrates the hurdles Democrats will face as they battle to win moderate-to-conservative states in next year's presidential election.

Politicos like Black now view their national party as a liability. They have a stern word of advice for a Howard Dean or any other Democratic presidential nominee who might come calling to reclaim a state that went for Bush: You're in trouble.

The state's 4 million residents — 91% of them white, many the direct descendants of the original 18th century pioneering landowners — have rallied behind the Republican agenda of tax cuts, a well-funded military and increased domestic security.

Meanwhile, local Democrats say they have been hurt by the positions their national leaders take on divisive social issues, such as support for same-sex unions and abortion rights.

"The Republicans are strong in many of these states and becoming increasingly so," said Hastings Wyman, editor of a bimonthly newsletter, Southern Political Report. "These places are conservative on social issues, hawkish on foreign affairs — and that plays into Republican hands."

Even loyal Kentucky Democrats predict that Dean, the former Vermont governor broad-brushed by Republicans as an East Coast liberal, would turn off voters here if he emerges as the party's nominee. They say more moderate candidates, such as retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark or Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, would fare better, but still lose to Bush.

"George Bush is more popular in Kentucky than any state outside Texas," said Paul Blanchard, formerly of the Center for Kentucky History and Politics at Eastern Kentucky University. "Nothing he does with the economy or in Iraq seems to diminish his popularity here."

In Gratz, tobacco farmer Ricky Fitzgerald gives voice to such attitudes, saying the Republicans speak his mind. "I'll be a Bush man until the cows come home. I was so sick of Clinton and the Democrats who ride that same donkey."

Kentucky's religious bent also seemingly works against the Democrats. The state ranks eighth nationally in the number of churches per person, with 18 for every 10,000 residents. And surveys in recent years have shown that church attendance has become an indicator of voting preferences — those who go to services at least once a week are far more likely to back Bush than those who rarely attend.

In 1992, Clinton was able to win in Kentucky by capitalizing on a faltering national economy. He won it again in 1996, but by a narrower margin.

"Clinton talked about a middle-class tax cut and presented himself as a political moderate," said Wyman. "He was a Southern candidate with a Southern running mate. That played well in Kentucky and elsewhere in the region."

But Kentucky residents soured on Clinton and, more recently, Democratic Gov. Paul E. Patton after well-publicized sex scandals. "The Democrats have worn out their welcome," said La Grange resident Meredith Recktenwald. "It started with Clinton and continued right on through ex-Gov. Patton."

Patton's last year in office was clouded by controversy after he first denied, then acknowledged, an affair with a Kentucky businesswoman.

A Democratic fiefdom for roughly 100 years after the Civil War, Kentucky became more receptive to the GOP in presidential elections and some Senate and House races in the 1960s, when the national Democratic Party shifted to the left. But for the most part, state and local offices remained solidly Democratic.

Registered Democrats, in fact, still outnumber Republicans in the state 60% to 40%. But now, many of those Democrats routinely cross party lines when casting their ballot.

"People here didn't leave the Democrats — the party deserted the people of Kentucky," said Paducah Mayor William F. Paxton, a registered Democrat who regularly votes for Republican presidential candidates and in November voted for the new Republican governor, Ernie Fletcher. "With their gay rights and abortions, they just became too darned liberal."

Kentucky state Sen. Tim Shaughnessy, another Democrat, plans to disassociate himself from the national party during his run for reelection next year. "The Democrats are beginning to look like an extremist fringe group," he said. "There's no clear message being delivered — not here and not on the national level."

Shaughnessy is now in the minority in the state Senate, something that would have been hard to imagine in 1988, when Democrats controlled the chamber by nearly a 5-to-1 margin. Republicans now outnumber the Democrats 22 to 16. The GOP took over the chamber in 1999, when two state senators switched parties to join the Republicans.

Democrats still enjoy a comfortable majority, 65 to 35, in the state House. But with help from their new governor, Republicans are confident they can chip away at that margin.

At the federal level, the picture looks bleak for Kentucky Democrats. The state's two senators and five of its six congressmen are Republicans.

Rep. Ken Lucas, the sole Democrat, recently decided not to run for reelection. If they lose that seat next year, Kentucky Democrats will have no voice whatsoever in the nation's capital — ending an era that has seen the state elect at least one Democrat every year since 1828.

Running for Lucas' seat is Democrat Nick Clooney, a newspaper columnist and father of actor George Clooney. The elder Clooney is already being skewered for his family's leftist politics. Carped one state Republican voter in an Internet political chat room: "Given how far left George Looney is, I'm betting Daddy is also a kooky liberal."

On the national front, Kentucky Republicans claim Dean is so far out of line with voters here that he'd lose a "whisper campaign" on just his support of civil unions for gay couples.

"The Democrats' Hollywood left-wing party isn't registering a geehaw with our voters," said Ellen Williams, chairwoman of the Kentucky Republican Party. "The only way a Howard Dean could win votes here is not to speak — to just smile and shake hands. The moment he opens his mouth, he loses voters."

One voter Dean himself says the Democrats have lost is the middle-class Southern white male, a defection party loyalists acknowledge could loom large in next year's presidential race.

"Howard Dean was right — we need that good ol' boy in the pickup truck. Especially in Kentucky," Shaughnessy said. "Because that guy lives in every county across this state. The Democratic Party used to be his party, but not anymore. And we've got to find a way to get him back."

The Democrats haven't lost John Black — not yet. Since leaving office, he's tried selling real estate. But he's not happy. "I want to stay in public service, but it seems the only way to do that is to change parties," he said.

"People tell me to move to another county, but the way I see it there is no place to go. They're all turning Republican."


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 10:54:50 AM
I wasn't talking about polls here, but real polls.  In recent weeks PA, FL, MO, NH and many others have come out with Bush in a huge lead over Dean or Clark or whomever.


I've warned you about this before: Do NOT look at leads! The key number is BUSH's number, not Deans, not Clarks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 10:58:37 AM
Yes last re-elected was in 1999, and I guess that is if you don't count FL being in the deep south.

However the GOP did just elect governors in SC, MS, AL, AR (Hey this was a reelection in 2002) so to just say reelection is a bit misleading.


Neither FL or AR is in the Deep South.
Whoever they actually voted for is immaterial.
The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governer from a different party than the incumbents.
Facts are Facts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:01:00 AM
I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:05:08 AM

It is what it is.  I' ve said on this board that i'd love to believe that Bush is going to surprise in Massachusetts or Maryland or Rhode Island.  However, I'm a realist, and there just is no evidence in past voting statistics that this will happen.  I'd rather Rove run his campaign based on what is doable and not what he'd like to happen.  I'm afraid the Dean people are engaging in wishful thinking.  In fact, I know they are.

Not comparing like with like are you?(except possibly Maryland)
The GOP do not dominate any Southern state in the way that the Democrats dominate MA or RI.
They do dominate places like UT or WY in that way though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:20:57 AM
That article you posted is terrible.
No sound analysis, plenty of guesswork, lot's of bad witnesses(using a Republican on a chatroom????) bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again... oh and note that what gains the GOP made in the east in 1999 was REVERSED in 2003), badly written, generalises things...

Oh and does not mention that Bush is polling worse in KY than average(can't let those annoying facts get in the way of yet another "ohh... the Democratic Party is dead..." article can we?)

And I don't care who wrote it: bad is bad.

[turns off rant mode]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 11:26:06 AM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  
Tossups should not sbe equally distributed between the parties.  If the popular vote of the rest of the nation is 60-40%, why would you give 50% of hte tossups to each side?  Distribute the tossups like this:

If there are 250 Dem Ev's and 200 Republican Ev's, give 20% more of the remaining states to the Dems.

Please tell me if this is heard to understand.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:36:12 AM
 
 
Hardly a Republican chat room, it comes from the LA TIMES today.  And the times which went after Arnold and others and is HARDLY A conservative newspaper.  I can get the link if you want proof.


   




That article you posted is terrible.
No sound analysis, plenty of guesswork, lot's of bad witnesses(using a Republican on a chatroom????) bad facts, out of date(a special election in KY-6 could go either way, the Dems are going after KY-3 again... oh and note that what gains the GOP made in the east in 1999 was REVERSED in 2003), badly written, generalises things...

Oh and does not mention that Bush is polling worse in KY than average(can't let those annoying facts get in the way of yet another "ohh... the Democratic Party is dead..." article can we?)

And I don't care who wrote it: bad is bad.

[turns off rant mode]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:38:39 AM
I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?

SC, GA, AL, MS, LA; the coastal plain basically.
Much of Arkansas is hilly so is geographically "Upper South", it also has a relatively(ie: for the South) low population of African-Americans and the race card is rarely played(in comparison to the rest of the South)
It also sits "on top" of Lousiana ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:41:45 AM
Well i think most americans would consider it part of the deep south. But I guess then that wouldn't fit your theory.

I would definately consider Arkansas int eh deep south.

What do you define as the deep south?

SC, GA, AL, MS, LA; the coastal plain basically.
Much of Arkansas is hilly so is geographically "Upper South", it also has a relatively(ie: for the South) low population of African-Americans and the race card is rarely played(in comparison to the rest of the South)
It also sits "on top" of Lousiana ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 11:42:51 AM
<The point is that within two years every state in the Deep South has elected a governor from a different party than the incumbents.  Facts are facts>

They sure are.  Quit ignoring them.   Citing a Dem elected here and there in local or statewide racea means absolutely nothing with regard to how whites vote at the PRESIDENTIAL level in the SOUTH.  

Even if the Dems somehow captured Kentucky 6th, it would mean absolutely nothing for Howard Dean in the PRESIDENTIAL general election.  Those white voters will not swallow Dean.  Bush carried the district by 13 points in 2000.  I'll wager anything you want (a meal of Texas BBQ vs. a platter of fish & chips or something) that Bush carries that district by more than 13pts against Howard Dean.

I think you are very knowlegable about American electoral politics in general and I respect your opinions.  You certainly are 100 times more well informed about politics here than I am about British politics.  However, with regard to the South, you are simply wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:48:04 AM
Ah... but the article was about Kentucky in general not a specific presidential election(I would guess that W would carry KY-6 even if he loses KY. Balance of probabilities again)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 11:50:17 AM
I've never really thought of Arkansas as part of the Deep South anyway(it's part in part out), so whatever theory I might have I've not twisted geography.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:56:12 AM
But as has been happening, KY has been trending to GOP with 2 GOP senators now.  pending the special election all congressional seats are gOP except 1 and he and the dem is retiring.  The Governorship which has been in dem hands for a LONG time has now switched and KY voted for Bush in 2000.


Ah... but the article was about Kentucky in general not a specific presidential election(I would guess that W would carry KY-6 even if he loses KY. Balance of probabilities again)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 11:56:57 AM
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.


I've never really thought of Arkansas as part of the Deep South anyway(it's part in part out), so whatever theory I might have I've not twisted geography.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:03:39 PM
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.

Even if you use that Arkansas is not in the Deep South(parts are, most are not)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:10:51 PM
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 12:24:39 PM
Yes I agree.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:38:17 PM
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.

Nope.
I'm perfectly well aware that the GOP has been able to manipulate Southern voters with "wedge issues", and unless the Democrats campaign on economic issues they don't have a prayer in the Deep South.
Also we DO have race-baiters and gay-bashers over here.
Heard of Norman Tebbit(aka: "The Chingford Skinhead") or Enoch Powell("Rivers of Blood") before?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:45:45 PM
I suspect that our friend from across the pond continues to underestimate the cultural and social conservative nature of the South and it's effect on southern voting patterns for one very understandable reason.  He has never been exposed to anything like that kind of conservativism in Britain and can't begin to identify with it.  This is understandable.  I doubt anything like it even exists among the tories.  There's nothing like it in Great Britain and it's hard to give a lot of credense to something you can't identify with.
I don't think he has.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:47:20 PM
So southern whites who vote for Bush are voting for a race- baiter and gay-basher?  Oh brother.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:55:31 PM
So southern whites who vote for Bush are voting for a race- baiter and gay-basher?  Oh brother.....
I don't understand where you got that statement from.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 12:56:38 PM
Read realpoilitic's last post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 30, 2003, 12:57:41 PM
me either, we were discussing how the south is culturally conservative.  I see that as beig hard to argue with, they don't call it the "bible belt" for nothing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 12:58:50 PM
I did.  He said that there are race-baiters and gay-bashers in the UK also.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 12:59:39 PM
I never said that Bush is either.
What I said was that the people who exploit predjudice in the Deep South(eg. Trent Lott) are similer to people like Powell and Tebbit.
I did NOT call Bush a race-baiter OR a gay-basher.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:05:24 PM
I have been arguing that the South is cultural conservative and that's why they vote Republican - that that kind of cultural conservatism doesn't exist in Britain.  Realpolitic seemed to equate cultural conservatism in the South with "race-baiting" and "gay bashing" since he brought up those terms.  What do those two terms have to do with conservative?  I'm neither and the President I vote for is not either one of those.  Conservative yes.  Conservative does not equal race-baiting and gay - bashing.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:06:10 PM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  
Tossups should not sbe equally distributed between the parties.  If the popular vote of the rest of the nation is 60-40%, why would you give 50% of hte tossups to each side?  Distribute the tossups like this:

If there are 250 Dem Ev's and 200 Republican Ev's, give 20% more of the remaining states to the Dems.

Please tell me if this is heard to understand.

Okay, I see your point. I think of tossups as states where the candidates are tied and thus they are hard to predict. Then I think they would most likely spread out equally. I don't reason like they would be affected by how other states vote. If the Dems carry New York resoundingly it won't help them win a close race in New Mexico, or whatever states you might pick.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:07:40 PM
Oh we have some VERY socially conservative areas over here...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:09:55 PM
Then why bring up "gay bashers" and race -baiters?  I don't see the connection with the cultural conservatism we were discussing.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:10:18 PM
I am far from being an expert, but I did think that Arkansas was not part of the deep south. It seems to make sense looking at electoral maps, if you define deep south states as those who always vote the same way: Goldwater, Wallace and so on. Then you get a marked difference between those with DS voting patterns and those with other ones.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:11:32 PM
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:14:45 PM
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

An Agreement!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:15:58 PM
Yeah!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:16:21 PM
I have never really considered Arkansas to be part of the deep South.

An Agreement!

The unholiest alliance on the forum so far? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:19:45 PM
very possible - hehe


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:20:04 PM
I would say...

Every forum has an incredibly long thread, and this is ours!  Yay!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:23:27 PM
Aha... :)
...although I hear that Jmf and Migrendel might come to an agreement on something... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:24:17 PM
Aha... :)
...although I hear that Jmf and Migrendel might come to an agreement on something... ;)
Nah... :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:26:07 PM
I would say...

Every forum has an incredibly long thread, and this is ours!  Yay!

That is actually natural, since it is an ongoing discussion as predictions change and events unfold.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:27:05 PM
Let's set a trap... something like "is sex with poodles always immoral"... and wait for John-mr_president to fight for the "yes" side...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:32:40 PM
Let's set a trap... something like "is sex with poodles always immoral"... and wait for John-mr_president to fight for the "yes" side...

I thought they were on opposite sides of the political spectre (or maybe they're an entity of some sorts...:)). John actually asked us to stop talking about them "like that" on another thread, so maybe they will join forces! :) It is kind hard to understand them though.  

I think you could get jmf to post rather a lot on that subject if you got him mad enough (although there might be a limited number of bible quotes there...:))


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:34:15 PM
John logged in last evening but didn't post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:34:58 PM
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:37:07 PM
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?
I have read many of his posts.  He was playing around, he wasn't being serious.  but why did Leip let him post?  He was obviously a troll, delete his account.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 01:38:21 PM
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?

Would that be the old forum?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:38:56 PM
Does anyone here remember Democrat/Republican?

Would that be the old forum?
Yeah.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:41:13 PM
Ah yes, Democrat/Republican.  I remember him well....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:42:22 PM
Ah yes, Democrat/Republican.  I remember him well....
You didn't register until after his departure.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 30, 2003, 01:43:53 PM
I'm just wondering whether or not not John/mr_president is Democrat/Republican...
[cue dramatic music/thunder]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:44:47 PM
I doubt it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:45:07 PM
I was on the old forum - had to reregister for the new forum and start over.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:46:45 PM
I know that---

But you registered on July 2, 2003, and by that time Democrat's threads were buried.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:47:52 PM
Your point....?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:48:53 PM
Democrat stopped posting way before youm registered.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:50:03 PM
I read a number of his old posts, but who cares?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:51:27 PM
I read a number of his old posts, but who cares?
So wouldn't it be inaccurate to say you remember him?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:53:07 PM
No, I read his some of his old posts on the old forum.  Not all were buried.

Get a life.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:54:59 PM
No, I read his some of his old posts on the old forum.  Not all were buried.

Get a life.
No reason to make harsh remarks, which is always what you seem to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:55:44 PM
Yawn


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:56:59 PM
Truce??


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on December 30, 2003, 01:57:42 PM
No problem


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 01:58:56 PM
Good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 30, 2003, 02:45:20 PM

I don't believe it! You had a really good chance to build a pyramid there, but oh, no, you decided not to quote each other! *Sigh*

Btw, Realpolitik seem to take for granted that Mr_president and John are in fact one and the same [cue more dramatic music/thunder].

Do everyone think this? They do have different e-mail adresses.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 30, 2003, 03:11:19 PM

I don't believe it! You had a really good chance to build a pyramid there, but oh, no, you decided not to quote each other! *Sigh*

Btw, Realpolitik seem to take for granted that Mr_president and John are in fact one and the same [cue more dramatic music/thunder].

Do everyone think this? They do have different e-mail adresses.
I didn't want a pyramid.
I'm not sure if John and Prez are the same person but htey act like it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Brown73 on December 31, 2003, 01:36:42 PM
I read in an earlier post that the Electoral College Calculator on the John Edwards website was pretty good.  In truth, it's got a lot of inaccuracies, including Louisiana going Republican in 1992, South Dakota going Democratic in 1976, and New York going Republican in 1988.  So if you're looking for accurate trends, your best site is the "grayraven" site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 02:10:38 PM


got a link?

I read in an earlier post that the Electoral College Calculator on the John Edwards website was pretty good.  In truth, it's got a lot of inaccuracies, including Louisiana going Republican in 1992, South Dakota going Democratic in 1976, and New York going Republican in 1988.  So if you're looking for accurate trends, your best site is the "grayraven" site.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 02:10:58 PM
and welcome to the forum


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 02:16:19 PM
Here is the link to Edwards' electoral college calculator:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

It is good, but the deluxe calculator here is the best one I have seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:02:56 PM
sorry miami I should have been more specific, i meant if Brown had a link.  I have looked at the edwards map before, but good for others to see it.


Here is the link to Edwards' electoral college calculator:

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

It is good, but the deluxe calculator here is the best one I have seen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:05:43 PM
What did you want a link to?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:41:14 PM
something called grayraven?  maybe I can find it with google search .


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:43:44 PM
http://www.grayraven.com/ec


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 03:54:29 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 04:20:15 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 05:55:37 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 06:42:18 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 06:52:38 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 06:55:41 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 06:56:51 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 07:43:03 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 08:56:25 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 08:57:09 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:00:49 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:03:00 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:06:27 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:10:26 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:11:21 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:14:37 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:20:57 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 09:21:58 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on December 31, 2003, 10:52:45 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 11:35:00 PM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:31:49 AM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.

You're right, they don't get any better... :( :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 01, 2004, 10:24:15 AM
Enough with the pyramids! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 10:25:19 AM
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 11:12:31 AM
This post could be the beginning of a beatiful pyramid! :)
Yes it can.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 12:51:27 PM
I'll help out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:04:12 PM
good for you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:05:45 PM
No--good for YOU.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:06:28 PM
good for everyone.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:09:16 PM
Agreed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 01:09:43 PM
Yes it is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:11:05 PM
LETS GO HURRICANES!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 03:53:59 PM
wow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 03:59:37 PM
Harry - good quote, real deep! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:00:18 PM
It is very deep.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:03:57 PM
That depends on who it's directed at.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:04:28 PM
Very true.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:06:19 PM
Who is being deep now, huh?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 01, 2004, 04:07:15 PM
I have no idea.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:08:09 PM
Me, stupid.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:14:31 PM
Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:37:46 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 04:46:04 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 01, 2004, 04:58:49 PM
No wasn't accusing you of it.  Was thinking john and Mr Prez when I wrote that, and who knows there motives????? :)

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 05:04:03 PM
No wasn't accusing you of it.  Was thinking john and Mr Prez when I wrote that, and who knows there motives????? :)

I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...

I have seriously not been doing this to boost post numbers. I am not quite THAT sad a person.  :) I have done a lot of politically oriented posting as well. You shouldn't accuse people of being non-serious like that. Everyone who has done a suffcient amount of serious posting has proven themselves, as I see it. There are people like John or mr_president who could be accused on only non-serious posts. Also, one could easily say that it is wrong to post a lot of short posts instead of fewer, but larger ones. I think few people here are in the forum to achieve high post numbers. Do you?

That is actually a very good question. I have been pondering it for a long time. I am beginning to wonder whether one should actually feel sorry for them, maybe they're just uneducated or foreign or young or a combination of these. It just doesn't make sense, why would someone join a forum like this just to piss people off?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:27:13 PM
18.  of course, my quote applies to everyone.
No one should ever be stupid.
We'd have many fewer problems in this world if people heeded my quote. :)
That's actually right. :) Too bad noone ever thought about that before, huh? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 06:53:25 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 06:55:44 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:01:00 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
Yeah, I guess we both did.  But I didn't to them to increase my posts, I did them for fun.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 07:02:20 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
Yeah, I guess we both did.  But I didn't to them to increase my posts, I did them for fun.
That's what we all say... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:03:19 PM
Right.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 02, 2004, 07:16:43 PM

It is...but let's try and focus this one, shall we? :) I currently have three predictions going, all of them show GOP-victories. My main prob is not seeing enough polls and not knowing about all of the events influencing voters. Swedish media don't pay a lot of attention to American politics, though they will later on, when elections come closer.

America really is a different world, actually much more so than I originally thought. Sports, politics, everything except TV, I guess, is different.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 02, 2004, 07:34:42 PM

It is...but let's try and focus this one, shall we? :) I currently have three predictions going, all of them show GOP-victories. My main prob is not seeing enough polls and not knowing about all of the events influencing voters. Swedish media don't pay a lot of attention to American politics, though they will later on, when elections come closer.

America really is a different world, actually much more so than I originally thought. Sports, politics, everything except TV, I guess, is different.
Polls mean nothing at this point.  believe me.  Look at 1980 and 1992.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 03, 2004, 10:02:05 AM
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 03, 2004, 10:23:07 AM
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 03, 2004, 10:40:35 AM
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)

well to answer the tossup point, in a best case scenario, all of the tossups would go to the winner.

Secondly, the realistic one I will do as soon as a nominee is clear (and no, Howard Dean has not won it, and I would not be surprised if he doesn't get the nom)

plus I am afraid of being wrong ;) lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:44:00 AM
The link is www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/CurrentPolls.htm)

Lot's of very interesting trends, even though I don't trust polls a lot...

That's quite and insteresting site.
He's baaaack!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 03, 2004, 10:44:42 AM
ok, this Australian (who, even though he leans left, will be neutral here, due to it not being my decidion) has compiled a realistic "best case scenario" for Reps and "best case scenario" for Dems. A landslide is possiblke for both sides if they play their cards right, but their will be no McGovernish losses for either side, due to the polarisation of America at the mo.

For the Democratic Best Case Scenario: Carey
For the Republican Best Case Scenario: Carey2

I apologise if I made a mistake with the shades of certain states, I was kinda rushing.

Seems reasonable to me. You have a lot of tossups in both cases, and you let all of them go to the winning party, but otherwise they seemed accurate to me. Why don't you make one which is not best-worse, but the one you think will occur? ;)

well to answer the tossup point, in a best case scenario, all of the tossups would go to the winner.

Secondly, the realistic one I will do as soon as a nominee is clear (and no, Howard Dean has not won it, and I would not be surprised if he doesn't get the nom)

plus I am afraid of being wrong ;) lol

Good points, no one seem to agreee with me on tossups anyway, so never mind that...

I agree Dean has not clinched it yet, but if he beats Gephardt in Iowa he will be hard to stop. There are other threads for this, though, so you can post there if you're interested in discussing that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:45:58 AM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 12:09:50 PM
But after 2 weeks fo free air time and 2 wins by Dean, the media coverage will be huge for him and will eliminate Clark too.


The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 12:25:19 PM
But after 2 weeks fo free air time and 2 wins by Dean, the media coverage will be huge for him and will eliminate Clark too.


The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.
Clark won't be eliminated by then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:04:58 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:09:36 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:10:48 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:11:30 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.
Say what you may, yay!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:12:38 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If they can not stop dean on that date then the Dems are in trouble.
Well, that's their last chance.
Then when Dean is nominated they then can watch the party run off a cliff.
Say what you may, yay!
It's true all the smart Dems know it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:15:44 PM
So I'm a stupid Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 03:35:14 PM
Miami Miami Miami, look at your last post.  Talk about leaving the door WIDE Open to a comment :)

Well Stu Rothenberg was on C-SPAN a while ago discussing Politics at American University and it was very informative check it out if you can on replay.

Detailed Presidential and Senate races.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on January 03, 2004, 03:47:24 PM
You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 03:50:29 PM
Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 04:45:47 PM
Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 06:33:18 PM
wake up! Miami, your dreaming again!


Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 06:37:09 PM
wake up! Miami, your dreaming again!


Yeah I was like I could do that job as I know the candidates better than he did and sure as heck know geography better.

Quite watching after that, had some errands to run.  Plus swaiting for football!  GO COWBOYS!


You were watching that too? - That was interesting although he might want a geography lesson!  The two senate people they had on afterwards weren't quite as informative as they were biased and didn't answer anybody's questions.
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.
Why's that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 06:43:00 PM
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 06:46:16 PM
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
they have the D, the running game, and a efficient quarterback.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 08:48:16 PM
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:03:07 PM
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 09:12:11 PM
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.

I'm tempted to agree. Still, I have a feeling Nevada, West Virginia and NH could go Dem, which may balance this out; even though that obviously isn't reflected by the average prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:28:59 PM
I just had a look at the compiled prediction map. A few days ago it was the same as 2000, now the average prediction dictates that New Mexico, Iowa and Wisconsin will go Republican. Any comments?
I do think that those three states will go republican this year.  They were very close in 2000 and expect the small swing to bush in 2004 to makes those states go Republican.

I'm tempted to agree. Still, I have a feeling Nevada, West Virginia and NH could go Dem, which may balance this out; even though that obviously isn't reflected by the average prediction.
Nevada and WV might but I don't think NH will.  And that doesn't exactly balance it out, see the electoral vote totals:

NM: 5
Iowa: 7
Wisconsin: 10
----
NH: 4
WV: 5
Nevada: 5


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on January 03, 2004, 09:42:08 PM
dont forget AR--6 more votes, and a chance at OH--20


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 09:45:38 PM
dont forget AR--6 more votes, and a chance at OH--20
Arkansas is a distant chance, and Ohio will be tough, but it is winnable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 09:51:37 PM
Ohio may well prove to be a key state. However, assuming Dean is the candidate, would a socially conservative state like Ohio vote for someone like him? It's very doubtful if I'm honest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 10:01:06 PM
Ohio may well prove to be a key state. However, assuming Dean is the candidate, would a socially conservative state like Ohio vote for someone like him? It's very doubtful if I'm honest.
It is doubtful, but KEEP HOPE ALIVE.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 11:13:04 PM
Don't forget about Minn.  It could very easily go Bush with a regular Democrat running, let alone Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: LibPa on January 03, 2004, 11:54:13 PM
Has anyone paid attention to the 2003 elections?  Louisiana and Pa being more Dem. and Kentucky and Miss. going Rep?  What was the difference?  In Pa., more minority voters in the cities did come out, but that is only part of the story.  Lancaster, York, Adams, Dauphin - combined equals Philly - voted more Rep. than ever.  The other small cities and the rural industrial areas voted more Dem than ever.  These areas have not gained new voters, nor the Reps. lost votes.  Inactive Dems. came out this year to boost Dem. totals.  These blue collar voters came to vote for an unashamedly pro-choice, liberal Democrat in Baer.  They are not conservative, they will vote for a real Dem or not vote at all.  Southern Evangelicals have become more and more of a Rep. certainty (a danger to them in itself), but the rural blue collar Catholic areas of Ohio, Pa., and Michigan do not have new Rep. votes, only many Dems. who just don't vote.  They come out for the genuine article.  (Baer is not Catholic, so it wasn't that.)  If their turnout is decent, Ohio is Dem in 2004.  That is just enough, is it not?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 03, 2004, 11:56:34 PM
Yep.  Sounds like Dean has the election all wrapped up.  Nominate him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 11:58:27 PM
Has anyone paid attention to the 2003 elections?  Louisiana and Pa being more Dem. and Kentucky and Miss. going Rep?  What was the difference?  In Pa., more minority voters in the cities did come out, but that is only part of the story.  Lancaster, York, Adams, Dauphin - combined equals Philly - voted more Rep. than ever.  The other small cities and the rural industrial areas voted more Dem than ever.  These areas have not gained new voters, nor the Reps. lost votes.  Inactive Dems. came out this year to boost Dem. totals.  These blue collar voters came to vote for an unashamedly pro-choice, liberal Democrat in Baer.  They are not conservative, they will vote for a real Dem or not vote at all.  Southern Evangelicals have become more and more of a Rep. certainty (a danger to them in itself), but the rural blue collar Catholic areas of Ohio, Pa., and Michigan do not have new Rep. votes, only many Dems. who just don't vote.  They come out for the genuine article.  (Baer is not Catholic, so it wasn't that.)  If their turnout is decent, Ohio is Dem in 2004.  That is just enough, is it not?

Hi! Welcome to the forum.  Luisiana has a long tradition of going Dem. in state-wide races, so I don't see any big revelation there.  As for Ohio, I would arguee you there.  Ohio has a long Republican tradiotion and many former Dems now vote Rep.  As for PA, we are one of the weirdest states in the country when it comes to elections, so who knows?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:17:51 AM
I think the Dems should concentrate on a few big key states. Pennsylvania and Ohio would be there, and then throw in WV with them. Then, what about Florida? If the Dems went all out and won these three, they could afford losing all other "losable" states and still win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on January 04, 2004, 11:43:54 AM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 11:53:30 AM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.
Yes, those are losable states, as are the entire upper midwestern states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 12:39:30 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 12:49:32 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 02:04:40 PM
Dean has the north east in the bag (including PA).  All he needs to do is to concentrate in the Mid-West and some of the swing souths to win.  

The Dems will never again sweep the south.  I think we need to let that dream die and fight the good fight in the north.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mtwhitney on January 04, 2004, 02:23:31 PM
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 02:28:53 PM
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


You have a point, but let's remember that a Democrat win is still within reach. Much of Bush's pickup came in states that could easily go Dem, like Florida, Nevada and Arizona. So there is no need to get desperate just yet. As I said, for now, winning the steel states + Florida should be the main focus for the Dem campaign. If Florida is out of reach, as I suspect it might be, then they will have to rethink and go for the mid-west and south-west instead (NM, NV, WI, MN, etc).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 04, 2004, 02:58:36 PM
Bush Might win the Same States he won in 2000 & Pick Up Three or More States like Iowa, MINN, Wiscons, That's the best i could spelled


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 03:10:27 PM
Bush Might win the Same States he won in 2000 & Pick Up Three or More States like Iowa, MINN, Wiscons, That's the best i could spelled

You're longing to give it up aren't you? Come on, start to contribute instead of goofing around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:16:00 PM
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 03:21:33 PM
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:27:31 PM
Is English his nineteenth language or is he just fooling around?  Because I really am starting to wonder.  He jumps tenses and can't spell for his life.

He is fooling around. I am sure of it now. He mixes comprehendible statements with complete rubbish. Also, if he just had bad grammar, he could see how we spell certain words and do the same. And he seems to be able to read our posts, so he should be able to do that. For a short while I was beginning to suspect that the guy honestly couldn't spell, but now I think he is just messing with us.
I think I agree with you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on January 04, 2004, 03:28:23 PM
Dean has the north east in the bag (including PA).  All he needs to do is to concentrate in the Mid-West and some of the swing souths to win.  

The Dems will never again sweep the south.  I think we need to let that dream die and fight the good fight in the north.

Though I don't think we'd sweep the South, FL, AR, TN, LA, and MO (and NC if Edwards is on the ticket) are definitely in play.  never give up on those, as those states might be the key.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 03:40:14 PM
I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:40:44 PM
NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 04, 2004, 04:57:51 PM
Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 05:07:21 PM
I think that this discussion centers too much around the assumption that the 2004 election will be reasonably similar to the 2000 election, with the 2000 election therefore serving as the baseline for predictions about 2004.

It may turn out that way, but I don't think so.

Think about the differences between the 1968 and 1972 elections.  In 1968, Republican Nixon barely beat traditional Democrat Humphrey, who was serving as VP to then-Pres. Lyndon Johnson.  The Democrats had been in power 8 years, and the economy was doing well, but the country was deeply divided over the Vietnam War, among other things.

There was also a third party candidacy that year, with George Wallace winning several southern states with his quasi-segregationist message.  It is questionable who would have won those states in the absence of the Wallace candidacy, since the south then was still very reluctant to vote Republican, and in some states, Nixon came in third, behind Wallace and Humphrey.

Come 1972, the situation was radically different.  The economy was doing well, having gone through a recession in the 1969-71 period.  The Vietnam War was all but over for the United States, although tragically this was not the case for the Vietnamese.  In his re-election bid, Nixon faced an opponent at the far left of the Democratic Party, rather than a traditional Democrat as in 1968.

In short, the political landscape had radically changed, and it would have been foolish to base 1972 calculations on the 1968 political landscape.  Nixon went on to comfortably win states that he couldn't have dreamed of carrying in 1968.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?  I'd say a lot fewer than would have trusted it to Al Gore in 2000.

I don't think Bush will win on the scale that Nixon did in 1972, and it's probably better if he didn't (look what happened to Nixon!) but I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 05:34:40 PM
Well clark took himself out of VP race today, slamming the door on the South for Dems.

NC isn't in play if Edwards is the VP.  Is he is the nominee it might be though.  They won't hold their nose for Dean with Edwards at the bottom of the ticket.
I still think he may accept if he is offered the job.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 06:11:17 PM
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 06:13:51 PM
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.
That's why I have openly suported Russ Feingold.  This election will be decided in the midwest, and Feingold's the midwestern man!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:16:30 PM
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 06:36:19 PM

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 06:40:56 PM
Wouldn't it be beneficial for Dean to nominate someone from the Mid-West?  

The South is Bush territory.  Florida is NOT in play, especially with the Bush re-election victory in 2002.  Arkansas is out, Louisiana may be a swing, but not likely.  Kentucky and Tennessee are also pushing it.  SC, NC VA, WV are all out (well, ok, maybe not WV).

The Mid-West is the key.  Sweep the NE, pick up OH and MO and then you're talking.

The South is never gonna cave or even help.

You're probably right. I thought Missouri was in the south, but I'm a foreigner....

Still, if you pick up Ohio, and loses NM, you will still lose the election. If you lose OR, IA, WI and MN you could lose the whole thing if you don't have anything to make it up with.



I guess Missouri can be said to be in the south, but it all depends.  Most people say that Maryland is in the north east, although technically it is a southern state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 04, 2004, 06:44:28 PM

You're assuming that Bush will win in a landslide, and that is possible, maybe even likely. I am basing all my predictions on a fairly close race. If Bush wins in a landslide, there isn't much to predict anyway.

I do think that the difference towards the national average will be roughly similar to 2000 in most states, but the national average can be very different. Do you think otherwise?

No, I think that states with a higher percentage voting Democratic, or Republican, will remain largely the same as 2000.  I don't think Massachusetts is suddenly going to turn strongly Republican, or Texas is going to turn Democratic.

But I do think the dynamics are very different this time than in 2000, and that Bush will win much more comfortably than he did last time.  I don't for example believe that Florida will be the ultimate swing state; I think it will be safely Republican this time.  But we'll see.  I never make bold predictions this far out, especially when we don't know the Democratic nominee.  Primaries can bring a lot of surprises.

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dazzleman on January 04, 2004, 06:58:12 PM

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 09:26:46 PM
I think its important to realize that Gore wasn't the only person to win states by a narrow margin.  Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas and Louisiana were all fairly close.  Nevada too for that matter.

There's always room for growth, on both sides.  But you're right, this will be a very different election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on January 04, 2004, 10:31:20 PM
Everyone must remember--Dean has not been nominated yet; when it gets down to just him and Clark it can very well go to Clark, putting MO, AR, TN, and LA easily back into play for the Dems, leading to a close Dem victory!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 12:44:04 AM
How do you see Oregon?  I see it as first tier too as it was clos ein 2000 also.  Plus GOP is pushing hard ther ei hear.



Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 02:46:20 AM
I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 05:08:11 AM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 07:05:07 AM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansaw, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 07:39:08 AM

Yes, I agree on Florida, if you read my posts carefully you will see that I am keeping Florida hanging as a tossup. Certain stated have changed, NV and WV are examples of states that might lean Dem this time, Florida would be an example of the opposite.

I think it's more likely that Pennsylvania and Michigan will be toss-ups than Florida.  I think that Bush will hold onto all the states he won in 2000, with a bigger margin of victory, and pick up some states that Gore carried that year.  The only question is how many.

The first "tier" of states that he could pick up are states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and New Mexico, all of which he lost narrowly to Gore.  The next tier would be states like Pennsylvania and Michigan, and the third tier would be states like Illinois, New Jersey and California.

I don't know how far he'll go, but I don't think we'll be quibbling in 2004 over the same states that we quibbled over in 2000.

The election is ten months away and that's a long time, so I have to qualify my predictions.  I also have to say that they are based on the assumption that Dean will get the Democratic nomination.  It would be significantly different with Clark, Gephardt or Lieberman.

But if Dean is nominated, it's hard to imagine him picking up any state that Bush won in 2000.  Dean is the candidate for a nasty vocal minority.  They may be loud and obnoxious, but they can't carry a general election, and they'll drive away moderate voters in droves.  That is my prediction, so I would say forget Florida, Nevada and West Virginia too.  Worry about Dean winning Michigan, Pennsyvania, California and New Jersey.

Again, you're assuming a clear Bush win. If that happens, obviously the Dems will not pick up much, and likely lose a lot instead. But I am assuming a close race, simply b/c if it isn't Bush will just win and there is less fun! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 09:12:57 AM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 09:38:10 AM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

The "we can win over their voters, but they cannot win over ours" seems a little biased, I must say.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 09:41:03 AM
I have finally posted my map.  Thanks for making it easier, Dave.  :)

Well, at least you have distributed the tossups more or less equally... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 12:25:49 PM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

There is a reason why a Democrat can't win in the South or plains/moutain states - the great majority of people in those states always vote Republican.  The converse could be said of Maryland or Vermont, among many other lefist states.  Just look back at states won by Bush and Dole in 92 and 96, and that's with Perot sapping the votes of the sillier type of Republican voter.  Admittedly, Clinton wasn't very popular, but he's as popular as a Democrat has been in 40 years.
I think the electorate is just as polarized as activists, except for a small sliver in the middle.  I think it is just possible that a very popular Republican, like Reagan, could turn a few strongly Democratic states.  I doubt the alternative is possible, as places like Utah and Mississippi are filled with people who truly despise the Democratic party on ideological grounds.

One other note on Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee - these states are firmly Republican in presidential voting.  Louisiana has narrowly elected Democrats who at least pose as conservative locally, but that doesn't mean much regarding presidential elections, any more than Pataki in NY means Bush can win that state.  

Utter rubbish. No evidence+wildly innacurate facts+falling straight into the trap I warned you all about.

Utter Rubbish?  I don't see any 'evidence' in your post either.  Just a claim.  If you refuse to accept voter's behavior in previous elections as evidence, then I suppose there's no evidence to say one state is more Republican and another more Democratic.  Perhaps Bush will sweep the Northeast while Dean will win a big majority in Texas.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 12:43:25 PM
It would help if you actually read what I said.
Bush will not win Massachusetts or Rhode Island and the Democratic nominee will not win Texas.
However I see no reason why a Democrat can't win Mississippi and I see no reason why Bush can't win Maryland.

My main point is:

Most voters split tickets=non-polerised electorate HOWEVER most activists and elected officials are very partizan and very polerised.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 05, 2004, 01:09:20 PM
Dazzleman's comparison of Nixon's electoral fortunes to Bush's, as a caveat to comparing 2004 to 2000, are well taken.

Let us not forget, however, that McGovern was tranparently liberal and anti-war, while Dean attempts to sway with the breeze. Already we hear his apologists claiming what a moderate governor he was (as if Vermont politics somehow resembles national politics). And we have the sorry spectacle of Dean himself shamelessly pretending to have some religious side, misquoting the Bible in interviews meant to play to Southern audiences.

The point is, might not enough baby-boomer Democrats in the pivotal Democratic states, hungry for the White House, resentful of the 2000 victory, romanced by the youthful fervor of a Dean campaign, and lulled into complacency by successes in Afghanistan and Iraq, turn out for Dean?

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

There are some similarities between the 1968-72 period and the period since 2000.  The political landscape was radically changed by the Sept. 11th attacks, and national security is a much more prominent issue than it was in 2000.  Will the American people entrust their national security to somebody like Howard Dean in 2004?.....

I do think that the political landscape has changed radically against the type of Democrat that Dean is, and if he is the nominee, I would not expect his performance to be comparable with that of Gore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 05, 2004, 01:25:11 PM

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 05, 2004, 01:40:37 PM
The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 01:43:06 PM

Even without Florida, just a turnover in Nevada (the demographic there is rapidly changing) and New Hampshire (Dean's neighboring state) would bring us to an electoral tie.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.

What's the last part supposed to mean? That they are stupid and vote "wrongly" or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 02:11:55 PM
NH Anti-tax and plus all polls with Dean way ahead of Dem field show him Way behind Bush.

Also they thought Jean Shaheeen would win and she didn't , Sen Sununu the GOP candidate won easily.

Next, Nev went all GOP in 2002 also, Gov in a landslide and GOP picked up new Congressional district.


The "new migrants" in Nevada that I'm thinking of are the middle class from California and Democratic states in the the East and MidWest, who have flooded the Las Vegas Valley in the last four years and would love to vote in a pivotal state in 2004.

And in New Hampshire, you have a growing Vermont-type youth culture gradually replacing the older, libertarian voter. Not to mention the Dean hordes from Burlington coming over to organize and spend the summer in the White Mountains.

I just don't think Republicans should be complacent against Dean.

New Hampshire should go reliably to Bush.  I also think Nevada will do the same, because demographic changes only effects elections if the new migrants vote, which thank goodness they tend not to do.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 06:33:26 PM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 06:58:36 PM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 05, 2004, 10:16:52 PM
It's importent to remember that while political activists/hacks/elected officials are very polarised, the electorate is not.
Political activists make the mistake of assuming that because they are polarised the wider electorate is.
They also make the mistake of assuming that 2000 was some form of perfect reflection of each states "natural" profile.
Hence irrational beliefs about states won by fairly small margins, or where the defeated candidate still won over 40% of the vote being "unwinnable"
The GOP might win Maryland or Vermont, the Democrats might win Mississippi or Georgia.
There is no reason why either party can't win the aformentioned states.

Don't assume that Gore and Clinton's wins in 92, 96, and 00 show the pulse of the American electorate either.  All Gore proved in 2000, is that a Democrat running as a pupulist-centrist (which he is not) can almost win an election and win big in the mid-west and PA.  Dean is not a populist-centrist and he has no intention of running as one.  He is a far-left liberal, who would lose in an utter landslide if it weren't for the northeast and pacific-west being full of far left liberals like him.

Eh...what is that last part supposed to mean? Bush is a conservative who would lose in a landslide if it wasn't for the annoying fact there are so many conservative voters! In fact, any candidate would lose in a landslide if they didn't have voters who shared their opinion! :)

What I meant is that there is such a high concentration of far left voters in the NE and Pacific West that those states are sure to go for Dean and will probably be the only states to go to Dean.  Bush's support is msuch more spread out throughout the country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 05, 2004, 10:54:46 PM
Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 05, 2004, 11:22:27 PM
Uh, I wouldn't hold my breath that Bush will carry Maryland or the Dems will carry Georgia or Mississippi.  Opebo has it right when he says there is no evidence that consistent voting trends in these states are not going to hold this time.  There are many more Dems in Maryland and many more presidential Republicans in the deep South.  It is as simple as that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 05, 2004, 11:50:28 PM

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.

Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:50:11 AM
Uh, I wouldn't hold my breath that Bush will carry Maryland or the Dems will carry Georgia or Mississippi.  Opebo has it right when he says there is no evidence that consistent voting trends in these states are not going to hold this time.  There are many more Dems in Maryland and many more presidential Republicans in the deep South.  It is as simple as that.

But there is nothing to say that they can't.
That is the importent word. can't not won't


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:51:49 AM

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.


I wouldn't trust someone from Faux News to speak my weight...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Carey on January 06, 2004, 09:07:22 AM

Bill O'Reilly's prediction was 8 states for Dean.

Presuming at this point that Dean is the nominee then Dean will only win 5 or 6 states. NY will certainly go for Dean and CA wouldn't be a surprise either but they did vote in Schwarzenegger but that is probably not enough to change the voting pattern. Dean will probably carry Vermont, Newhampshire and a couple of others that won't mean much. My overall prediction is that if Dean is the nominee this will be a very boring presidential election.

Bill O'Reilly is a windbag, I'd take everything he and everybody else on that network says with a grain of salt.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 06, 2004, 10:10:43 AM
I think we can number crunch all we want, but voter turnout will seriously effect the outcome. Regardless of whether or not Dean wins the Democratic nomination, he has energised a large portion of the liberal leaning electorate, who in the past rarely turned out to vote. A sustained youth/minority vote drive should be more successful this time around than in the recent past. One aspect many people over look is how much many Democratic voters WANT BUSH OUT, there is a thirst for gaining back the White House. Yes Howard Dean and authorist Michael Moore (who is a Clark backer) may be behind this, which doesn't make the DNC entirely comfortable, but it can be used effectively. If the turnout increases by even a handful of percent, and most of those votes go to the Demc, on state wide levels this could produce suprising results.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 06, 2004, 10:23:20 AM
These people are always there, infact they are the most faithful to vote, it is just that their voice is louder this time around in the primaries. If his strategy works and he gets the nomination he is actually weakning his chances in becoming president.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 06, 2004, 12:01:35 PM
What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 06, 2004, 01:19:47 PM
I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region - Leiberman would fare just as badly, and he's supposedly less left wing.  Interestingly, because the South is so strongly Republican now, I don't think nominating a Southerner would actually carry any southern states - for example I doubt Edwards could even carry North Carolina, just like Gore couldn't carry Tennessee.  The exception would be a very conservative Democrat like Zell Miller or John Breaux, but they're supposedly nearly Republican and could never make it through the primary.  

A southerner or midwesterner could carry swing states in the Midwest, however, like Ohio, Wisconsin, or Iowa.  Gephardt is supposed to be the candidate Karl Rove most fears.  I'd have to say however that Gephart is not a very good midwestern candidate, since I can report he's very unpopular in Missouri outside of St. Louis - I'm not at all sure he'd carry the state against Bush.  I doubt he could be elected governer of Missouri for example - voters outside St. Louis dislike St. Louis pols like the rest of the country dislikes Northeastners.  

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 06, 2004, 06:09:57 PM
I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region

Please don't brand Dean as an extremist. He might support civil unions and oppose the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean he's a raving communist. His views on gun control, or his fiscal policies as Govenor, are to the right of the Democratic party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 09:44:54 PM
that would be awesome if dems have like a dean with the lead but have to take it to the convention.  Can see it already either dean splits or narrowly gets it and losta  ton of time and money fighting off rivals.


What are the chances that Democrats in the February and March primaries will realize Dean's potential weakness as a nominee, and pledge enough delegates to other candidates to throw the choice to the convention?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 09:47:01 PM
But he also wants tax increases, wants massive regulations on business,  yes he balanced budget in VT ( half the size of Miami) and he had to raise taxes through the roof there to do it, and he wants to socialize medicine.



I think that people overstate the difference between Dean and other potential Democratic nominees, based on subtle differences in their place on the ideological spectrum.  Ultimately it is not Dean's extreme leftism that makes him unelectable, it is his region

Please don't brand Dean as an extremist. He might support civil unions and oppose the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean he's a raving communist. His views on gun control, or his fiscal policies as Govenor, are to the right of the Democratic party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 07, 2004, 09:22:37 AM
With the economy going in the up direction it is going to be a tough sell to raise taxes, especially on the middle class.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 10:46:34 AM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 10:48:05 AM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.
"of the mainstream candidates"??? Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 07, 2004, 12:03:51 PM
Yes if you are extrreme left or extreme right you are out of the mainstream.  Like kucinich, Dean, Sharpton and Braun way too far left.


The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.
"of the mainstream candidates"??? Who are excluded, all actual left-wingers, or what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 12:46:58 PM
I was excluding Kuchinich, Braun and Sharpton.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 07, 2004, 02:13:05 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

I agree Realpolitik that Edwards is further left than he is percieved to be - and this goes to my point that people percieve candidates by their region more than their ideology.  Ideology can be hard to pin down, whereas a Southern accent automatically makes right wingers give you the benefit of the doubt, and left wingers view you with suspicion.  
Of course I see ALL Democrats as too left wing!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:16:47 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:20:42 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:24:32 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:25:43 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 07, 2004, 02:26:47 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 02:31:22 PM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nonluddite on January 07, 2004, 09:35:27 PM

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

Yes, they're progressive, and have been since Bryan


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 08, 2004, 12:22:00 AM
The most left wing of the mainstream candidates is actually Edwards... he'd make a good Labour cabinet member.

Acctually, not so.  If you look at the political calculator, I don't believe its Edwards.  Also, Dean made a statement that he wanted to put government regulation into all industry, that pretty leftwing.  Also, the New Labour Party is acctually further to the right than the American Democrat Party on a lot of issues.

Two points. Firstly, The political compass that we used on another thread placed all primary candidates on their chart.

Secondly, you have to make a difference between rhetoric and action, or perhaps rather direction and aim. The UK as a country is to the left of the US, so a party aiming to maintain the current situation in the UK would be to the left of a party favouring status quo in the US.

But the Democrats are not the status quo.  They are anti-status quo and have been since FDR.

It was just an example.  

Of what?

My point. Let's take an example. I don't remember the American tax level, so I'll use other countries. In the UK, the overall taxation is 37% of GDP. In Sweden it is 53% of GDP. If a British party advocated higher taxes and a Swedish party advocated lower taxes, the Swedish party might be viewed as further to the right. However, if the Swedish party wants to cut taxes to, say 50% of GDP, and the British party wants to raise them to 40% of GDP, the Swedish party is still favouring a more leftist society. All I was saying is that this should be kept in mind when these comparisons are made. Look at where you're headed, not just the direction.  

I see what you are saying.  I guess that I am looking more at "immediatly" liberal than "overall" Liberal, if you know what I mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 08, 2004, 12:57:41 AM
Great site, great game.

This is so hard.     Bush is not the same moderate candidate that ran in 2000----and then not knowing which Dem gets the nod.  But this is like having 4 variables.  Bush A, Bush B, Dean, Clark.

Making a list of gray states, I came up with 10, which includes my own.
MO, NV, NH, MI, SC, OH, WI, FL IA, OR.

This list presumes Clark with the nomination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 08, 2004, 02:04:26 AM
I made a major change to my map when it comes to New York.  I have a hunch.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 00tim on January 08, 2004, 12:13:57 PM
Great site, great game.

This is so hard.     Bush is not the same moderate candidate that ran in 2000----and then not knowing which Dem gets the nod.  But this is like having 4 variables.  Bush A, Bush B, Dean, Clark.

Making a list of gray states, I came up with 10, which includes my own.
MO, NV, NH, MI, SC, OH, WI, FL IA, OR.

This list presumes Clark with the nomination.
I agree that if presuming that Clark is the nominee then there are more states in play than with Dean but I believe that Florida is off the list for any Dem this time around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2004, 03:11:36 PM
The New Labour Group was a shortlived political grouping formed by some former Labour councillers on Hackney LBC.

Labour are basically the "blue collar wing"(ie: economically centre left and socially moderate) of the Democratic party, and Edwards fits that quite well.

I don't see how New York can be a tossup though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 08, 2004, 07:28:08 PM
There are indeed many wings of Labour, just are there are many different wings of the Democratic party (yes, even as wierd as LaRouche!) Labour and the Democrats fit neatly into the political spectrum as it exists today. Both parties 'exchange' representatives to shadow election campaigns, in fact Labour's Peter Mandelson is helping co-ordinate this years effort I believe. And I hope it is a success. Clinton advisors helped Labour get the right 'angle' for their spectacular 1997 campaign and this year they're returning the favour. It's just a shame that Tony Blair can't officially back the Democratic candidate, but I'm sure deep down he holds high opinions of Wesley Clark and other moderate Dems. The Neo-Cons can choke on that one!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jacob_101 on January 08, 2004, 07:54:28 PM
I agree somewhat with what you say about a candidate's region, and if Edwards were to get the nomination that could spell trouble in the South for Bush, especially since Bush seems to stray further to the center and away from the right wing with his policies.  I think Edwards is the most likeable and electable candidate of all the Democratic nominees.  But, does not look like he will get the nomination though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 08, 2004, 08:58:44 PM
Edwards is dead int he water, if he was ever started.

He is trailing Bush in his home state of NC by a wide margin and would offer little to a ticket, let alone nominee.

I agree somewhat with what you say about a candidate's region, and if Edwards were to get the nomination that could spell trouble in the South for Bush, especially since Bush seems to stray further to the center and away from the right wing with his policies.  I think Edwards is the most likeable and electable candidate of all the Democratic nominees.  But, does not look like he will get the nomination though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 08, 2004, 10:49:48 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 09:54:53 AM
Edwards wouldn't need the South, but if he made Bush commit resources there that would be a strength for him. Like any Democrat, he simply needs a solid Northeast and Far West, combined with a good showing in the Great Lakes and Southwest.

I don't know if anyone agrees, but I'm beginning to sense the media souring on Dean this week. The New Republic endorsed Lieberman, and a number of NY Times articles have focused on Clark and Edwards, and on primary voters who are changing their minds about Dean. Perhaps the sharks are gathering now that his poll numbers are slipping in NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 10:12:34 AM
Dean is still way ahead in NH.  Clark has justy passed Kery but sutill is 20 pts behind Dean.

Don't you love how the news continues to make news?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 11:06:52 AM
Well, sure, lots of stories and analysis hatch in the political media, and if the mass media senses they have selling power they may pick up the ball.

Also, the campaigns themselves look to the political media for ideas and lines of attack.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 09, 2004, 12:51:58 PM
Edwards wouldn't need the South, but if he made Bush commit resources there that would be a strength for him. Like any Democrat, he simply needs a solid Northeast and Far West, combined with a good showing in the Great Lakes and Southwest.


I agree with agcat, Edwards couldn't carry North Carolina, much less any other Southern State.  Above you mention a 'good showing' in the Southwest and the Great Lakes.  I think the Great Lakes states that barely went for Gore in 2000 are not going to be any more or less likely to vote for Edwards than for some other Democrat.  

As for the good showing in the Southwest, I think that brings up an interesting point - many posted maps for a Democrat win include either Arizona, Colorado, or both.  This seems quite a stretch.   I'm the first to admit that New Mexico could easily go Democrat, but I doubt the other two will.  Does anyone have any information on why these two formerly very Republican states would change at this point?  Hispanics?  Surely it can't be escapees from California (I suspect those who flee CA are the Republicans from there).



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 01:41:10 PM
Arizona-Went for Bush 51-45% despite Gore not campaigning there.  Likely Republican 2004 but not out of reach.

Colorado-Denver is liberal as hell, but the rest of the state is very conservative, so Republican for the near future.

New Mexico-Has gone Dem in recent Presidential Elections but drifting republican.  Will only go dem is Richardson is VP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 09, 2004, 02:03:25 PM
I believe that the long term demographic in NM and NV favors the Democrats. Beyond Hispanics, there is a significant movement of young people and retirees, not only from CA, but from urban areas in the East, to fast growing towns like Las Vegas, Henderson, and Santa Fe. AZ and CO are not the same - their population centers have been established for a longer time and are more conservative - I wouldn't put them in the Democratic column unless the Democrats had a real edge nationally.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 09, 2004, 03:16:17 PM
Bush leads Dean and Clark by 9 in IL poll

January 9, 2004
By SARAH ANTONACCI of Copley News Service


SPRINGFIELD - With 10 months left before the presidential election, a Copley News Service poll finds that fewer than half of the respondents would vote to re-elect President George W. Bush, and his Democratic challengers have some work to do to get their names out to the voters.

Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. of Washington, D.C., conducted the poll Monday through Wednesday, asking 625 registered Illinois voters across the state a variety of questions about the presidential election. Those questions involved candidate name recognition, favorable ratings and who voters would select if the election were held today.

The sample has a margin of error of 4 percent.

"There's no election right on top of this, so I wasn't terribly surprised by the results," said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon Polling and Research. "These numbers more than likely will change over time. It's changing on a daily basis.

"Bush is well known to all the voters in the state, and some of the Democratic candidates are not as well known. At least three of them are recognized by 90 percent of the voters. (John) Kerry and (Wesley) Clark are still blank slates to sizeable portions of the electorate."

The poll asked voters whether they recognized the names of Bush and of the five Democratic challengers generally considered the front-runners. The three Democrats voters generally recognized were U.S. Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri, U.S. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (the 2000 vice presidential candidate) and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean.

Jason Gerwig, a spokesman for Bush, said Thursday he considers the numbers promising for the president. The poll found that 42 percent of those surveyed view Bush favorably, 37 percent unfavorably and 21 percent were neutral.

"Looking at these numbers - and ones especially for the Democrats - for a state that people have written off as Democratic, these numbers show anything but," Gerwig said.

Dean spokesman Kevin Conlon said he looks at the name-recognition poll a little differently. Dean had a 20 percent favorable rating, 31 percent unfavorable and 40 percent neutral; 9 percent of respondents didn't recognize Dean's name.

"His unfavorables are less than Bush. That's comparable to other recent polls," Conlon said.

Illinois' primary isn't until March 16. As a result, many of the candidates haven't begun campaigning here. Instead, they are concentrating on states with earlier primaries.

That's why Conlon thinks the poll results are good for Dean.

"It's not the same as in Iowa, where he's been 100 times. We're very confident that when the voters of Illinois get to know him more and more, he will do even better," Conlon said. "We feel good about those results, and we feel confident that we put together a wonderful slate of candidates and we have every reason to think we can prevail."

Dean is generally considered the Democrat to beat in the early primaries.

Coker said Illinois has a history of leaning toward Democratic candidates, but it will be interesting to watch Dean when he begins to campaign here. Dean has been targeting Democratic activists in primary states, Coker said.

"He's taken a calculated gamble to go left to win the nomination and then work his way toward the middle by fall," Coker said. "Dean's unfavorable rating (in the Copley poll) is almost as high as Bush's. That's something to ponder should he become a nominee."

The poll also asked voters who they would vote for when each of the five leading Democrats were matched head-to-head with Bush.

Bush beat them all, but never with a majority of the entire survey. His margins ranged from 9 percent (over Dean and Clark) to as low as 4 percent (over Lieberman and Gephardt).

"I'm not surprised, with the state's political leanings, that his leads are only small," Coker said.

Adam Kovacevich, a spokesman for Lieberman, said the poll numbers show Democrats, especially his candidate, are running strong in Illinois.

"These results show that Joe Lieberman is in the best position possible to beat Bush in the general election," he said.

The poll did not consider four other Democratic candidates who are running behind in polls: U.S. Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Al Sharpton, former U.S. Sen. Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois and U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio.

Bill Buck, a spokesman for Clark, said he views the head-to-head numbers as strong for his candidate because he's someone "whose only been running for president since September against a sitting president in a state he's never campaigned in."

Poll respondents also were asked if they thought Bush is doing a good job as president. On that question, 49 percent ranked his performance "good" or "excellent," 27 percent said "fair," 23 percent said "poor" and 1 percent were undecided.

Gerwig said those numbers are encouraging for the president.

"If you take the people who thought he was doing a fair job, that adds up to 76 percent," he said. "These are great numbers."

Pollsters also asked voters if they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. Fifty percent said they do, 41 percent do not and 9 percent were undecided. In a similar question on the economy, 44 percent expressed approval, 46 percent disapproval and 10 percent were undecided.

"It is early, and this is by no means a snapshot of what we'll see in November," Gerwig said. "The fact that the numbers are so good for the president so early on, when no one is really thinking about the race, is encouraging."



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:21:42 PM
Dean would still win Illinois easily.  In April Polling here in NY, Gephardt trailed Bush by 16%.  Now, Dean has a 5% lead here.

At this time 24 years ago: Carter-62% Reagan 33%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:31:19 PM
only 300 votes different in 2000, plus GOP picked upa  house seat there i believe.

Still think it would have went GOP if FL wasn't called early, as many have specualted nationally.

Arizona-Went for Bush 51-45% despite Gore not campaigning there.  Likely Republican 2004 but not out of reach.

Colorado-Denver is liberal as hell, but the rest of the state is very conservative, so Republican for the near future.

New Mexico-Has gone Dem in recent Presidential Elections but drifting republican.  Will only go dem is Richardson is VP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:33:24 PM
Are you talking about Illinois in the 200 presidential race?  Because that is what I'm talking about and I'm not sure you are. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:34:54 PM
i was talking NM, in response to the post about it.  See I quoted it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 09, 2004, 03:35:38 PM
Illinois- just wait until they get to know Dean! :)  and his unfavorables are already aheado f his favorable, not a good sign for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 09, 2004, 03:36:17 PM
Ahh, okay.

With your strange quoting policy I get confused.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 08:11:13 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 10, 2004, 08:12:48 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Edwards still gets beat into the ground.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 08:17:19 PM
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.

This is kind of like 1972. No liberals knew of anyone who was supporting Nixon and were shocked election night.

I support Franken. The more books he sells, the further isolated Dems become from the mainstream voter.  It happened to conservatives in 1996.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 10, 2004, 08:28:59 PM
agcat,

agcat, read Al Franken's book. That's an eye-popper.

This is kind of like 1972. No liberals knew of anyone who was supporting Nixon and were shocked election night.

I support Franken. The more books he sells, the further isolated Dems become from the mainstream voter.  It happened to conservatives in 1996.

That is called an echo chamber.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 10:46:25 PM
I'll graph my predictions when I get a chance, but here are my detailed predictions. This assumes no earth-shattering events between now and Nov. '04 and the Dems nominating either Dean or Gephardt and a competitive race.

Solid Dem: VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, MD, DC, DE, NJ, CA, WA, HI, IL

Solid GOP: ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, ID, MT, WY, UT, AK, MS, AL, GA, SC, NC, VA, KY, LA, IN

Lean Dem:

Maine
New Mexico (Gore won barely in '00 and a Hispanic Dem was solidly elected Governor--should be able to turn out Hispanics on election day)
Pennsylvania (more competitive if Dean is the nominee)
Michigan (ditto for MI)

Lean GOP:

Colorado
Tennessee
Florida (it'll be very close, but I must sadly say it leans GOP due to increased GOP registration and a solid win for Jeb Bush in 2002)
Nevada (a bit more competitive due to Yucca Mountain and an increasing Hispanic population)
Arizona (though more Democratic than in '00)

Tossup:

NH: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
MO: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
IA: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
WV: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
AR: Lean GOP, though highly competitive if Clark gets VP
OH: Lean GOP for Dean; Lean Dem for Gep
MN: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
WI: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep
OR: Lean Dem for Dean; Lean GOP for Gep

I figured Dean would overperform in states Nader did well in in 2000 (MN, WI, OR) and Gephardt would do well in his home state and in states with a high union population (MI, OH, PA, WV).

Dean isn't even all that popular among Dems in NH.  He's not running away with the primary and the state has shown no support for candidates that want to raise taxes as Dean has vowed to do by repealing Bush's tax cuts to pay for new social spending.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 10, 2004, 10:49:11 PM
Tennessee is going to be close(again) and is certainly going to be worth a watch.
I'm curious as wether or the interesting voting patterns displayed in the state in the 2002 gubernatorial election will be repeated.

That a conservative Democrat can win statewide in TN? Sure. Too bad there aren't any on the presidential ballot this November.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zorkpolitics on January 10, 2004, 11:29:36 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 11, 2004, 01:47:28 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?
Yeah, you got a link?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:39:39 PM
Actually Goldwater won Louisiana in 1964.
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.

Pryor ran almost as an ideological soulmate of Bush-- like Landrieu did.  Reps. Berry and Ross and Sen. Lincoln supported the war resolution. My guess is that Pryor would have voted in favor.   Clark can be painted as a liberal and that's bad news in any state in the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:43:02 PM
I just added my map today.  It's nothing special, just the 2000 results with NH, WV, and NV switiching to the Ds.  I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.

What is it with people thinking New Hampshire loves Howard Dean? Most voters here had no idea who he was.  If we follow the political goings-on of another state, it's Massachusetts.  Dean barely won re-election in 2000 in Vermont.  He couldn't be elected governor of New Hampshire, and yet, somehow he can win the state's electoral votes?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:44:32 PM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41

Right except 56-41 for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:47:23 PM
I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Blacks make up half of the Democrat primary voting population in SC.   This poll would have to have a ridiculous number of black voters in the sample for the results to overrepresent the black vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 11, 2004, 04:49:03 PM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41

Right except 56-41 for Bush.
Bush 51% Dean 47%
Bush 334 Dean 204


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:49:34 PM
Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41
Shut up! You always say Dean will win. And you give nothing to back it up. If you're going to say Dean will win, thats fine. But I notice you spread this in all the threads, as if Dean is already nominated. Explain yourself, and I won't be so mean.

Dean has the support of major unions and the ultra left.  The will help him win the nom.

The story of Dean's union support has been the most underreported story of this whole Democrat campaign season.  He's done incredibly well stealing union support from Gephardt.  Everyone talks about the beer drinkers versus the wine drinkers (Gephardt's supporters versus Dean's), but Dean has plenty of Gephardt's beer drinkers in his fold, too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:50:49 PM
Dean will win the nomination and go down in November something like 54 - 46.  Pretty substantial win considering we are a 50 - 50 nation.


I think the GOP won 53% of all votes cast in the 2002 midterms.  That's pretty close to 54% and not at all shocking or unexpected.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:52:28 PM
I'd say I've seen analysists predict the black turnout in SC could be as high as 49%


I've heard the poll in SC that had Sharpton in 2nd place, though, had a very high percentage of blacks polled. I didn't hear how high but I know I've heard experts say that they feel that black turnout was overestimated in that poll, and that others had Sharpton significantly lower.

Yep, that's a very good approximation.  It could even be higher if Bush is as strong among white male voters as it has been thought. They won't show up to participate and the raw number of blacks voting won't change, but their power goes up.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:55:01 PM
Greetings from the Empire State:

Well, things are heating up in this presidential campaign, and Gore endorsing Dean puts him in a very good position.  But its still early and anything could happen.   Some of my political friends think that with this endorsement, Dean may clinch the nomination, however I think they maybe jumping the gun a little.  

Personally, I am excited about the possibility of a Dean - Clark ticket, or vice versa.  If these two are on the same ticket then the Dems have the best shot at winning the White House.  The Dems still need to realize that they need Southern Electoral Votes in order to win the election.    

See you all later.

Dean-Clark would be odder than an Oscar Madison-Felix Unger ticket.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:56:24 PM
Dean is reported to be obsessed with the South

It's hard to say which is a better strategy for Dem House and Senate candidates in the South this year-- having Dean try to improve his image there or staying the hell out of the region entirely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 04:58:06 PM
Bring on DEAn, esp after today!  

That is if the Dems don't dump him now too.

They  won't dump him they love him.

Time is starting to go way too slowly for my tastes. I see a Dean victory in my grasp and it's agonizing to watch him stumble to the finish line.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:01:30 PM
...or because GOP posters have been posting big GOP wins while Dem posters have been posting big Dem wins with their being a few more GOP posters than Dems posters...

Yeah, a whole lot of stupid predictions is just a whole lot of stupid predictions. A lot of people predicted the bubble wouldn't burst in Jan-Mar 2000, but they were all wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:04:02 PM
I still think that Dean will not get the turnout from the middle Gore gotten.

PA Polls out this week have Bush over 50% vs everyone and 49% vs Dean.  

So yes Bush can still Carry PA , it was very close in 2000 and without PA, Dems are done.


Ok, I'll take a stab at objectivity.  The Dem nominee will have a much tougher time keeping the states Al Gore won by 1/2 of one percent - Wisconsin, Oregon, New Mexico, and Iowa -  than George Bush will have protecting his closest states of Florida and New Hampshire.  Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

If Dean is the nominee, Bush carries Minn, Pa, as well.
Bush carry Pennsylvania? After lifting the foreign steel tariffs? That would be quite an accomplishment.

Many Democrats don't realize what a great candidate that Gore was.  They think he was a total loser and that any of the guys running can easily improve on Gore's performance.  That's hogwash. Gore did a great job of holding together all the interest groups that make up the Democrat Party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:04:50 PM
Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

Can't get a ride to The Improv?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:06:58 PM
Honestly I've been wondering why Europeans care so much about our electiuons.  seems like we have more european democrats than american ones.

Not a big deal, but we just don't see the reverse, Americans could care less about European elections for the most part.


Sadly, I don't think they are jokes. Why would anyone join a forum like this with the sole purpose of making jokes?

They care because they know their world and the real world revolves around us.  We don't have to follow what goes on in Canada or the EU or anywhere else particularly.  We'd know about who their rulers were if it mattered.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:09:37 PM
Humm I have some British friends too and they want Bush to win to keep the strong relationship with Blair.

REELECT PRESIDENT BUSH!

For the sake of the world, vote Bush-Cheney?

Let's print up the bumper stickers!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:12:49 PM
No, the French wouldn't elect an American come hell or high water, no matter how liberal!! He'd probably be right at home in the 'wet' wing (i.e liberal wing), of the Tory party. Even Dean isn't left enough for the Lib Dems or Labour, but I could easily see him being elected in Chipping Barnet :-)

Most people in Sweden think, quite rightly, that the Democrats pretty much correponds with the Swedish right, whereas the Republicans are off the edge! It can be seen, for example, that the Swedish left, left of centre, centre, right of centre and right hate Bush. The "conservative", or rather libertarian, right is split on whether to hate him or not.

I know what you mean. Jean-Marie le Pen is as anti-OIF as Chirac.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:28:48 PM
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)

You are totally right about the AR-GOP. They are $323,000 in debt because the finance director took money from the party's accounts and generally did a poor job of informing the party how much money was available to spend on projects. The leadership of the AR-GOP has almost entirely been booted out.  Several Republicans have served briefly to fill in and Win has accepted the position of Chairman, but that's just a fill-in measure and no one expects him to run for re-election to the chairmanship the next time it's up for a vote. The state party is bankrupt and it's totally representitive of how the party is basicly Mike Huckabee and a guy with a great last name (Win Rockefeller) and that is it-- that's all there is. Mike has done what he can to bail out the party, but a bucket doesn't do much good on the Titanic. The RNC has offered to help pay staffers to keep the party operating.

As far as Bush's re-election, he'll have his own people working the state, so don't worry about his fortunes in the Natural State.  It's just too bad that statewide elections were in 2002 and not this year. They could have piggy-backed off Bush's machine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:39:41 PM
I wouldn't be so confident.

Granted, West Virginia is a very very very (you get the point) socially conservative state. Its also very evangelical. Democrats still vastly outnumber Republicans and lets face it, West Virginians vote for democrats even when they're socially moderate or even liberal (Dukakis, Clinton [Twice]). If Dean moves to the center come election season, as we know he has to (you can only try the Barry Goldwater strategy once or twice before people place electablilty ahead of principles)

Same thing goes for Arkansas, Tennessee, and Louisiana...granted they're far more Republican by nature...its not like a moderate or even Liberal democrat can't carry these states...I doubt conservatives thought Clinton a socially conservative candidate, but yet all 3 states went for Clinton in 92 and 96.

Now am I saying that Tennessee or Arkansas will land in Dean's column come November...its not likely, the GOP has a pretty good machine in those two states and with the exception of TN Gov (where the last R was pretty unpopular) the GOP has the momentum.  Louisiana (a catholic state) where the democrats have a pretty well oiled machine could go the way of Dean or Clark providing they present a reasonably mainstream image...but that remains to be seen.

The Democrats won over 60% of the vote in WV in the last congressional election.
Every single elected state-wide official in WV has a little D next to his/her name.

The Republicans have a machine in Arkansas outside the Ozarks?
Huckabee is the only popular Republican in the state... and his popularity is waning.
TN is going to close(as always. Amazing what a bit of good ol' fashioned sectional voting can do...)

Only one seat of the WV three is even contested by the GOP and Capito went from 51.4% of the 2-party vote in 2000 to 60.0% of the 2-party vote. The WV-GOP will happily take that trend.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:41:31 PM
Bush remains popular in Arkansas.  Last time I looked, Huckabee wasn't going to be on the presidential ballot.  Bush is on the ballot - and thank the lord his opponent is going to be Dean.  Write it down, Bush will carry Arkansas by at least 15 points.

Even if Huckabee were on the ballot, it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Mike has carved his niche in Arkansas politics.  He'll end up having served as governor for 10 years. You don't get that on your resume by being unpopular.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:42:48 PM
Very unlikely that Bush would carry a Democrat leaning state by 15%
Stop being partizan please...

BTW Dean has not won a single vote yet.


It's not a Democrat-leaning state. It's a state where Democrats run as conservatives and where the state GOP has never figured out how to get its act together.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:43:52 PM
Award for most insane prediction goes to Bush Nation(R-TX) who has predicted that Bush will win every state(including DC), with over 90% in all but 3 states.

He probably posted that to get a rise out of some Democrats here. I guess it worked.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:45:22 PM
Clark would win AR in a cakewalk, but I'm not sure about the others YET.

That's a ridiculous statement. Clark is a liberal.  He's not Mark Pryor. Just being from Arkansas won't give the state to Clark in a cakewalk.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:54:05 PM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 05:57:12 PM
But deep south is not just about geography but cultural and values and way of life.

Even if you use that Arkansas is not in the Deep South(parts are, most are not)

What I think is interesting about AR is that it's de facto segregated.  Might as well slice the state into two separate states that only have a love of the Razorbacks in common.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:00:43 PM
I have been arguing that the South is cultural conservative and that's why they vote Republican - that that kind of cultural conservatism doesn't exist in Britain.  

"I'm sorry, we don't do God," as Blair's advisor said.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:02:39 PM

Can't Dave check IP addresses for repeat trolls?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:08:24 PM
The key to stopping Dean is on Feb. 3rd with Clark on OK, AZ, and SC.

If Dean runs the table in Iowa and NH as is expected, his numbers in every state will be boosted. Clark or anyone else trying to stop him has to be up on Dean in these states to beat back the surge that will come. Being tied isn't good enough.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:10:55 PM
Cowboys have no chance against the soon-to-be NFC champion Panthers.

Good call. One more weekend and you'll be quite the prognosticator.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:16:10 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:19:17 PM
The States that Bush won in 2000 have picked up 7 electoral votes, mainly due to an increase in population in the South and the Sunbelt. This trend does not seem to be turning around anytime soon.

If you guys abandon those areas, you will be consigning yourself to permanent minority status.

Not that I would care.

Clinton found a way to stay competitive in those areas. I would suggest that if the Dems have any hope of regaining the White House, they should look to the DLC and not to the turncoat Gore (who could not even win his own State!) and his new pal Dean.


Exactly. It's not the South that is anti-Democrat, it is a case of the national Democrat Party of Dean and Pelosi and Daschle and Kennedy being anti-Democrat (as defined by Southern Democrats).  People like Breaux could do well in every Southern state. The Democrat Party has chosen to not support people like Lieberman who could win in the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 06:33:39 PM
I don't believe Edwards could carry NC, let alone any of the rest of the South.


Research 2000 poll of North Carolinians, 1/04:

Approve of presidential bid by Edwards: 55 % (vs. 39% last year)-- due to increase in number of Democrats in NC who support his bid.

Bush vs. Edwards: 53-40


Do you have a source/link for the NC info?
Yeah, you got a link?

Edwards' N.C. support up
Senator still trails Bush in state

By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent

Democrats in North Carolina are far more accepting of Sen. John Edwards' presidential bid, but he has made no progress convincing home-state Republicans that he should replace President Bush, according to a new poll commissioned by The News & Observer.
The poll, taken less than two weeks before Iowa's first-in-the-nation caucus, found that a majority of North Carolinians -- 55 percent -- approve of Edwards' White House bid, compared with 39 percent when he launched his candidacy a year ago.
The wider acceptance is due in large part to warmer feelings among fellow Tar Heel Democrats: 93 percent now approve of Edwards' run, compared with 67 percent a year ago, according to the survey by Research 2000 of Rockville, Md.

But the poll also showed Edwards continuing to face an uphill battle to beat Bush, if Edwards wins the nomination.

If the election were held today, Bush would prevail in the Tar Heel state, 53 percent to Edwards' 40 percent. Republicans would pick Bush over Edwards, 92 percent to 1 percent, the poll found. Edwards, meanwhile, would prevail among Democrats, 81 percent to 16 percent.

"Most North Carolinians now approve of Edwards' running, but when they match him up against President Bush, the bottom line is Bush comes out on top," said Del Ali, president of Research 2000.

The poll of 600 likely voters was taken Monday through Thursday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

It shows former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, the Democratic front-runner, trailing by a larger margin in North Carolina. If the general election were held today, Bush would beat Dean 57 percent to 38 percent, the poll found. If retired Gen. Wesley Clark of Arkansas, the only Southerner besides Edwards, were the nominee, the poll found Bush would prevail, 54 percent to 40 percent.

No Democrat has carried North Carolina in a presidential election since 1976, when Jimmy Carter from neighboring Georgia won.

If Edwards were to become the party's nominee, "I could see a heck of race in North Carolina, but it would still be Bush's race to lose," Ali said. "I can see absolutely no scenario where Dean beats Bush in North Carolina."

Edwards spent Friday campaigning in New Hampshire, the nation's first primary state, where voters will assess the Democratic field eight days after the Jan. 19 caucuses in Iowa.

A separate poll released this week by Research 2000 showed Edwards running fourth in Iowa. Dean led the pack, with support of 29 percent of likely caucus-goers, followed by Rep. Dick Gephardt of Missouri with 25 percent, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts with 18 percent and Edwards with 8 percent.

Recent tracking polls in New Hampshire conducted by the American Research Group have shown Edwards further back in the pack, with support hovering around 3 percent.

In New Hampshire, Edwards sought to improve his standing with appearances before several hundred college students in Manchester, a packed diner full of Democrats in Keene and a town hall meeting in Nashua. At all three stops, Edwards was received enthusiastically as he tried to sell himself as a Washington outsider focused on moving the country forward rather than sniping at his Democratic rivals.

"Together, you and I can change America," Edwards told about 75 people packed in Timoleon's Restaurant in Keene.

North Carolinians' assessment of Edwards' chances to do that has slipped some since the last N&O poll in November.

In the new poll, 19 percent said they think Edwards is "likely" to be the Democratic nominee, while 32 percent said there is "some chance," and 43 percent saw "no chance."

In November, 21 percent said Edwards is "likely" to be the nominee, while 34 percent said there is "some chance," and 36 percent saw "no chance."

The poll also showed Edwards continuing to hold a comfortable lead in a hypothetical Democratic presidential primary in North Carolina. Edwards drew the support of 40 percent, while Dean drew 26 percent. The other candidates were in the single digits.

Edwards' standing is better than that of some of his rivals in their home states. A poll late last year, for example, showed Dean and Kerry to be in a statistical dead heat among likely Democratic voters in Massachusetts. A similar poll in Connecticut showed Lieberman with a five-point lead over Dean.

North Carolina's primary is scheduled for May, by which time the Democrats are likely to have already selected a nominee.


Washington correspondent John Wagner can be reached at (202) 662-4380 or jwagner@mcclatchydc.com.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 11, 2004, 06:37:59 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 11, 2004, 07:06:40 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.

That's my belief, too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 11, 2004, 09:33:53 PM
which states are "losable"?  NM?  WI?  I don't think any state is losable for the Dems.

I was referring to tossups: NM, WI, MN, IA and OR. PA would be in there as well, but that's one of the target states.
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.

Why do you think Dean is Pennsylvania's kind of Democrat?  For the record, Rendell likes Lieberman if I recall.

Please excuse me while I roll on the floor in laughter.  Dean could never win PA.

That's my belief, too.

Me three.  Dean doesn't have the appeal to pull in the conservative Dems in the T.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 09:33:26 AM
Capito only won 60% because Humphries(an apalling candidate) kept some good candidates out of the primary with his money so he could have a rematch.
Stupid bastard.
With a good candidate Capito might have gone down in 2002, and it might be too late now. Typical...
BTW the GOP run a sacrificial lamb against Rahall in the Coal District
I don't see why they bothered but they did...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 12, 2004, 11:22:33 AM
Capito only won 60% because Humphries(an apalling candidate) kept some good candidates out of the primary with his money so he could have a rematch.
Stupid bastard.
With a good candidate Capito might have gone down in 2002, and it might be too late now. Typical...
BTW the GOP run a sacrificial lamb against Rahall in the Coal District
I don't see why they bothered but they did...

The GOP didn't run one in 2000, though.  The seat is a bellwether for congressional elections and will be at least until redistricting.   No trend has been established, but one could be established.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 12:27:22 PM
The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 12, 2004, 01:29:15 PM
The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...

The Dems should spend alot of money on WV-2.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 12, 2004, 02:31:45 PM
Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?


The GOP might be able to make WV less of a one party state, I won't deny that, but that's about it.
I think that you lot have a good chance at making FL a GOP fortress though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 12, 2004, 02:36:44 PM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 12, 2004, 03:30:10 PM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

No, tossups in my mind just mean states that could go either way. If the election is close, then they probably go both ways. If the election is a landslide, they probably all fall in one direction toward the winner.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:33:27 PM
Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?

Officially yes.
Actually Wise isn't running for re-election because as a result of his affair he was going to suffer the humilation of losing in the Democratic Primary...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:39:03 PM
The Dems should spend alot of money on WV-2.

Agreed


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 12, 2004, 03:39:41 PM
GOP could make hay out of that, running against corruption and bad policies in the state government for gov.  Just like Dems will be able to do in CT in 2006 and GOP did in KY this year with Gov Patton's sex scandal.

If people want that change it can result in more GOP votes across the board.  Just something to look for.


Didn't the Democrat WV gov say he wasn't running again b/c of an affair or soemthing?

Officially yes.
Actually Wise isn't running for re-election because as a result of his affair he was going to suffer the humilation of losing in the Democratic Primary...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 12, 2004, 03:49:06 PM
Problem with that is that WV occasionally elects a GOP governer to act as a semi-balance to the all powerfull WVDP, Wise beat unpopular incumbent GOP governer Cecil Underwood in 2000 for example, but they[WVGOP Governers] are usually incompetent and voters don't want a new one for a least 10, preferably 15, years.

WV can be a weird state sometimes...

BTW WVSOS, Machin, is running and is going to be very hard to beat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 12, 2004, 04:21:10 PM
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 12, 2004, 10:59:40 PM
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Civil unions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 12, 2004, 11:19:28 PM
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Dean could never win in Pittsburgh.  He would get some union support, but he is so liberal on social issues that they would ride him out of town on a rail.  You need to win at least two of the three regions in PA to win the state and Dean could never pull it.  He would win around Philadelphia, but he would get trounched in the T and Pittsburgh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 08:02:33 AM
I do think Dean would win Pennsylvania.  He would get the urban liberal turnout in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and would get enough votes in the "T" because of his stance on gun control to win the state.

Civil unions.
Guns.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 11:09:19 AM
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)-- Howard Dean has moved out to at least a 2-1 lead in New York over his chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, while President Bush's popularity has rebounded in the heavily Democratic state, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.

The poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, had the former Vermont governor favored by 26% of Democratic voters surveyed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of neighboring Connecticut at 12% and retired Gen. Wesley Clark backed by 10% of the Democrats. None of the other contenders cracked double digits in the new poll. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they were undecided.

An October poll from Marist had Dean leading Lieberman, 18% to 16%, with Clark at 14% among New York Democrats.

But the new poll also found that Republican Bush appears to be a viable option for New York voters in a state where Democrats have a 5-3 enrollment advantage over Republicans. Among all registered New York voters sampled, 34% said they would definitely vote for the incumbent president in this year's election while 36% said they would definitely vote against him. Thirty percent were undecided.

A September poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based institute had found 32% of voters planned to vote for Bush and 48% planned to vote against him.

The improvement for Bush's standing in New York was also evident in his job approval rating -- 52% in the new poll and 44% in the September poll.

Republican Gov. George Pataki has boasted that Bush will carry New York in this year's election, a feat not accomplished by a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980 and 1984.

The telephone poll of 617 registered voters was conducted Jan. 6-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Democratic results, based on a sampling of 544 party members, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 13, 2004, 11:14:42 AM
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)-- Howard Dean has moved out to at least a 2-1 lead in New York over his chief rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, while President Bush's popularity has rebounded in the heavily Democratic state, a statewide poll reported Tuesday.

The poll, from Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion, had the former Vermont governor favored by 26% of Democratic voters surveyed with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of neighboring Connecticut at 12% and retired Gen. Wesley Clark backed by 10% of the Democrats. None of the other contenders cracked double digits in the new poll. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they were undecided.

An October poll from Marist had Dean leading Lieberman, 18% to 16%, with Clark at 14% among New York Democrats.

But the new poll also found that Republican Bush appears to be a viable option for New York voters in a state where Democrats have a 5-3 enrollment advantage over Republicans. Among all registered New York voters sampled, 34% said they would definitely vote for the incumbent president in this year's election while 36% said they would definitely vote against him. Thirty percent were undecided.

A September poll from the Poughkeepsie, N.Y.-based institute had found 32% of voters planned to vote for Bush and 48% planned to vote against him.

The improvement for Bush's standing in New York was also evident in his job approval rating -- 52% in the new poll and 44% in the September poll.

Republican Gov. George Pataki has boasted that Bush will carry New York in this year's election, a feat not accomplished by a Republican in a presidential race since Ronald Reagan did it in 1980 and 1984.

The telephone poll of 617 registered voters was conducted Jan. 6-7 and has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The Democratic results, based on a sampling of 544 party members, has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.


Like I said, I have a feeling that if Dean is the nominee, Bush could win New York.  Granted, this is just short on an absolutly best case senario, but it could happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 11:18:21 AM
Bush at 59% in Gallup Poll as 1/11...

Bush is in a good position at this time. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, and improvements in the economy, his job approval rating -- currently at 59% -- and his electoral strength against possible Democratic candidates have improved.

Although the results presented here are for "likely" voters, the poll shows little difference between the preferences of likely voters (representing about half the adult population) and the preferences of the larger population of "registered" voters.

Bush's advantage over Dean among registered voters has been as low as 3 percentage points (last September), and as high as 23 points (in mid-December).

Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, he enjoyed a 3-point margin among registered voters over Bush (in a Sept. 19-21 poll), but in mid-December, Bush's advantage was 16 points.

While some political observers, as well as Democratic candidates, have suggested that Dean is less electable than other Democrats, the poll provides no corroborating evidence. At this point of the campaign, each of the major candidates appears about as strong as the other.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 12:21:13 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 13, 2004, 12:34:50 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 13, 2004, 12:44:48 PM
Btw, shouldn't tossups always be equally distributed between the parties? I notice a lot of people mark states as tossups on their confidence maps, and then hand all or most of them to one party in the prediction map. That isn't really intelectually honest, is it?  

If you have a repeat of 2002 where the tide turns the weekend before Election Day toward one party (or turns long before then), that would tip all the states in one direction.

Well, but then they would cease to be tossups, wouldn't they?

No, tossups in my mind just mean states that could go either way. If the election is close, then they probably go both ways. If the election is a landslide, they probably all fall in one direction toward the winner.

A tossup to me is a 50-50 state, 50-50 states should statistically be distributed equally. If there is a landslide driving them towards one side, they cease to be tossups, perhaps not in time for us to realise that or change our predictions, but cease to be tossups all the same.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:39:56 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:40:39 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:43:02 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:44:44 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:46:43 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)
Nader polled 3.7% here.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 01:49:43 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:49:51 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
12.5%
You know what I mean.
Or the can be a strong third party on the left that could make that number less.  :)
Nader polled 3.7% here.
He may poll better this year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 01:56:43 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:00:07 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:10:15 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:12:12 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 02:12:24 PM
Dean is already alienating hordes of moderate Democrats, and the Bush campaign is showing it's strategy of winning them over in NY, NJ, and CT (see today's NY Times op-ed piece by Christie Whitman, "The Vital Republican Center").


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:14:39 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.
but it CAN be predicted accurately.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 02:15:04 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.
But in both of those years cited, Reagan was a major influence and the state had gone Republican in the previous Presidential election.
If Dean pisses the middle off New York may come into play.
I wouldn't count on it.
You never know politcs can be unpredictable.
but it CAN be predicted accurately.
Depends on the race.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2004, 03:00:48 PM
NY was stronger for Gore than TX was for Bush.
You lot really need to learn how to read polls; based on those numbers the Dem would get 55-60%, with Bush on 35-40%

By all means target CT and NJ, but NY is a no-no.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on January 13, 2004, 03:31:16 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 04:34:30 PM
Bush couldn't win New York...he would only beat sharpton here by 8-10% and might lose to Kucinich, so dean would win it by over 15% easily.

We shall see.
Bush lost NY 60-35% in 2000.  A 25% swing to bush is unrealistic.
True, Bush lost badly to Gore in NY, but take a look at the last two times the Democrats nominated a liberal:

            National                    New York
1988    GOP by 8%               Dems by 4%
1984    GOP by 18%             GOP by 8%

So the GOP would need a 10-12% margin over a Dean nationwide to run a dead heat in NY.

In 1984 and 1988 social issues were of less importance than they are now. When economic issues are the focus, NY leans Dem but is competitive. With the focus on social issues, NY is strongly Dem. Dean would only lose NY in a McGovern/Mondale landslide.
In 2004, response to 9/11 is the new prominent issue.

A lot of otherwise liberal NY City voters can't support a Dean, who has already staked out an anti-war stance. Lieberman is polling second here, and many of his supporters are not going over to Dean.

On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".

I agree that Dean would lose NY only if the Dems go down big, but I think that just a little worse than Dukakis would do it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 04:47:04 PM
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 05:51:23 PM
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 06:09:11 PM
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:25:47 PM
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.

Like Lieberman said, "If Dean had his way, Saddam would be in power, not in prison."


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:32:10 PM
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
I think The Jewish voting population is distributed this way:

25%: Vote exlcusively on Israeli issues.
25%: Vote somewhat on Israeli Issues.
50%: Vote mostly on American Issues.

So dean would probably win the Jewish vote 60-35% or so.

Sadly, I think you're lowballing it. I'd put Bush's support among Jewish voters at about 25%.  Still, that's better than in 2000, if I recall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 13, 2004, 09:33:17 PM
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 09:37:47 PM
Disgraceful-- I have a few other names for them, like murderous terrostic thugs to be nice!


<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.


How about calling members of Hamas "soldiers"?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 11:16:44 PM
<<On a related issue, Israel supporters here were listening when Dean said we "shouldn't take sides in the Middle East".>>
I'm Jewish, and I am not offended by the remark and do not know anyone who is.  I'm sure some people are though.

Miami, I can't see why anyone would take offense, particularly because I wasn't "codifying" all Jews as Israel supporters, which they are not. Perhaps I should clarify by saying that I'm a Jew who turned off to Dean as soon as I heard the Middle East remark.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 13, 2004, 11:45:21 PM
Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 11:47:34 PM
Also in FL, which seems to be getting better all the time for President Bush.


Dean does have that problem with Jewish voters.  Also with Jewish voters, one would imagine theey always want a President that is Strong on the defense of Israel or at least protectionist of them.  Does Dean fit that bill?  He was againbst getting rid of Saddam, which did make ISrael safer.  No more Scuds coming there way or tyrannt paying for suicide bombers.  Also Bush has been taken the game right at the enemies of Israel and would definately be seen as strong.  

Not sure about NY, but I'm sure this will help him among Jewish voters.
There's no question that if the contest is Bush-Dean, there will never be a starker contrast between two candidates on the issue of support for Israel.

The rise in anti-Semitism on the European left is another reason that more Jews are feeling uncomfortable with Euro-American multilateralism on matters regarding the Middle East.

I'd say that if the Democrat is anti-war or has a muddy position, we're going to see an accelerated erosion of the Democratic Jewish vote. With two million Jews in New York City, that's gotta matter.


Title: 2004 predictions
Post by: japple on January 14, 2004, 12:30:34 AM
This early in the process, I can only look at past results. States that voted Republican 4 out of the past 5 elections are worth 207 electoral votes. I'm calling this Bush's base. States he carried in 2000 are currently worth 278 - a razor thin victory. Add states that he lost by less than 5% brings him to 338. That's what I think he'll need to be considered a solid victory. States he lost in '00 where I think he's got the best shot are MN, IA, PA and NM.

My home state of MN hasn't voted Republican in a long time, but in every case there was a Minnesotan on the ballot or there was a strong Democratic
candidate. It was VERY close in '84 and '00. A solid effort by Bush - and his volunteers - in '04 will give him the state. Republicans regularily win state-wide elections here, but it's usually close - Senate and Governor in 2002.

With no Senate or Governor race, and no competative House races this year, Minnesota is going to be all about turn-out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 14, 2004, 04:28:21 AM
MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 14, 2004, 06:58:04 AM
Bush at 59% in Gallup Poll as 1/11...

Bush is in a good position at this time. With the capture of Saddam Hussein, and improvements in the economy, his job approval rating -- currently at 59% -- and his electoral strength against possible Democratic candidates have improved.

Although the results presented here are for "likely" voters, the poll shows little difference between the preferences of likely voters (representing about half the adult population) and the preferences of the larger population of "registered" voters.

Bush's advantage over Dean among registered voters has been as low as 3 percentage points (last September), and as high as 23 points (in mid-December).

Shortly after Clark announced his candidacy, he enjoyed a 3-point margin among registered voters over Bush (in a Sept. 19-21 poll), but in mid-December, Bush's advantage was 16 points.

While some political observers, as well as Democratic candidates, have suggested that Dean is less electable than other Democrats, the poll provides no corroborating evidence. At this point of the campaign, each of the major candidates appears about as strong as the other.


Americans like Bush's qualities, poll says
Yet Democrats said to have edge on many domestic issues

(CNN) --Two-thirds of Americans think President Bush has the right personal qualities for the presidency, yet nearly half or more think the Democratic Party would do a better job on major domestic issues, according to a new poll.

A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Tuesday interviewed 1,003 adult Americans last weekend on Bush and national issues ranging from the environment to security.

The poll indicated that Bush's favorable standing with most Americans on his personal qualities is a main reason for his job approval rating of 59 percent in the most recent CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll and similar high marks in other polls.

The poll also showed that 55 percent of those interviewed agree with Bush on the issues that matter to them.

"With previous polls showing that voters are paying more attention to personal qualities than issues right now, it looks as if Bush's strength is who he is, more than what he stands for," CNN pollster Keating Holland said.

Split on issues
The poll showed that though most Americans give the edge to the Democratic Party on domestic issues, the Republican Party retains an advantage on security issues and world affairs, and Bush gets credit for that.

At least 50 percent or more of those interviewed said the Democratic Party would do a better job on such issues as the environment, health care and education.

Nearly 50 percent preferred the Democrats on issues such as the budget deficit, the economy and taxes.

But on issues such as terrorism, the Iraq war, world affairs and gun policy, those interviewed gave the nod to the Republicans.

On other questions, less than half of those interviewed said they thought a terrorist attack is likely in the United States in the next few weeks.

But that is not a personal concern for many Americans -- only about one in nine of those interviewed said they thought terrorism was likely in their community.

Three-quarters said they think Bush has addressed the fundamental security risks the country faces.

The poll had a margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 08:10:43 AM
I don't vote on if a candidate is personally likeable [I voted for gore :)], but rather if they can get the job done.  I don't think GWB is personally likeable, but I can see how some people would say he is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:13:52 AM
either one would be a huge win for GOP>


MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:15:36 AM
Besides politics I always have the "4 year test" can I stand to have this person speak to me for 4 years from the Oval office.  Gore failed that test with me.  

By far not the only factor for me, but sit back , close your eyes and visualize each candidate addressingthe nation and see if they fit the job.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 11:53:09 AM
MN will be close, like it usually is, although I think it leans Democrat as there isn't going to be a strong Greenie standing this year.
The GOP can only win if turnout is low in strongly Democrat areas.
I actually think that the GOP have a better chance at winning in Wisconsin than MN.
So do I.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 11:53:33 AM
Besides politics I always have the "4 year test" can I stand to have this person speak to me for 4 years from the Oval office.  Gore failed that test with me.  

By far not the only factor for me, but sit back , close your eyes and visualize each candidate addressingthe nation and see if they fit the job.

That's why I'm against Bush... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 11:55:32 AM
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 12:14:01 PM
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:07:04 PM
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 01:18:19 PM
I think i got your point, but you are missing a few words

But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:19:23 PM
I think i got your point, but you are missing a few words

But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.
I am missing words?  What does that mean?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 01:22:06 PM
Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 14, 2004, 01:32:21 PM
Oh, I wrote 'is' instead of 'I'.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 01:51:56 PM
Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry

Look who's talking! If there is anyone on this forum (except for trolls of course) who does that it's you! ()No offense, JR) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 03:01:46 PM
Hey no problem.  Call me on it.  Mine is b/c I type fast usually.  I really didn't know what he meant for a bit.

Reread your own sentence, to get what i am saying.




The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry

Look who's talking! If there is anyone on this forum (except for trolls of course) who does that it's you! ()No offense, JR) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 08:13:23 PM
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/


good site with lots of political info.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 09:47:30 AM
I just added my prediction map!

This is Dean scenario with successful campaign and situation where Bush has troubles with economy and Iraq. Dean would get most of Nader's votes = pretty solid victory in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine and lean victory in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Result in Ohio and West Virginia would be very tight. In Iowa and Nevada Dean's victory would be slightly bigger. Connecticut could be tighter than in 2000, because there’s no Lieberman's effect.

There is several stupid mistake in spelling in my comment like conneticut and new hapshire. And I can’t fix it, cos I have forgot my password. DAMN!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 10:19:32 AM
I added another one. It is Clark-Edwards scenario in situation where Bush has BIG troubles with economy and Iraq. You can find it as user Huckleberry Finn2.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 15, 2004, 12:08:07 PM
I just added my prediction map!

This is Dean scenario with successful campaign and situation where Bush has troubles with economy and Iraq. Dean would get most of Nader's votes = pretty solid victory in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and Maine and lean victory in New Hampshire and New Mexico. Result in Ohio and West Virginia would be very tight. In Iowa and Nevada Dean's victory would be slightly bigger. Connecticut could be tighter than in 2000, because there’s no Lieberman's effect.

There is several stupid mistake in spelling in my comment like conneticut and new hapshire. And I can’t fix it, cos I have forgot my password. DAMN!


It sounds like you're being quite optimstic...I will have a look at it and tell you what I think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 15, 2004, 03:38:52 PM
I have also added Dean scenario of situation where he has too liberal and poor campaign and Bush has good economy and no problem with Iraq.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 15, 2004, 03:41:15 PM
I have also added Dean scenario of situation where he has too liberal and poor campaign and Bush has good economy and no problem with Iraq.

Yeah, I spotted that, so I take back my initial assesment. Just so you know, Dave Leip put a maximum of three predictions per user, then they get deleted, I think. Btw, Dave, I forgot the password to one of my predictions, the one with my name and a 4. So you can remove that if you wish, it forced me to put another one in, even though I didn't intend to.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 16, 2004, 10:26:33 AM
But Bush is doing the job and shows he can, he has already checked this block.

Hm, I am still not convinced. He is allright as a texas governor or an oil tycoon, but I wouldn't really want him to be my president. Which he isn't, so I guess I shouldn't complain too much...
Haha...
The only Dem is would have trouble voting for is Kerry.

Why Kerry? He's similar to Edwards.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 16, 2004, 11:10:38 AM
I thought of putting this in the Economic Numbers section, but didn't think it was good enough of a fit.

Drivers of SUVs and other gas guzzlers may want to keep their vehicles parked over the summer.

That's because some experts are saying that gas could -- gulp -- hit the $3-a-gallon mark.

"It is not only possible, it is probable," said Fred Rozell, director of gasoline pricing for Oil Price Information Service, which tracks and reports on the oil industry. "In the summer, we consume more gasoline than we produce.

"[This year] we won't have that extra supply to help us."

Winter weather, bolstering demand for heating fuels, already has cut U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level since 1975.

And with simple economics -- in particular the supply and demand rule -- consumers can expect the price of gas to reach record levels. Those prices would especially be possible in Chicago, where government regulations require gas stations to supply more costly reformulated gasoline to reduce smog.

"This could be the year that gasoline prices start to change the way people behave," Rozell said. "They may drive less or look to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and get rid of their SUVs."

That $3 threshold shouldn't come as a big surprise to pump watchers. Over the last few days, prices at the pump have done more than just trickle upward --they have soared. Prices have surged more than 7 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.

Several factors are being blamed for the uptick, including rising crude oil prices, a weaker U.S. dollar, colder weather that drove up demand for home heating oil, and two U.S. gasoline reformulations, said analyst Trilby Lundberg.

Earlier this week, the all-grades average retail price of gasoline was 8 cents higher than it was at this time last year. The national weighted average price of gasoline, including taxes, at self-serve pumps was about $1.55 for regular, $1.65 for midgrade, and $1.74 for premium.

But those numbers are only expected to rise.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the forecast for prices to remain stable through the summer banked on crude oil being about $30 a barrel. In the last week, the price of crude oil has flirted in the mid-$30s and could rise further.

Retail analysts say gasoline costs rise about 2.5 cents per gallon for every $1-a-barrel increase in the price of crude oil. And combine that with near record low inventories -- some of the lowest since the long-line days of 1975 -- and drivers may want to learn that CTA map.

But not everyone is ready to buy into the higher prices.

"There is no way that anyone can predict the price of oil next week, let alone next summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. "There is no need to start scaring the consumer with what prices might be."

Sundstrom said the reasons for the short-term increase have been the cold weather and the low inventory, both of which he says will be over in the next few months.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 16, 2004, 12:33:39 PM
I thought of putting this in the Economic Numbers section, but didn't think it was good enough of a fit.

Drivers of SUVs and other gas guzzlers may want to keep their vehicles parked over the summer.

That's because some experts are saying that gas could -- gulp -- hit the $3-a-gallon mark.

"It is not only possible, it is probable," said Fred Rozell, director of gasoline pricing for Oil Price Information Service, which tracks and reports on the oil industry. "In the summer, we consume more gasoline than we produce.

"[This year] we won't have that extra supply to help us."

Winter weather, bolstering demand for heating fuels, already has cut U.S. crude stocks to the lowest level since 1975.

And with simple economics -- in particular the supply and demand rule -- consumers can expect the price of gas to reach record levels. Those prices would especially be possible in Chicago, where government regulations require gas stations to supply more costly reformulated gasoline to reduce smog.

"This could be the year that gasoline prices start to change the way people behave," Rozell said. "They may drive less or look to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles and get rid of their SUVs."

That $3 threshold shouldn't come as a big surprise to pump watchers. Over the last few days, prices at the pump have done more than just trickle upward --they have soared. Prices have surged more than 7 cents a gallon in the last three weeks.

Several factors are being blamed for the uptick, including rising crude oil prices, a weaker U.S. dollar, colder weather that drove up demand for home heating oil, and two U.S. gasoline reformulations, said analyst Trilby Lundberg.

Earlier this week, the all-grades average retail price of gasoline was 8 cents higher than it was at this time last year. The national weighted average price of gasoline, including taxes, at self-serve pumps was about $1.55 for regular, $1.65 for midgrade, and $1.74 for premium.

But those numbers are only expected to rise.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the forecast for prices to remain stable through the summer banked on crude oil being about $30 a barrel. In the last week, the price of crude oil has flirted in the mid-$30s and could rise further.

Retail analysts say gasoline costs rise about 2.5 cents per gallon for every $1-a-barrel increase in the price of crude oil. And combine that with near record low inventories -- some of the lowest since the long-line days of 1975 -- and drivers may want to learn that CTA map.

But not everyone is ready to buy into the higher prices.

"There is no way that anyone can predict the price of oil next week, let alone next summer," said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for the American Automobile Association. "There is no need to start scaring the consumer with what prices might be."

Sundstrom said the reasons for the short-term increase have been the cold weather and the low inventory, both of which he says will be over in the next few months.


What's a gallon in litres, please, so I know what we're talking about. In Sweden it's 10 SEK, that is roughly 1.33$ per litre, but it's mainly due to a 200% tax on gas.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 16, 2004, 04:26:32 PM
$3/gallon?
That's an issue that could fuel (!) unhappiness with Bush/big oil.

Gustaf - A liter is .264 gallon, slightly more than a U.S. quart.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 16, 2004, 04:28:22 PM
$3/gallon?
That's an issue that could fuel (!) unhappiness with Bush/big oil.

Gustaf - A liter is .264 gallon, slightly more than a U.S. quart.


So $3/gallon would translate into roughly $0.75/litre? Then we're still way above you... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 12:29:55 AM
My prediction (Democrats in Upper Case, Republicans in lower):

(Revised from one last year which gave Kentucky to the Democrats :rolleyes:

alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
CALIFORNIA
colorado
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DC
florida
georgia
HAWAII
idaho
ILLINOIS
indiana
IOWA
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
mississippi
missouri
montana
nebraska
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
north carolina
north dakota
ohio
oklahoma
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
south carolina
south dakota
TENNESSEE
texas
utah
VERMONT
virginia
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
wyoming


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 07:13:41 AM
My prediction (Democrats in Upper Case, Republicans in lower):

(Revised from one last year which gave Kentucky to the Democrats :rolleyes:

alabama
alaska
arizona
arkansas
CALIFORNIA
colorado
CONNECTICUT
DELAWARE
DC
florida
georgia
HAWAII
idaho
ILLINOIS
indiana
IOWA
kansas
kentucky
louisiana
MAINE
MARYLAND
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
mississippi
missouri
montana
nebraska
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
north carolina
north dakota
ohio
oklahoma
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
south carolina
south dakota
TENNESSEE
texas
utah
VERMONT
virginia
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
wyoming

Post a prediction map instead, much easier to follow. :)

And make 18 posts, then you can register for our fantasy elections and help elect Nym90 as POTAF (President of the Atlas Forum).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:10:38 AM
AFPresident sounds better.  But Hugh, we need your vote!

I had Gore losing Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico, all of which he won.  Don't try to make optimistic predictions, you'll dissapoint yourself.  
Another way to solve the problem is to make best-case scenario predictions and worst-case scenario predictions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 10:16:02 AM
AFPresident sounds better.  But Hugh, we need your vote!

I had Gore losing Maine, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Oregon, and New Mexico, all of which he won.  Don't try to make optimistic predictions, you'll dissapoint yourself.  
Another way to solve the problem is to make best-case scenario predictions and worst-case scenario predictions.

Yes, but POTUS doesn't sound good either,anyway.

Btw, I think it's time to get to work Mr. Chairman, the Reps are ahead in registered voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:21:56 AM
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 10:22:31 AM
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?

OK, I feel honoured! :)

I will start right away!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 10:22:58 AM
How about I name you the leader of the AFDNC voter registration department?

OK, I feel honoured! :)

I will start right away!
Go to work buddy!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:21:29 PM
I've already registered to vote ;)

Map on the way :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:23:22 PM
I've already registered to vote ;)

Map on the way :)

Yeah, sorry, I realized that, I keep mixing people up, what with all those red avatars... :(

I will check out your map when you put it up.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:25:56 PM
How do you put images up?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:27:37 PM
Dammit, Hugh!  you messed this up.  Fix your bracket so me don'thave to carry on like this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:27:38 PM
How do you put images up?

I'll try it the [IMG] way...

[IMGhttp://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/genusmap.php?year=2004&AL=2;9;5&AK=2;3;5&AZ=2;10;5&AR=2;6;5&CA=1;55;5&CO=2;9;5&CT=1;7;5&DE=1;3;5&DC=1;3;5&FL=2;27;5&GA=2;15;5&HI=1;4;5&ID=2;4;5&IL=1;21;5&IN=2;11;5&IA=1;7;5&KS=2;6;5&KY=2;8;5&LA=2;9;5&ME=1;4;5&MD=1;10;5&MA=1;12;5&MI=1;17;5&MN=1;10;5&MS=2;6;5&MO=2;11;5&MT=2;3;5&NE=2;5;5&NV=1;5;5&NH=1;4;5&NJ=1;15;5&NM=1;5;5&NY=1;31;5&NC=2;15;5&ND=2;3;5&OH=2;20;5&OK=2;7;5&OR=1;7;5&PA=1;21;5&RI=1;4;5&SC=2;8;5&SD=2;3;5&TN=1;11;5&TX=2;34;5&UT=2;5;5&VT=1;3;5&VA=2;13;5&WA=1;11;5&WV=1;5;5&WI=1;10;5&WY=2;3;5/IMG]

Not this again...you could just make one on the prediction page of the site, post here that you've done that, and then I can check it out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:29:11 PM
Lets keep posting so this goes away.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:30:52 PM

Thatä's a pretty good idea.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:34:06 PM
I like Jennifer Aniston.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:36:34 PM

Not that again... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:37:27 PM
Why not?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:38:52 PM

I dunno...you posted that just b/c you're used to it, right? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:41:48 PM
sorry. If you didn't quote it, it might have gone away... :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:42:23 PM
When I try to post, it still looks like this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:44:35 PM
When I try to post, it still looks like this.

Yeah, it looks weird in posting mode, but not afterwards. Strange.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 04:47:55 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/PE2004/CAMPAIGN/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=828

hope that isn't too long

*bites nails*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:50:55 PM
No, not too long.

The problem is the posts we have listed under the box we type in.  Once we push gustaf's quote of Hugh out of there, we're home free.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:51:17 PM
Aaaaaaaargh! It still is annoying! I looked at your map, but I don't like to have an in-depth discussion on this weird thread. It looked pretty optimistic, and I will complain about the tossups not being equally distributed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:55:08 PM
We can do this!  Just keep posting!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:55:59 PM

Whatever you say...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:56:50 PM
Yes, whatever I say.  I am the boss.
I think one more postb and the problem is fixed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:57:17 PM
Oh Yeah.  I got it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 04:57:48 PM

HA! We did it! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 04:59:39 PM
High five!
Back to the discussion.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Inmate Trump on January 17, 2004, 05:01:16 PM
()

Bush v. Clark

Bush wins 328 over Clark's 210.  I know, I know...Arkansas goes Rep.  I just really don't see Clark being able to win over his home state.  I was actually going to put California as a toss-up b/c all recent polls in the state have Bush leading every Dem candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:03:33 PM
Clark would lose wisconsin.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Inmate Trump on January 17, 2004, 05:04:35 PM

Hm.  Probably right about that actually...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:05:17 PM
Yeah, bush could expose clark's phonieness.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:14:50 PM
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:22:41 PM
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.
CA probably will go Dem but it will be close.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 05:28:59 PM
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:32:33 PM
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



You also give the Dems other tossups: NH, Maine and Delaware. Wait a minute! DELAWARE? :)

Anyway, you marked those as tossups, so it's a 32-20 to the Dems.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:36:44 PM
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:37:16 PM
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:38:37 PM
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.
If only you remembered the location!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 17, 2004, 05:39:27 PM
Yes Delaware will be close :p

I forgot about it; all tucked away over there :p

Maine and NH will go Democrat if it's Dean; I put them as tossups b/c I didn't want it to look like I was unrealistically favouring the Democrats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:42:26 PM
I don't think Dean would take NH.

I think Delaware was originally part of Pennsylvania (I'm talking colonial times) and then broke away from it.  Not sure about that though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 05:47:31 PM
I posted my Edwards prediction here somewhere, I have Edwards losing by 14 ev's.

Yeah, I remember that one.
If only you remembered the location!!

Sorry, I don't. Why don't you start by going through the 47 pages of this thread, before moving on to other threads... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 05:57:38 PM
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 06:01:33 PM
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 06:16:27 PM
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.
And how many replies?  3000?

I think posting at this topic will heat up during and after the primaries.

Every forum has a very long thread, and this is ours.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 06:51:37 PM
How many pages do you think this thread will have by November 2004?  250?

At least.
And how many replies?  3000?

I think posting at this topic will heat up during and after the primaries.

Every forum has a very long thread, and this is ours.

Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 07:41:24 PM
Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.
It's gonna be a fun ride.

How do you think replies on this thread will trend after the election?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 07:47:01 PM
Yes, definitely. I have seen some statistics from a Swedish group mail-thingy I was on last year, and during the last month before election day the number of messages went sky-high.
It's gonna be a fun ride.

How do you think replies on this thread will trend after the election?

Considering the fact that we're plitical junkies? It will remain high after the election to discuss the aftermath, the recounts, etc. and then it will go down around the time of New Year. Then as new elections approaches it will start going up again. But with no major US elections in 2005 there will be less activity that year.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 07:51:56 PM
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 17, 2004, 08:00:26 PM
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.
Ah, I forgot about that. Yes, I kind of hope he does. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 17, 2004, 08:04:23 PM
It would be the logical thing to do,  to kind of archive the thread.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Inmate Trump on January 17, 2004, 10:41:15 PM
()

Bush v. Kerry

Bush gets 387 over Kerry's 151.  Just my prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 18, 2004, 07:24:36 AM
()

Bush v. Kerry

Bush gets 387 over Kerry's 151.  Just my prediction.

That is really rough on the guy. I think he wouldn't do that bad. Why would he lose CAlifornia but win Michigan?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 09:01:59 AM
Kerry would win california and Pennsylvania, but lose Michigan and wisconsin.  He might take maine also.

I think Kerry actually might be a weaker candidate than Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 05:48:11 PM
Dean would raise attendance; many ABB people would turn out that wouldn't if it was Kerry or Clark or Edwards.

I think the most electable is Edwards; he might lose Oregon and Iowa but he would win Louisiana, Tennesse, and bring Arkansas, WV and Florida into play.

BTW, I agree with Miami. Kerry would still win CA, and I'd say Pennsylvania would be his too. I don't think he'd lose Michigan, but he might lose Wisconsin, and he'd win Maine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 05:53:42 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 349 to Kerry 189.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 05:54:26 PM
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 18, 2004, 06:07:15 PM
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.

You mean b/c the Red area looks so small? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 06:32:58 PM
Looking at that map it's hard to beliveve Kerry had 189...lol.

You mean b/c the Red area looks so small? :)
Yeah, all the Bush states that are large geographically are small population wise.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 18, 2004, 10:28:35 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 349 to Kerry 189.
Nice Map you did a good Job on it


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 10:37:28 PM
Surely Kerry would win Washington?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 10:41:07 PM
Nice Map you did a good Job on it
Thank you.  Tell god that I made a nice map, alright?

It is not a sure thing that Kerry would win Washington.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 10:51:52 PM
OK, maybe not surely.

But he'd have a better chance at it then Bush, imo.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 18, 2004, 10:57:00 PM
OK, maybe not surely.

But he'd have a better chance at it then Bush, imo.
I think Bush would take it becuase Kerry wouldn't energize the urban liberal base in Seattle, which is the state's lone Democratic stronghold.

What does imo mean?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nation on January 18, 2004, 11:05:04 PM
I think its "in my opinion"

And it'd take a pretty crappy campaign to lose Washington. . .imo


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 18, 2004, 11:08:07 PM
yes, in my opinion.

imho means the same, with "humble" added.

I agree with of_this; Kerry would have to screw up to lose Washington, it has high turnouts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 19, 2004, 03:27:14 AM
Of course, Dukakis was able to carry Washington.  I guess if I had to guess I'd say Kerry would probably have the edge.  It's only a guess as a have a VERY superficial knowledge of Wahington state politics.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 01:53:15 PM
I don't know all that much about Washington state either, but I do know the only liberal area is the greater Seattle area, as you go further west in the less populted areas it becomes more conservative.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 19, 2004, 02:58:07 PM
I don't know all that much about Washington state either, but I do know the only liberal area is the greater Seattle area, as you go further west in the less populted areas it becomes more conservative.

That's the case everywhere isn't it?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 19, 2004, 03:01:15 PM
Basically the coastal parts of Washington vote Democrat while the interior votes GOP.
There are exceptions: Thomas Foley represented the area around Spokane (eastern Washington) for a long time until he went down in 1994.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 03:28:00 PM
Does Spokane vote democratic?  I don't know exactly where Spokane is located so the county maps don't help me out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 19, 2004, 03:45:22 PM
Spokane County voted for Bush in 2000, but voted Democrat in 1992 and 1996 and almost did in 1988.
It's on the WA-ID border.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 19, 2004, 03:46:01 PM
Spokane County voted for Bush in 2000, but voted Democrat in 1992 and 1996 and almost did in 1988.
It's on the WA-ID border.
Okay.  thanks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:51:20 PM

Aniston? Come on. Go with Katie Holmes or Jessica Alba or somesuch. Aniston?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:54:29 PM
()

Bush v. Clark

Bush wins 328 over Clark's 210.  I know, I know...Arkansas goes Rep.  I just really don't see Clark being able to win over his home state.  I was actually going to put California as a toss-up b/c all recent polls in the state have Bush leading every Dem candidate.

That's about what I predict regardless of whom the Dems nominate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:56:22 PM
California should come around to the Dems eventually. Let's keep in mind that most undecideds break against the incumbent, so Bush will most likely do worse in some states than current polls predict. But I agree that Clark no longer looks like a strong candidate.

He's into time travel. Maybe he can go back and unsay all the dumb things he's said.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:57:07 PM

CA probably will go Dem but it will be close.

That is enough to just crap all over the Dems chances.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 07:58:28 PM
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



Edwards doesn't help fill the gravitas hole for Dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 08:01:32 PM
My prediction was Dean/Edwards

New England solidly Democrat (although Maine and NH will be close)

Tennessee will be very close, i think it'll go for Democrats b/c of Edwards
Nevada will go Democrat...just because :p

NM will be a tossup, i'm going with the incumbent (Democrat)

Ohio will be close, just in favour of Bush

WV...I think it'll be seeing alot of campaigning from Dean; it's a democrat state that has lost its way recently. He'll bring it back to the fold.

Optomistic, yes; but absolutely possible.

(BTW, of the tossups, 20 evs go to Republicans (Ohio), and 21 to Democrats (TN, NM, WV) so it's not an unfair distribution



You also give the Dems other tossups: NH, Maine and Delaware. Wait a minute! DELAWARE? :)

Anyway, you marked those as tossups, so it's a 32-20 to the Dems.

Of course, Delaware. Congressman Mike Castle will deliver the goods. He's as money as Tom Brady, baby!

: )


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:10:38 PM
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

For our grandkids to look at?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:11:09 PM
Leip may lock this thread a few months after the 2004 election.

Congrats on Edwards' strong finish, btw!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:12:32 PM
Kerry would win california and Pennsylvania, but lose Michigan and wisconsin.  He might take maine also.

I think Kerry actually might be a weaker candidate than Dean.

That is interesting about PA.  Will the Heinz connection help him there?  His stepson does a freakin' great Schwarzenegger impression for an amateur, by the way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 19, 2004, 10:20:09 PM
As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 19, 2004, 10:40:28 PM
As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 19, 2004, 11:02:05 PM
Ah, but did Carol Moseley-Braun go to your school?

:p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 20, 2004, 12:52:16 AM

Aniston? Come on. Go with Katie Holmes or Jessica Alba or somesuch. Aniston?

Don't start this up again... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 06:37:25 AM
Ah, but did Carol Moseley-Braun go to your school?

:p

New Hampshire hasn't seen much of the black candidates, actually.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 07:12:04 AM
Michigan Voters give the President a 63% Approval rating and 77% Approve Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm (+/- 5% according to a Detroit News 1/19/2004 poll).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 10:23:46 AM
I just heard ESPN Radio/ESPN-TV's PTI host Tony Kornheiser say when a candidate has a speech like Dean's it's time for every responsible adult to say, "check please." He said (jokingly), maybe Dean said "How-weeeee" at the end of his geography lesson. Regardless, he thought it was off the deep end.

Don Imus made great fun of it, too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 11:59:42 AM
From Roll Call via Drudge...

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating. Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a fairly good chance that we'll have your support."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 20, 2004, 12:51:38 PM
I just heard ESPN Radio/ESPN-TV's PTI host Tony Kornheiser say when a candidate has a speech like Dean's it's time for every responsible adult to say, "check please." He said (jokingly), maybe Dean said "How-weeeee" at the end of his geography lesson. Regardless, he thought it was off the deep end.

Don Imus made great fun of it, too.

I have to see this speech I keep hearing so much about! Was it really that bad? What did Dean do exactly?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 02:31:46 PM

I have to see this speech I keep hearing so much about! Was it really that bad? What did Dean do exactly?

This link should work...

http://66.230.216.3/011904/caucus_dean_011904_300.rm

Here's a report:

The speech didn't start badly. Although Dean appeared oddly exuberant after what was an extraordinarily disappointing finish, that might easily be attributed to a politician's desire to put a publicly positive face on bad news. "You know something?" Dean asked his fans. "If you had told us one year ago that we were going to come in third in Iowa, we would have given anything for that."

That was a perfectly reasonable gloss for a candidate to put on unfavorable election results. But Dean quickly took on a red-faced, shouting, teeth-baring, air-punching demeanor unlike any of his performances during the campaign.

"Not only are we going to New Hampshire," he said, his voice rising. "We're going to South Carolina and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we're going to California and Texas and New York. And we're going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we're going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House."

Then he let out a strange, extended, yelp that seemed to come from deep within him: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

Dean resumed his roll of states. "We will not give up! We will not give up in New Hampshire! We will not give up in South Carolina! We will not give up in Arizona or New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan! We will not quit now or ever! We'll earn our country back for ordinary Americans!"

As the crowd began to applaud, Dean recited still more states. "And we're going to win in Massachusetts! And North Carolina! And Missouri! And Arkansas! And Connecticut! And New York! And Ohio!" -- the home states of Dean's rivals for the Democratic nomination.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 20, 2004, 04:37:09 PM
UPDATED Edwards v. bush:

()
Edwards 325 to Bush 213

Call me crazy, but I watched Edwards on Larry King lasy night, and I realized how well he connected to people.  He can and will do this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 20, 2004, 04:51:25 PM
They certainly played the ending of his speech enough times.....when seeing a little more, it just seemed to me very typical of a windup of a hot sermon, (revivalist style close--Dean seemed to enjoying it and laughing at himself.)  But the play (just a snippet) it's been given is a reach.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 20, 2004, 04:53:23 PM
Edwards is the only Democrat running a positive campaign, and it is only now starting to pay off.

JE2K4


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 20, 2004, 05:12:54 PM
Edwards is the only Democrat running a positive campaign, and it is only now starting to pay off.

JE2K4

With the success Bush had, I'm surprised more Dems didn't choose that path. Edwards was able to do it because everyone else wasn't.  They could have put him away by now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 20, 2004, 05:14:13 PM
Edwards is the only Democrat running a positive campaign, and it is only now starting to pay off.

JE2K4

With the success Bush had, I'm surprised more Dems didn't choose that path. Edwards was able to do it because everyone else wasn't.  They could have put him away by now.
Do you think Edwards can beat GWB?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 20, 2004, 06:05:58 PM
I think Edwards can win; but Bush would have the better chance of the two. that said, Edwards would probably make it alot closer then Dean, Kerry or Clark.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on January 20, 2004, 06:50:35 PM
I'd love to see Edwards as our candidate and I believe he can beat bush, but I don't think JE or any other Dem can swamp Bush 325-213

I think it'll be the 2000 map all over again with Edwards picking up New Hampshire and Missouri to squeek out a 275-263 victory


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 20, 2004, 08:49:01 PM
I'd love to see Edwards as our candidate and I believe he can beat bush, but I don't think JE or any other Dem can swamp Bush 325-213

I think it'll be the 2000 map all over again with Edwards picking up New Hampshire and Missouri to squeek out a 275-263 victory
Edwards wold definitely sway WV to us...populism wins.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 20, 2004, 09:22:16 PM
Well, now that Dean has gone bye bye, I'm hoping for General Clark as an opponent.  He's at least as nutty as Dean.  Alas, we probably won't get that lucky.  That would be too good to be true.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 20, 2004, 09:25:48 PM
Well, now that Dean has gone bye bye, I'm hoping for General Clark as an opponent.  He's at least as nutty as Dean.  Alas, we probably won't get that lucky.  That would be too good to be true.
It will be Edwards or Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on January 20, 2004, 09:29:36 PM
Yep.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 20, 2004, 11:42:42 PM
Agcat- we need your support.  Could you check out the IMPORTANT Thread registrationa dn simply post "I register" to register as  voter for the fantasy elections, thanks.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 21, 2004, 12:04:36 AM
very encouraging news from Michigan!


Michigan Voters give the President a 63% Approval rating and 77% Approve Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm (+/- 5% according to a Detroit News 1/19/2004 poll).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 21, 2004, 12:06:01 AM
drove Gov now President Bush around IA for a day during 2000 campaign.

Oh and met Bush 41 when he was VP and came to my high school.


As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 21, 2004, 06:48:48 AM
drove Gov now President Bush around IA for a day during 2000 campaign.

Oh and met Bush 41 when he was VP and came to my high school.


As an Iowan to a New Hampsh**te, I pass on the mantle of the "local" :)

Have 'fun'

I met Bill Bradley at work in 2000. Pretty neat.

That's cool.  I worked on John Sununu's campaign and he called me personally to thank me after he won.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 21, 2004, 07:36:01 AM
I wondered about how much the individual states really swung last time around (correcting for the effects of Perot and Nader and for the slight left swing nationally) and what would happen if they just continue to behave that way and came up with the following:
I added up the lead of Rep+Reform+Libertarian over Dem+Green for every state for 96 and 2000.
I compared the change with the 2.12%point swing nationally.
Me, In, Mn, Ia, Mo, ND, SD, Mt, Id, Wy, NM, Ut and all southern states except De, Md, DC, Va and Fl swung to the right, the other 26+1 to the left if compared with the national average. The strongest swings are in Ar (understandably) for the Reps and in Ct for the Dems. The Republican outliers are much stronger than the Democratic ones by the way. Ct swung leftwards by 9.76% Seven Pro-Rep states did more (ND, SD, WV, AR, LA, TX, WY).
Then I went on and made a prediction based on that for 2004. For simplicity's sake I presumed left-wing and right-wing equal and dems and reps equal. (The third parties won't matter much in 2004) So I let every state swing 2.46% to the right (the 2000 left lead) and then swing against that by as much as in 2000. Obviously the results become slightly nonsensical in states that swung a whole lot, or that had favorite-sons in 96 or 2000 (Ar,Ks,Tx). But for the "normal" states it's a worthy method I think.
So here's my findings: The Dems gain Florida and lose Iowa and New Mexico (which would make them win nationally, 275-263).
The most marginal states will be Florida (0,19% lead), New Hampshire (0,61), Wisconsin (0,77), Nevada (0,99), New Mexico (1,86), Iowa (2,42-quite large actually), Minnesota (3,13), and Ohio (3,74).
I was surprised by how safe Pennsylvania looks - an 8,82 Dem lead.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 21, 2004, 08:02:09 AM
I bet that is Lewis Toldheim's last post.  People whose useernames are their actal name don't last that long, with the exception of Zeigermann.

Anyway, most of the states that swung right went GOP anyway, and most that swung left went Dem anyway.

Also, add Constitution to the right-wing paties, and add the socialist parties tot he dem side for a more accurate prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on January 21, 2004, 08:15:10 AM
It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...
But I recognize what you say as valid. I just saved myself the bother of checking through all the other and write-in candidates.
And that the Rep places trended more Rep and the Dem places more Dem is really rather frightening. It means increased polarization, right?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 21, 2004, 09:01:30 AM
It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...



About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 21, 2004, 09:10:19 AM
I think it'll be the 2000 map all over again with Edwards picking up New Hampshire and Missouri to squeek out a 275-263 victory

No, Edwards wouldn't pick up Missouri or New Hampshire.  What he might pick up would be West Virginia, and possible one or more of Arkansas, Louisana, Florida.  In descending order of likelihood.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 21, 2004, 11:16:07 AM
It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...



About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.

Tintin is Belgian, like most French-speaking cartoons. I believe Lucky Luke comes from Belgium as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 21, 2004, 11:52:07 AM
I wondered about how much the individual states really swung last time around (correcting for the effects of Perot and Nader and for the slight left swing nationally) and what would happen if they just continue to behave that way and came up with the following:
I added up the lead of Rep+Reform+Libertarian over Dem+Green for every state for 96 and 2000.
I compared the change with the 2.12%point swing nationally.
Me, In, Mn, Ia, Mo, ND, SD, Mt, Id, Wy, NM, Ut and all southern states except De, Md, DC, Va and Fl swung to the right, the other 26+1 to the left if compared with the national average. The strongest swings are in Ar (understandably) for the Reps and in Ct for the Dems. The Republican outliers are much stronger than the Democratic ones by the way. Ct swung leftwards by 9.76% Seven Pro-Rep states did more (ND, SD, WV, AR, LA, TX, WY).
Then I went on and made a prediction based on that for 2004. For simplicity's sake I presumed left-wing and right-wing equal and dems and reps equal. (The third parties won't matter much in 2004) So I let every state swing 2.46% to the right (the 2000 left lead) and then swing against that by as much as in 2000. Obviously the results become slightly nonsensical in states that swung a whole lot, or that had favorite-sons in 96 or 2000 (Ar,Ks,Tx). But for the "normal" states it's a worthy method I think.
So here's my findings: The Dems gain Florida and lose Iowa and New Mexico (which would make them win nationally, 275-263).
The most marginal states will be Florida (0,19% lead), New Hampshire (0,61), Wisconsin (0,77), Nevada (0,99), New Mexico (1,86), Iowa (2,42-quite large actually), Minnesota (3,13), and Ohio (3,74).
I was surprised by how safe Pennsylvania looks - an 8,82 Dem lead.
So, you're trying to see where states were moving 1996-2000 after discounting the national swing, and predict 2004 on that basis?

If so, would the validity of that method increase if you went back to say, 1988? Then you could plot the swings and create a 16-year trendline of political leaning for each state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 21, 2004, 12:12:25 PM
It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...



About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.

Tintin is Belgian, like most French-speaking cartoons. I believe Lucky Luke comes from Belgium as well.

But I think a French company made the animated shows of it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 21, 2004, 12:16:31 PM
It's not my real name, it's actually a pseudonym I stole from a French cartoon artist...



About the only soft spot I have for the French might be their animation-- Babar, Tin-Tin, Madeline, Triplettes... I guess maybe you could stick Amelie there, too, I suppose.

Tintin is Belgian, like most French-speaking cartoons. I believe Lucky Luke comes from Belgium as well.

But I think a French company made the animated shows of it.

I wouldn't know...it's hard to distingiush, since French is an official language in Belgium. It's funny though, that Hergé, the creator of Tintin, was Flemish, but still wrote in French.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 21, 2004, 10:28:25 PM
I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 21, 2004, 10:35:44 PM
that could be a while, the dems don't know who it will be now.


I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 21, 2004, 11:25:26 PM
that could be a while, the dems don't know who it will be now.


I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.

Exactly, that's why I'm not making any for the general election.  I predicted it would be BushvDean and Dean would get slaughtered, now there is a STRONG chance he may not tbe the nominee.  He still could be, but for now I'll hold judgment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 22, 2004, 02:53:46 PM
that could be a while, the dems don't know who it will be now.


I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.

Exactly, that's why I'm not making any for the general election.  I predicted it would be BushvDean and Dean would get slaughtered, now there is a STRONG chance he may not tbe the nominee.  He still could be, but for now I'll hold judgment.

Alas, we Republicans are going to have to let go of our boy Dean.  It would've been lovely, but he's not going to make it.  In fact we'll be darn lucky if we get Kerry.  The worst one is Edwards, and as a pessimist, I would guess we'll get him.  He's beatable, as a left-wing trial lawyer, but his appearance and youth are all that will matter to an awfully lot of the emptier-headed voters.  But I'm still holding out hope for Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 22, 2004, 02:55:34 PM
Wide open yet and My dream scenario was a slugfest with Dean winning it.  Well looks like they may slug it out a bit, dean looks weakened but will not go out quietly, he has 48 more states to shout out and head to! :)


that could be a while, the dems don't know who it will be now.


I'm not making any more predictions until I am have some idea of who the Dem. nominee is going to be.

Exactly, that's why I'm not making any for the general election.  I predicted it would be BushvDean and Dean would get slaughtered, now there is a STRONG chance he may not tbe the nominee.  He still could be, but for now I'll hold judgment.

Alas, we Republicans are going to have to let go of our boy Dean.  It would've been lovely, but he's not going to make it.  In fact we'll be darn lucky if we get Kerry.  The worst one is Edwards, and as a pessimist, I would guess we'll get him.  He's beatable, as a left-wing trial lawyer, but his appearance and youth are all that will matter to an awfully lot of the emptier-headed voters.  But I'm still holding out hope for Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 22, 2004, 03:33:57 PM
Dean is finished.  too bad guys, you might just have to work for this one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 22, 2004, 03:52:40 PM
Always thought we would have to.  That is why we have been registering 3 million people in key states, raising money like mad and I've been out registering real people also.


Dean is finished.  too bad guys, you might just have to work for this one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 22, 2004, 04:25:58 PM
Hello all:  

Its been quite some time since I last posted, and Kerry winning Iowa was a shock to me.  Anyway, two days ago I found an article from the Drudge Report that I think all of you should read so I shall post it here:

YOUNG VOTERS SAID TO BE TRENDING TOWARDS BUSH
 
Date:  Tuesday, January 20, 2004  

Morton Kondracke in fresh ROLL CALL:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats:  In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote.  And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating.  Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "Its called the history of political socialization.  Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group.  Why? Because two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.  And who are the most Republican? People in their forties, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan.  If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a farily good chance that we'll have your support ."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base is anchored in the religious right.  In fact, Demcratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis, and Stan Greenburg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions, and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.  

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

END  - www. drudgereport.com/flash4.htm    

That's that.

I encourage any responses to this posting.  
Sleep tight and vote for Howard Dean.


So long from the Empire State.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 22, 2004, 04:29:55 PM
Hello all:  

Its been quite some time since I last posted, and Kerry winning Iowa was a shock to me.  Anyway, two days ago I found an article from the Drudge Report that I think all of you should read so I shall post it here:

YOUNG VOTERS SAID TO BE TRENDING TOWARDS BUSH
 
Date:  Tuesday, January 20, 2004  

Morton Kondracke in fresh ROLL CALL:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats:  In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote.  And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating.  Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "Its called the history of political socialization.  Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group.  Why? Because two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.  And who are the most Republican? People in their forties, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan.  If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a farily good chance that we'll have your support ."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base is anchored in the religious right.  In fact, Demcratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis, and Stan Greenburg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions, and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.  

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

END  - www. drudgereport.com/flash4.htm    

That's that.

I encourage any responses to this posting.  
Sleep tight and vote for Howard Dean.


So long from the Empire State.



Welcome back. Have you come a few hours earlier you might have helped us win the fantasy election... :(

I would suggest another thread for this discussion, this is supposed to be about predictions, more precisely for the posted prediction maps. I will see you when you make a thread for this one! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 22, 2004, 04:31:28 PM
Yes I did see that on rollacall.  It follows upa  report that campuses are starting to trend GOP.  Excellent!

If people realize that the GOP is a good party, before they grow older and realize how much of their taxes the Democrats want to take, all the better.

Hello all:  

Its been quite some time since I last posted, and Kerry winning Iowa was a shock to me.  Anyway, two days ago I found an article from the Drudge Report that I think all of you should read so I shall post it here:

YOUNG VOTERS SAID TO BE TRENDING TOWARDS BUSH
 
Date:  Tuesday, January 20, 2004  

Morton Kondracke in fresh ROLL CALL:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats:  In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote.  And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating.  Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "Its called the history of political socialization.  Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group.  Why? Because two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover.  And who are the most Republican? People in their forties, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan.  If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a farily good chance that we'll have your support ."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base is anchored in the religious right.  In fact, Demcratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis, and Stan Greenburg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions, and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.  

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

END  - www. drudgereport.com/flash4.htm    

That's that.

I encourage any responses to this posting.  
Sleep tight and vote for Howard Dean.


So long from the Empire State.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on January 23, 2004, 02:31:16 AM
The GOP may not necessarily be seen as a "racist" party like Hillary Clinton calls it by people my age and a little older (late teens, early twenties). I certainly have never met an openly racist GOPer, and I live in Texas. You here the race card played more often in election by dems, and I don't think anyone wh didn't live through the civil rights movement and its aftermath finds it easy to see Affirmative Action as anything other than racial quotas. In fact, AA is one of only two big reasons I am not a Democrat (the other is Foreign/defense policy), as I am fairly liberal socially. It brings up images of the racist antisemitic quotas that kept Jews out of the Ivy League in the '30s (and led to the establishment of Bradeis), and the immigration quotas that kept us locked in the Nazi death camps in the prelude to WW2. Even things like the Trent Lott thing don't really mean much to most young people, but you cant miss Al Sharpton and the Crown Heights Pogrom, or the Tawana Brawley deal.

Also, these theorists completely misunderstand the Hispanic population, which is trending GOP. Most of the second + generationers and many of the first generationers are very culturally American, and anyway Mexico will within ten years be a fully first world nation so the demographic trend will change. The radically lefty and often terrifyingly Nazi-like Hispanic "leaders" like the Mecha group and the New Aztlan stuff are increasingly unpopular outside of some college campuses. Do these theorists actually know any Hispanics? I do- I live in Texas, And they have it all wrong.

Most if not all young people are diversity minded, true. In fact, almost everyone I know in my age group accepts Indians, Chinese, Salvadorans, whoever as fellows without even really thinking about it. Does that mean they are necessarily thought police-guilt over the white man's evil-PC freaks? Absolutely not, these views are rare beyond the ACLU and Berkeley. Is there a natural impulse to refuse to consider the GOP on "race card" grounds? Not usually, no.

The actual trends today are quite different. Some (Increasing voter differences among Hispanics, Jews; increasing percentage of shareholders; return oif freign poicy to center stage; lefty northern states shrinking, rightist Southern states groing; etc.) favor the GOP. The big trends, however, are towards split ticket voting and decreasing party identification (and, unfortunately, decreasing interest in politics and lower voter turnouts). These trends mean that whoever siezes the center by American standards on the most issues wins these days. This year that is Bush, who has co-opted much of the dem policy agenda as deftly as Clinton did to the GOP.

The best chance the dems have to beat Bush is with Edwards or Lieberman, preferably both on the same ticket. I'd even onsider that particular ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 23, 2004, 03:47:57 AM
BTW, can someone explain to me why Missouri is pronounced Mizzourah by easterners?

I've lived a few miles north of it for my whole life, and I've never heard it pronounced that way by an Iowan. I was watching the newshour and Jim Lehrer prounounced it "Mizzourah" and I almost burst out laughing. :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 23, 2004, 07:11:11 AM
BTW, can someone explain to me why Missouri is pronounced Mizzourah by easterners?

I've lived a few miles north of it for my whole life, and I've never heard it pronounced that way by an Iowan. I was watching the newshour and Jim Lehrer prounounced it "Mizzourah" and I almost burst out laughing. :p

Is Jim Lehrer an Easterner?  I think that people up near Iowa - Northern Missouri - pronounce it like you do - Mizzoureee.  But in the Southern part of the state, in the rural areas, many people do actually pronounce it Mizzourah.  But its far from universal even down there.  I grew up down that way but have alway used EE myself.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 23, 2004, 04:32:56 PM
Hello again from the Empire State:

The reason why I did not visit the site until yesterday was because my computer needed to be fixed.  It is good to know that I was missed.  

First, how do I set up a thread for my drudge report submission? The main reason why I put my message on this forum was because I thought the information was relevent to this discussion topic.  

Secondly, I was originally born in Missouri and I have lived in NY for most of my life.  Yet I don't know why many easterners refer to Missouri as "Mizzourah."  Maybe I will find out someday.

Later All.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 04:36:03 PM
Hello again from the Empire State:

The reason why I did not visit the site until yesterday was because my computer needed to be fixed.  It is good to know that I was missed.  

First, how do I set up a thread for my drudge report submission? The main reason why I put my message on this forum was because I thought the information was relevent to this discussion topic.  

Secondly, I was originally born in Missouri and I have lived in NY for most of my life.  Yet I don't know why many easterners refer to Missouri as "Mizzourah."  Maybe I will find out someday.

Later All.

You enter the board, click on the button that says "create new topic" and you fill in a headline and an initiating message. It does have some bearing, but we try to keep different variations somewhat apart, since the entire board is dedicated to the 2004 race.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 23, 2004, 04:47:46 PM
Dean is finished.  too bad guys, you might just have to work for this one.


Hello Again:

I would like to point out that this is an example of carelessly jumping the gun.  Just because Dean faltered in Iowa and Kerry won, does not mean his campaign is necessarily finished.  There are many more primaries and many things that could happen as election day gets closer.  

By the way, I have a feeling that the media is sharpening its claws and they are not done with Dean yet.  

Kerry supporters: I congratulate your candidate on his success in Iowa but be warned, the media will come after him.  So keep your eyes and ears open.   And Edwards could be a potential upsetter in New Hampshire.    

See you all later

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 04:54:15 PM
Dean's speech (AKA drunken tirade) in Iowa was the finishing touch in the end of Howard dean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 23, 2004, 05:01:14 PM
Dean's speech (AKA drunken tirade) in Iowa was the finishing touch in the end of Howard dean.


First, thanks for the info Gustaf, I keep it in mind if I find another major issue.  

Secondly my reply to Miamiu was not jumping the gun, I support Howard Dean but I do not immediately declare him the winner or the loser.  Miamiu, I glad you support Edwards, but I would not corinate him yet.  Just have a little more paitence.  But I am confident that if your canidate does better in the polls, the media will be all over him, just like they were with Dean in Iowa.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:03:31 PM
Dean has dropped down to 10 points behind Kerry in NH, and he used to lead there by 30 points.  I think that the final nail is in the coffin.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:04:55 PM
Dean has dropped down to 10 points behind Kerry in NH, and he used to lead there by 30 points.  I think that the final nail is in the coffin.

I think that we need to watch out for Clark now. If he makes a reasonable showing in NH while Dean goes down, then Clark will be the only remainging strong candidate in the Feb 3rd states. Unless Kerry and Edwards get a really strong momentum.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:10:54 PM
I guess you didn't see the deabte last night, gustaf, but clark was horrible.  He made no sense.  That's why I said he shoudl wear a shirt that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'  This thing is between Kerry and edwards, the southern moderate anbd the Northeastern liberal.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:13:13 PM
I guess you didn't see the deabte last night, gustaf, but clark was horrible.  He made no sense.  That's why I said he shoudl wear a shirt that says 'I have no idea what's going on.'  This thing is between Kerry and edwards, the southern moderate anbd the Northeastern liberal.

No I didn't, since it was on about, oh, 3 am in the morning, and on week days I try to avoid being up that late... :)

Well, when Clark starts to go down in polls, I'll believe you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:14:17 PM
HE hasn't really been up in the polls, so he won't go down.

They broadcast the debate in Sweden?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:19:36 PM
HE hasn't really been up in the polls, so he won't go down.

They broadcast the debate in Sweden?

I have CNN, BBC World, Sky News and Fox News on my TV. To name a few...so I think I could watch the debates, at least if they're on one of these channels. But Swedish networks don't broadcast them, no. Btw, it was in one of the Swedish papers that the Dean-tape has now reached Sweden and is getting downloaded, spreading just as rapidly as in the US. Dean might have made his claim to fame...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:37:28 PM
The debate was on FOX News.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:38:45 PM

That's what I thought. I think I could have seen it then, but I didn't.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:39:50 PM

That's what I thought. I think I could have seen it then, but I didn't.
It was on too late for you???

Well..you have to get up early for PE...huh?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:41:18 PM

That's what I thought. I think I could have seen it then, but I didn't.
It was on too late for you???

Well..you have to get up early for PE...huh?

Time zones, remember? Your prime time is something like 3 a.m. in Sweden, not a good time to be up. And yes, on Fridays i have to get up early for PE, what'swrong with that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:42:10 PM
You have to go into school early for physical education.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:44:29 PM
You have to go into school early for physical education.

Is the term wrong, or am I missing something? I remember that it was called PE when I was in the UK? Or do you mean some joke, like it is physically educating to get up early? In that case I didn't get it, but haha... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 05:45:11 PM
In america, PE stand for physical education.  what does it stand for in Sweden?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 23, 2004, 05:47:22 PM
In america, PE stand for physical education.  what does it stand for in Sweden?

It isn't used in Sweden, it's called "Idrott&Hälsa", which would mean Health and, well athletic activities, or whatever. I used the term PE, b/c from my stay in the UK it seemed to be the English equivalent of the Swedish subject.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 23, 2004, 10:27:00 PM
In america, PE stand for physical education.  what does it stand for in Sweden?

It isn't used in Sweden, it's called "Idrott&Hälsa", which would mean Health and, well athletic activities, or whatever. I used the term PE, b/c from my stay in the UK it seemed to be the English equivalent of the Swedish subject.
Okay.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 24, 2004, 08:50:08 PM
Dean will lose to kerry in NH Tuesday Night & he will drop out becuse he was not a good guy after all


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 24, 2004, 08:54:09 PM
Dean will lose to kerry in NH Tuesday Night & he will drop out becuse he was not a good guy after all
Going on your second screen name now Johnny boy?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on January 25, 2004, 06:00:04 PM
Hi all,

I'm new to this forum, but I'm a political obsessive and the discussions here are really cool.  

I just posted my prediction map....maybe a little optimistic for the Democrats, but I think pretty reasonable.  It assumes the Dems nominate someone with at least some Southern appeal.

I have five Bush states switching:
Ohio
Louisiana
Arkansas
Arizona
Nevada

Louisiana seems to be the Southern state most amendable to voting for a Democrat, even during the Bush-era.  (Gov '03, Sen '02, LA-03 in '02)

Maybe it's a few years to0 early to shift Arizona and Nevada to the Dem column, but I'm pretty confidence they'll shift eventually given their growth and demographic changes.

I see Bush holding on to West Virginia and Florida (unless Bob Graham is VP).  The GOP showed real strength in FL in '02, and Bush is trouncing every Dem in all polls there (same with NH, come to think).  And I think the declining influence of labor in WV has turned it into a "Southern state" for good.

Nick G


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 25, 2004, 06:21:04 PM
You could have asked before using my Edwards sign, Nick :)

Welcome to the forum, it's nice to see another Dem for Edwards in 2004.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on January 25, 2004, 07:05:54 PM
Hi Nick and welcome to the forum. :)

Ohio, Arkansas and Nevada are realistic targets in my view. A Kerry/Edwards or Edwards/Graham ticket should be able to carry these states. Arizona and Louisiana I'm not so sure about, however.

I would also predict a switch in WV and perhaps NH (albeit very narrowly).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on January 25, 2004, 08:43:57 PM
Woohoo, we now have 4 active people from Maryland! One more and we can hold elections for senator...

MZ, I think you're a little too optimistic about a ticket headed by Kerry. A Bush-Kerry matchup would be kind of like a Bush-Dukakis matchup, I fear. Kerry has the same problem of looking like he is equivocating about the war, plus his voting record. I think he could do better than Dean but that's not saying much; I don't think he could win Ohio, Arkansas or Nevada.

Right now Edwards, Clark, or Lieberman are the best possible choices to head the ticket. Unfortunately they're polling at 9, 13, and 9 percent, respectively, in New Hampshire. If Kerry wins in New Hampshire he'll have virtually unstoppable momentum going into the Feb. 3 states, most of which are not as conservative as South Carolina. Even if its a narrow win, or Dean narrowly beats Kerry, the other states are going to see it as a choice between Dean and Kerry and go for Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on January 25, 2004, 11:05:22 PM
Welcome
I Like what you say but i will vote for bush but i will until the People chose who they want


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 26, 2004, 12:58:52 AM
Hey all:

I heard that Dean's numbers have stabilized in New Hampshire and also showing signs of a turnaround within the forseeable future.  But we will have to wait and see.  

Also NickG, welcome to the forum.  

Later.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 08:09:12 AM
Hey all:

I heard that Dean's numbers have stabilized in New Hampshire and also showing signs of a turnaround within the forseeable future.  But we will have to wait and see.  

Also NickG, welcome to the forum.  

Later.
Last poll has him 18% down.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 12:02:10 PM
latest poll has Dean within 3-4%, zogby one.  

Lots of polls out there though.

I think Dean willa t least be 2d.  Kerry likely to win yet, and a battle for 3-5, with Clark falling fast.

welcome Nick.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 26, 2004, 12:15:39 PM
Hi all,

I'm new to this forum, but I'm a political obsessive and the discussions here are really cool.  

I just posted my prediction map....maybe a little optimistic for the Democrats, but I think pretty reasonable.  It assumes the Dems nominate someone with at least some Southern appeal.

I have five Bush states switching:
Ohio
Louisiana
Arkansas
Arizona
Nevada

Louisiana seems to be the Southern state most amendable to voting for a Democrat, even during the Bush-era.  (Gov '03, Sen '02, LA-03 in '02)

Maybe it's a few years to0 early to shift Arizona and Nevada to the Dem column, but I'm pretty confidence they'll shift eventually given their growth and demographic changes.

I see Bush holding on to West Virginia and Florida (unless Bob Graham is VP).  The GOP showed real strength in FL in '02, and Bush is trouncing every Dem in all polls there (same with NH, come to think).  And I think the declining influence of labor in WV has turned it into a "Southern state" for good.

Nick G


Very interesting analysis, Nick.  I'm going to look at yours more carefully when I have some time.   Floridia is a tremendous question mark to me, in view of not ever having a proper count to refer to.  I don't know which way to call it--but I know the black vote should turn out in record numbers there....I'm new, too, and enjoy talking with others on both sides of the aisle who are not trolls.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 04:50:00 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

Prediction Map:

()


Bush 298 to Kerry 240

Confidence Map:

()

Bush 211, Kerry 113, Toss-up 214.

Is this guy just a Taxachusetts liberal or can he win?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 05:05:31 PM
he's just a taxachussetts liberal.  

1971 Kerry advocates cutting military spending while Vietnam War is still going on.

-1980's Kerry advocated a weaker CIA and voted in
1997 to cut intelligence spending yet criticizes the lack of
intelligence prior to September 11, 1991.

-1980's Kerry opposed the death penalty for terrorist who kill Americans but then criticizes Dean in Iowa for questioning whether Sadaam should receive the death
penalty; "What were you thinking?"

 -1990's Kerry favored government
grants to religion-based charities in oppostion to seperation of church and state.

-1991 Kerry voted against First Gulf War where
there was international agreement, yet favors 2003 Iraq War where  there was no international coalition.

-1994 Kerry opposes raising the minimum wage.

-1996 Kerry votes against Farm Bill.

-1996 Kerry votes against Balance Budget Bill.

-1996 Kerry votes against Small Business
Regulatory Reform Bill

-1996 Kerry votes against Federal Grasslands
Management Bill

-1997 Kerry voted to raise Medicare premiums.

-2003 Kerry votes for Patriot Act

A long record of votes. I even heard he is the liberal senator of Mass. witha 93% liberal voting record to only 88% for Kennedy. Plus I know the people will love seeing those 2 on stage together all the time.  Kennedy and Kerry- what a combination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 05:12:18 PM
According to the National Journal, Kerry is to the left of ted Kennedy economically, equal with him socially, and to the right of him in foreign affairs.  Kerry does have a paper trail that Bush could use against him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 05:15:09 PM
maybe you posted as I did, but yes He is more liberal than Ted and I ppointed out a few examples above.  Laughed when I heard it said Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator of Massachussetts.  never thought I would hear conservative and ted kennedy int he same sentence.

According to the National Journal, Kerry is to the left of ted Kennedy economically, equal with him socially, and to the right of him in foreign affairs.  Kerry does have a paper trail that Bush could use against him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 05:17:01 PM
Now this story fromt he WSJ today could sum up what a lot of vets thinka bout Kerry.  My father could have written this article.  he is a vetnam vet that was awarded the bronze star and he says kerry is a disgrace for turning his back on the men who were still over there fighting like my father.  Plus vets hate anythign to do with Jane "I am a traitor" Fonda.  My father would shut the TV off when she came on when I was growing up.

Conduct Unbecoming
Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support.

BY STEPHEN SHERMAN
Monday, January 26, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

A turning point may have been reached in the Iowa caucuses when Special Forces Lt. James Rassmann came forward to thank John Kerry for saving his life in Vietnam. Although Mr. Rassmann, like most of my veteran friends, is a Republican, he said that he'd vote for Mr. Kerry. I don't know if the incident influenced the caucus results. But I took special interest in the story because Jim served in my unit.

Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool. That Mr. Kerry served at all is a reason for a bond with fellow veterans; that his service earned him a Bronze Star for Valor ("for personal bravery") and a Silver Star ("for gallantry") is even more compelling. Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry came home to Massachusetts, the one state George McGovern carried in 1972. He joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and emceed the Winter Soldier Investigation (both financed by Jane Fonda). Many veterans believe these protests led to more American deaths, and to the enslavement of the people on whose behalf the protests were ostensibly being undertaken. But being a take-charge kind of guy, Mr. Kerry became a leader in the VVAW and even testified before Congress on the findings of the Investigation, which he accepted at face value.

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals--so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights. I'm not surprised that there are veterans who support a VVAW activist, if only because there are so few fellow veterans in politics. Ideally, there'd be many more. If you are going to vote on military appropriations, it would be nice if you didn't disrespect the soldiers. Congress hasn't had the courage to declare war in more than 60 years, despite numerous instances in which we have sent our military in harm's way. Of all the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started.





But the bond between veterans has to be tempered in light of the individual's record. Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result. So I can understand my former comrade-in-arms hugging the man who saved his life, but not the act of choosing him for president out of gratitude. And I would hate to see anyone giving Mr. Kerry a sympathy vote for president just because being a Vietnam veteran is "back in style."
Mr. Sherman was a first lieutenant with the U.S. Army Fifth Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Vietnam, 1967-68.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 05:18:20 PM
he was against the Vietnam War, so many Vets don't like that.  He would still take a good chunk of the veteran vote in the general.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 05:24:21 PM
I still think that serving in a war is a brave thing to do. Showing opposition to it afterwards doesn't look bad to me. That's a Lee-thing in my opinion.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 26, 2004, 05:31:58 PM
It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 05:38:25 PM
It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 06:42:07 PM
It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.
Opposition to the Vietnam war was greater than any other war in American history.  The sad thing is, we went knid of half-assed into Vietnam.  I wouldn't have supported it from the outset, but put your will into it if you are going to fight a war.  For example, I would have voted no in authorizing force in Iraq but yes on the 87 Billion for Iraq.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 26, 2004, 07:22:00 PM
he was against the Vietnam War, so many Vets don't like that.  He would still take a good chunk of the veteran vote in the general.

Yeah, but it would be the same chunk that the Dems always get so it wouldn't make much difference.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 26, 2004, 07:23:51 PM
It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.
Opposition to the Vietnam war was greater than any other war in American history.  The sad thing is, we went knid of half-assed into Vietnam.  I wouldn't have supported it from the outset, but put your will into it if you are going to fight a war.  For example, I would have voted no in authorizing force in Iraq but yes on the 87 Billion for Iraq.

Is that so?  Edwards voted against spending the money.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 07:53:33 PM
So did Kerry, and Gephardt voted for the 87B.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 26, 2004, 08:29:22 PM
So did Kerry, and Gephardt voted for the 87B.

Exactly.  So, why not support Gepardt (when he was still in it) or Liebermann then?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 08:41:18 PM
Because I feel Edwards has the best chance of beating Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 26, 2004, 09:57:52 PM
It was a very, very hard war to support as time went on.   Especially after the release of the Pentagon Papers.  I don't think anyone was untouched by it.   It was not as clear cut as WWII.    I think we'll get a chance to see the troops react again.

It was very far from being as clear cut as WWII.
Opposition to the Vietnam war was greater than any other war in American history.  The sad thing is, we went knid of half-assed into Vietnam.  I wouldn't have supported it from the outset, but put your will into it if you are going to fight a war.  For example, I would have voted no in authorizing force in Iraq but yes on the 87 Billion for Iraq.

Is that so?  Edwards voted against spending the money.

If memory serves me right, Bush refused to furnish cost estimates prior to the vote to attack Iraq, saying impossible to furnish this.  (Not true, BTW--they had cost estimates in Feb. 2001, right after the inaugruation) then Congress reluctantly went along with the invasion, and *right* after the war had begun, Bush asked for the $87 billion.   It's hard to vote no when troops were already under fire.   That's what the choice was, which actually was no choice at all.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on January 26, 2004, 11:49:48 PM
Now this story fromt he WSJ today could sum up what a lot of vets thinka bout Kerry.  My father could have written this article.  he is a vetnam vet that was awarded the bronze star and he says kerry is a disgrace for turning his back on the men who were still over there fighting like my father.  Plus vets hate anythign to do with Jane "I am a traitor" Fonda.  My father would shut the TV off when she came on when I was growing up.

..........Of all the "lessons of Vietnam," surely one is that America needs a leader capable of demonstrating in himself, and encouraging in others, the resolve to finish what they have collectively started.

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 27, 2004, 12:55:30 AM
[
Quote

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.
Quote

The GOP will likely use this -- VN protesting--but it should be remembered that this was a winner of the Silver Star and Purple Heart who was out of the service, and was protesting to get the rest out of VN.  If ever a person has earned the right to protest, it's a purple heart winner of that war, in my opinion.  I think Kerry is handlilng it right--"it was a bad time"....those who have seen "Born on the Fourth of July" will understand the anguish of knowing one got screwed by one's own government.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 27, 2004, 09:19:19 AM
but kerry also threw back his medals, (well somebody's calling them his at the time)  I know a lot of vets personally that are independant or democrats around my area that think his actions after he came home were reprehensible.

In fact they compare him to Pete Rose,  great on the field but dishonorable off.  Sounded about right to me.  They all said they'd support other Democrats but not him, they tend to more like Clark it seems.

[
Quote

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.
Quote

The GOP will likely use this -- VN protesting--but it should be remembered that this was a winner of the Silver Star and Purple Heart who was out of the service, and was protesting to get the rest out of VN.  If ever a person has earned the right to protest, it's a purple heart winner of that war, in my opinion.  I think Kerry is handlilng it right--"it was a bad time"....those who have seen "Born on the Fourth of July" will understand the anguish of knowing one got screwed by one's own government.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 27, 2004, 11:25:17 AM
but kerry also threw back his medals, (well somebody's calling them his at the time)  I know a lot of vets personally that are independant or democrats around my area that think his actions after he came home were reprehensible.

In fact they compare him to Pete Rose,  great on the field but dishonorable off.  Sounded about right to me.  They all said they'd support other Democrats but not him, they tend to more like Clark it seems.

[
Quote

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.
Quote


You know when one is protesting you want to make the most powerful statement you can--stuff you do for the cameras.  It strikes as as just a visual.  Actually, that he organized despite organized scorn from the LBJ WH that was out of control, and out of step with the country, and it was people like Kerry that eventually caused LBJ, a fellow dem,  to not run again.   I see those vets that protested publicly as sort of heros all over again.  And you know the rest.  The people turned to Nixon to get them out of VN.  And he did, and it was not easy.    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 27, 2004, 01:48:11 PM
I don't agree with the protests at all, but if he is going to use it he should also let it be known he turned his back on his country too when he got home.  That is my point.


but kerry also threw back his medals, (well somebody's calling them his at the time)  I know a lot of vets personally that are independant or democrats around my area that think his actions after he came home were reprehensible.

In fact they compare him to Pete Rose,  great on the field but dishonorable off.  Sounded about right to me.  They all said they'd support other Democrats but not him, they tend to more like Clark it seems.

[
Quote

I believe that those who still feel we should have finished what we started in Vietnam are very likely to be voting Republican this fall.

Kerry's switch on Vietnam is not what the broad middle will take issue with, it's the failure of his positions and his personality to gel into a character that people will want as President.
Quote


You know when one is protesting you want to make the most powerful statement you can--stuff you do for the cameras.  It strikes as as just a visual.  Actually, that he organized despite organized scorn from the LBJ WH that was out of control, and out of step with the country, and it was people like Kerry that eventually caused LBJ, a fellow dem,  to not run again.   I see those vets that protested publicly as sort of heros all over again.  And you know the rest.  The people turned to Nixon to get them out of VN.  And he did, and it was not easy.    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on January 27, 2004, 04:13:56 PM
Hello All:

Tonight is the night in New Hampshire and we will see if Kerry will maintain his lead or if Dean can recover from his loss in Iowa.  Edwards is a potential upsetter based on his showing in Iowa, but tonight is the true test of Wesley Clark's candidacy.  

I want to take this opportunity to say that even though I support Dean, I want to wish the candidates and their supporters on this forum all the best.  After all, tommorow is another day but that day will reveal which candidates will keep their hats in the ring.    

See you later and keep watching the CNN.  
 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on January 27, 2004, 04:17:36 PM
I have to say FNC gives great analysis whether you agree with them or not. In my opinion, Brit Hume is one of the best and most evenhanded in reporting people on cable news today.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 27, 2004, 05:47:23 PM
plus fox always has the results first! :)

but I channel hop to the most interesting storylines.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 27, 2004, 05:48:00 PM
I have to say FNC gives great analysis whether you agree with them or not. In my opinion, Brit Hume is one of the best and most evenhanded in reporting people on cable news today.
Yep.  Because CNN is a downright anti-semetic network.

:) :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on January 27, 2004, 07:38:38 PM
Best analysis is Newshour on PBS

but Fox or CNN do gets the news first, granted.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 27, 2004, 08:15:34 PM
plus fox always has the results first! :)

but I channel hop to the most interesting storylines.

I flip away when they cut to the candidate HQs. Those are the dumbest segments.  Nothing of value is ever learned.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: YRABNNRM on January 27, 2004, 08:19:16 PM
I have to say FNC gives great analysis whether you agree with them or not. In my opinion, Brit Hume is one of the best and most evenhanded in reporting people on cable news today.

I agree, Brit is my favorite.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on January 30, 2004, 07:05:26 AM
McAuliffe has lost his mind, I guess.  Did he really think this statement was helpful in any way to Dems in the state?

McAuliffe statement defended by NH Democrats
Union Leader
1/30/04

Top state Democrats yesterday defended the candid assessment of their party’s national chairman that New Hampshire should vote Democratic in November if it wants to retain its first-in-the-nation Presidential primary.

Key Republicans and one former state Democratic chairman, however, said the primary’s future should not be linked to general election results.

Former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen and state party chair Kathy Sullivan said Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe was trying to rally New Hampshire faithful when he said the future of the primary depends on it becoming a “blue state.”

Secretary of State William Gardner said he wished McAuliffe had not said that, but said he was saying what a party chairman should say.

Republican National Committeeman Tom Rath said McAuliffe set an unfair “litmus test” and Sen. John Sununu called it “short-sighted.”

In a Wednesday interview, McAuliffe voiced personal support for keeping New Hampshire’s primary and Iowa’s caucus the nation’s first tests of candidate strength. But he estimated that 90 percent of the Democratic National Committee’s members wants to eliminate their leadoff positions. Iowa holds the nation’s first caucus eight days before New Hampshire’s primary.

McAuliffe said New Hampshire’s record voter turnout was “first and foremost” helpful for the state. But he said that to change minds on the DNC, “The second part of it is even more critical. New Hampshire needs to make itself a blue state in November 2004.” That means the state needs to give its four electoral votes to the Democratic nominee, not President George W. Bush.

The state supported Bush over Al Gore by a mere 7,000 votes in 2000. It supported Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992, but had backed Republicans in the six elections before that.

Among the anti-New Hampshire forces are Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, who say their states more accurately reflect the nation’s diversity. The New York Times has editorialized in favor of regional primaries, insisting New Hampshire has lost its retail politics flavor.

McAuliffe, in a deal with Michigan Democrats, will appoint a commission to recommend in early 2006 how the party should handle its 2008 convention delegate selection process. It will then be taken up by the DNC’s Rules and By-Laws Committee.

If the DNC eventually rules against New Hampshire, a state law will keep the state first by seven days. But the DNC could insist that candidates not campaign here in 2008 and could block from the 2008 convention any New Hampshire delegates selected in a non-sanctioned event.

Rath said, “There can never be a guarantee on the way this state will vote. This was an unfortunate way to couch this thing. To say this is a litmus test of whether we get to keep the Democratic primary is not appropriate.”

Sununu called it “the wrong standard” and cited Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s successes as “cases where a Democrat could argue it was very helpful to their party.”

Republican Executive Councilor Ruth-Griffin has worked to preserve the state’s GOP primary, and winning the electoral votes “has never been a prerequisite.”

Former state Democratic chairman and DNC member Joe Keefe said becoming a blue state would help, but should not be “a necessary condition because only one party wins the election. Whether it turns out to be a red or blue state is largely besides the point.”

The current DNC rule allows New Hampshire to hold its primary a week before any other state. The Republican rule contains no such explicit exemption, but state Republicans have preserved the leadoff status, thanks in part to Bush’s support.

Gardner cited the record Democratic primary turnout of 219,787 and estimated that 70 to 80 percent of the state’s registered Democrats voted. “No other state can lay claim to anything like that percentage,” he said. “No other state will be remotely close to that.”

Gardner said McAuliffe’s comments are “the type of thing a chairman of a party says. The truth is, neither party can guarantee that.”

Shaheen said she is confident that if John Kerry wins the Presidency, he will use his clout to protect New Hampshire and Iowa.

“The record number of Democrats and independents we saw here certainly think New Hampshire should be a blue state, and there is frustration about the direction in which George Bush is leading this country,” Shaheen said.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 07:30:31 AM
Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on January 30, 2004, 10:42:08 AM
This election will be close. Regardless of his successes and failures, there are many people who simply want Bush out, no matter how Iraq or the economy is doing, many of whom did not vote at all last time round. If they come out to vote in some key states then they could swing it in the Dems favour. I have the feeling that on the election night, it will be the Western states that will be close and being the last to vote it will be exciting!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 11:06:14 AM
taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 01:18:59 PM
OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 01:29:28 PM
I think the impact of the tax issue is far less than many suspect on voting patterns.

The top 50% of the population pays 95% of all federal income & estate taxes - this fact is presented not as an argument one way or another regarding the fairness of the tax system, but rather to argue that on the tax issue, there exists such a huge divide between the taxed and the untaxed that minor fiddling at the edges makes little to no difference in voting patterns.

For the bottom 50%, they pay so little taxes, that even if their federal taxes were totally eliminated (as they were/will be for about 15 million people if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent) the net impact on their lives is rather small - in short - they recieve so much from government in terms of welfare, health care, etc that their sole and only interest is more government - government they don't have to pay for.

Yes there are Democrats in the top 50% who pay towards the 95% of taxes the top 50% pay, but these people in the top 50% who vote Democratic are overwhelmingly those who benifit from Goverment in that they are teachers, bureaucrats, government workers, etc, and thus are also in net receipt of tax revenue, not payers of tax.

A startling fact:

If you know just 5things about a person:

1) - If they work in the public or private sector:
3) - If they attend church regularly
4) - Their family income
5) - Marital status
6) - Field of study if higher educated

you can predict with 95% accuracy how they will vote

~~Gridlock is good!~~Vote for Divided Government~~
~~More Gridlock = Better Government~~

.....A Cunuck Libertarian.....




What you describe is the best indictment I can think of of the 'progressive' income tax.  Basically voters are incentivised to vote left-wing and rob their economic betters.  This is the best argument against tax cuts that reduce middle class taxes.  Republicans should never go along with this creation of a 'tax free' class.  Some kind of poll tax would be better.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on January 30, 2004, 01:41:12 PM
If you know just 5things about a person:

1) - If they work in the public or private sector:
3) - If they attend church regularly
4) - Their family income
5) - Marital status
6) - Field of study if higher educated

you can predict with 95% accuracy how they will vote

I would agree that these are pretty accurate. I was just wondering what fields of study you'd associate with the Dems and likewise for the GOP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 30, 2004, 02:03:57 PM
GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bejkuy on January 30, 2004, 03:36:54 PM
<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 04:48:42 PM
but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:02:48 PM
Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 05:05:20 PM
the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:07:12 PM
My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 05:08:06 PM
Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:12:17 PM
Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... :)

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 05:13:21 PM
:) winner!  ( just teasing, good discussion )

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... :)

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:18:02 PM
Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... ;)

:) winner!  ( just teasing, good discussion )

Well, we'll never really know that for sure, but if New Hampshire on election day is clearly more Republican than the national average, as compared to 2000, and there is no other significant factor explaining this, then, but only then!, will I concede that you were right and I wrong... :)

Ok we agree then, but I just thought NH was a poor example of that point.

My point was that local elections has very little impact on national elections. I agree that LA will not go Dem and NH most likely will go Rep, but I wouldn't base my predictions for them on the outcome of local elections.

the difference is Louisiana is Conservative first.  All the dems that have won are moderate to conservative.  John Kerry doesn't stand a chance there.


Yeah, and Louisiana will vote Dem after the successes in their local elections, right? :)

but also NH hhas 2 GOP senators, winning smashingly over Gov Jean Shaheen in 2002.  They have a new GOP Gov in 2002.  Sen Gregg will win EASILY in 2004.  Plus as I said unemployment is down there compared to anywhere.  So economy is off the table as a negative for Bush and is in fact a positive.

OK, I will say this one last time. There are a number of lean Rep swing states, such as NV, AZ and NH, that will vote Republican IF the Republicans win. But if the elections is close they might go Dem. People miss the fact that the GOP has won 6 out of the last 9 elections, and 2 of them in a landslide. This leads people to look at some states as more Republican than they really are. If a New Englander is the nominee, like Kerry, and the election is competitive, then New Hampshire will be in play. It would still be more likely to go Republican, but it would essentially be a tossup.

taxes will be a big factor in NH.  Bush is seeking to make his tax cuts permanent this year while Kerry wants to raise taxes.

Next unemployment in NH is VERY low compared to the nationa dn it has not been hit hard like other states, Nat avg is 5.7 , NH avg is 4.1.



Maccauliffe really does seem like a loose cannon sometimes.  The Dems seem to have a lot of those.

NH should go Republican reliably in November.
I've read that quite often now, but I really don't know what it's based on. For all I know and can see, if the Election is close, so is NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 05:37:39 PM

I like your wit gustaf, funny post and still hedging your bet! :0

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... ;)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:39:41 PM
Thanks! :) One has to be careful, you know... ;)


I like your wit gustaf, funny post and still hedging your bet! :0

Yes, and I think muddled my post enough to allow me to weasel out, should New Hampshire mess up on election day... ;)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 30, 2004, 07:09:26 PM
<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bejkuy on January 30, 2004, 07:49:28 PM
<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.

GOP- White collar criminals, pyramid schemers, poachers.

DEM- Crack dealers, strippers, boxers, carnies, pimps.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 30, 2004, 10:31:57 PM
<<GOP Business, investment, outdoor worker, sales

DEM teachers, health care workers, artisans,

Nice analysis.

I would add,

GOP-virtually all small businessmen, non-union labor.
 
DEM- trial lawyers, any public employees-cops, firemen, etc, college professors, street vendors, tatoo artists,


Tatoo artists! lol.  How about
GOP: Southern Baptist ministers, left-handed golfers?.

GOP- White collar criminals, pyramid schemers, poachers.

DEM- Crack dealers, strippers, boxers, carnies, pimps.

Dems: Journalists/reporters, gardens, reads 1+ book per year, listens to NPR, watches CNN, Jim Lehr, subscribes to a news mag.

GOP: News Publishers, cops, Country Western fans, bowlers, reads less than 1 book per year, plays paint-ball,  Fox, Reality TV, subscribes to SI.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 30, 2004, 10:41:49 PM
Dems: Journalists/reporters, gardens, reads 1+ book per year, listens to NPR, watches CNN, Jim Lehr, subscribes to a news mag.

GOP: News Publishers, cops, Country Western fans, bowlers, reads less than 1 book per year, plays paint-ball,  Fox, Reality TV, subscribes to SI.
Well....I fit into alot of those categories.

On the Dem side, I do read more than a book per year, I watch CNN, and I subcribe to Time Magazine.  On the GOP side, I subscribe to SI.  But I'm blood red baby :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 05:06:17 AM
Is it just you two or are all people from Oregon this cynical about their own voters?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 31, 2004, 01:07:28 PM
Is it just you two or are all people from Oregon this cynical about their own voters?

Oregonians are very pragmatic, as in the practical sense.  I think it was first settled by former Missourians! (Oregon has a lot of "firsts" to its credit.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on January 31, 2004, 03:21:51 PM

I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on January 31, 2004, 05:36:39 PM

I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?

I know that in the 50s a very secret, and completely illegal, project was carried out in Sweden, where a group of children were picked out and monitored throughout their lives. Their political opinions were checked through bogus polls, and this was correlated with a lot of other information. It all came out in the 70s and was a big scandal. Rather few things could be correlated with political opinions though, outside the statistical MoE.

And the results were:

Communists were more intelligent than others

Social Democrats were less intelligent than others

Conservatives were more interested in sports (!)

and Center Party voters (kind of rural conservatives) liked motorcycles (that's really stupid, I know...)

That this was all that came out of it is kind of disappoiting, but it seems to confirm the sports-conservative correlation.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 10:08:05 PM
My map shows a true, but not total victory for the Republicans.  Kerry may pull 100 votes or so, but Bush should hopefully win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on January 31, 2004, 10:41:05 PM
My map shows a true, but not total victory for the Republicans.  Kerry may pull 100 votes or so, but Bush should hopefully win.

Reaganfan, did you ever come across this story? just stumbled on it yesterday, and was a shock to me.........  I have no idea of the veracity of this, but can vouch that JFK, JR arrived at the same conclusion as to his father's assassination.
------


HINCKLEY AND BUSH FAMILIES WERE CLOSE FRIENDS
Connie Cook Smith's "What America Needs to Know"

We all know who John Hinckley, Jr. is, now being released from a mental facility in D.C. for nearly killing President Reagan in 1981. A much more interesting subject is, who is John Hinckley, Sr.?

In 1980, Hinckley Sr. was a Texas oilman who, the records show, strove mightily to get fellow Texas oilman George H.W. Bush the Republican nomination for president. The Bushes and the Hinckleys were frequent dinner companions.

But far beyond their social connection, neither Bush nor Hinckley wanted Ronald Reagan to become president, because Reagan was opposed to the tax breaks for the oil industry which Bush and Hinckley and other Texans were highly dependent on.

The effort to make Bush Sr. president in 1980 failed, but he and his backer Hinckley Sr. got the next best thing -- the "heartbeat away from the presidency" office of Vice-President of the United States.

A few months later, Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan, and Bush very nearly did become president at that time, after all. Only one time was it announced on the news about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families: An almost bewildered John Chancellor on NBC Nightly News reported "the bizarre
coincidence" that Neil Bush and Scott Hinckley had dinner plans for March 31, 1981 -- now cancelled, of course.

In other words, the brother of the shooter and the son of the vice-president (and their wives) had a dinner date for the day after the shooting. But it really wasn't such "a bizarre coincidence." Those two families were very
close, but the press never focused on that, as it should have. If Reagan had died, the oilmen's interests would have been served.

Some people think that Hinckley Jr. was mind-controlled, CIA-style, to shoot Reagan. Bush was head of the CIA a few years before, by the way. Others think that Jr. wanted to please his dad and get Bush, his dad's candidate, into the presidency for him after all. And legal experts note that the crime occurred in Washington, D.C., the only venue in the United States at that
time which recognized an insanity defense. If the kid committed the crime in D.C., he would never serve hard time? Well, coincidentally, that's where he committed it.

A very good read on the Hinckley-Bush connections is a book that came out about 20 years ago, entitled "The Afternoon of March 30." It was published as a novel in order to protect the author. This book is now more relevant than ever, and you can obtain it at click here.

In closing, there's another coincidence to mention. I just learned that in January of 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced a plan to cut the tax breaks for the oil industry. Oilmen H.L. Hunt, George H.W. Bush (head of Zapata Petroleum), and others were no doubt enraged. What a coincidence that Kennedy was shot in Texas later that same year.

In the 1990's LBJ's now-undisputed mistress Madeleine Brown announced that LBJ told her Kennedy was murdered "by the oil people, and aspects of the CIA."

And gosh, one more coincidence! We now have another Bush, the oilman's son, becoming U.S. President in a very quirky election. And apparently, he gave the American people completely phony reasons for invading Iraq, one of the
most oil-rich nations in the Middle East


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Reaganfan on January 31, 2004, 11:53:03 PM
Odd. Very odd. BTW, I see your backing Clark. He voted for Reagan.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 12:22:14 AM
Don't you love conspiracy theorists?

Even if hat they say IS the truth, they say it in a way that makes them look stupid and reactionary, therefor eliminating any chance of it being taken seriously.

Shame, that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 01, 2004, 12:28:46 AM
Satellite imaging indicates that the Chinese PLA has built an army of at least five million men near Tijuana in Baja California. Initial reports indicate they plan to seize Hollywood by force, kidnap Jackie Chan, and create a Mandarin-language sequel to the Drunken Master, which will then be beamed across the free world. Details on this alarming turn of events to follow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on February 01, 2004, 12:40:46 AM
Odd. Very odd. BTW, I see your backing Clark. He voted for Reagan.....

Yes, and I did, too......While I liked Carter, I felt he was losing the support of the people in a way that was unstoppable, and despite how much I liked him, a President must have support.  And Reagan was very likeable and persuasive--probably the most liked president ever.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 12:47:31 AM
It was hard not to like Reagan's optimism even if you totally disagreed with his ideology.  As I remember, the economy was in the toilet and we had horrible setbacks in foreign policy in the late 70s.  At the time, America really did need that dose of optimism.  I'd say it was similar to the optimism FDR brought to America when he took over when America was in the depths of the Great Depression.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 01, 2004, 12:52:09 AM
Hoardes of French Canadians are amassing on the border, with plans to make all New Englanders go "Hor hor" in that annoying laff of theirs. Wilson Hubble, A resident of Caribou, ME, saw someone he described as "Tall, skinny and frenchie-lookin'". It is believed to be former Canadian Prime Minister, Jean Chretien. Gail Byrd of Niagara, NY, said "We always see 'em comin' over to the land of the free; but now they'm coming in ten times as much!"

America has long feared this day. Now that it is upon us, do as Clarke Mitchells of Ogdenburg, NY is planning to do. "Go shoot sum dang blasted froggy canucks".

(No offense to Canadians, or residents of the towns mentioned, btw :))


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mossy on February 01, 2004, 01:18:11 AM
This is weird.......I found more, and I vouch for NOTHING!

Look at this--

it says Reagan was blackmailed by Bush into getting named the VP, and was co-President, according to James Brady......(was this before or after he was shot??)

If anyone would know, Nancy Reagan would--R. told her everything.   Anyone remember what opinion she had of Bush, Sr? in her book?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?X52A24247



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 01, 2004, 07:23:52 AM
It was hard not to like Reagan's optimism even if you totally disagreed with his ideology.  As I remember, the economy was in the toilet and we had horrible setbacks in foreign policy in the late 70s.  At the time, America really did need that dose of optimism.  

Yeah, back in the seventies and very early eighties people would've thought the 2000-2001 'recession' was some kind of boom.  Now those were the days people had actual hard times.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on February 01, 2004, 10:25:50 AM
No kidding.  Double didgit inflation, 7.6% unemployment, 18% interest rates..... Sheesh.  Contrast that with the present unemployment rate of 5.7%, 2% inflation, mortgage rates at below 6%.  Of course, if you listen to all the rhettoric from the other side you'd think we were all eating in soup kitchens.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Reaganfan on February 01, 2004, 10:57:17 AM
Carter-Mondale years were okay up until 1978 when gas went, and Iran hostage. We needed a great leader, and Reagan was just that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 01, 2004, 02:21:44 PM
No kidding! I thought that we now had the worst economy of all time ever and people were fondly remembering their hunter-gatherer days?

Oh wait, I've been listening to too many Demcratic candidate speeches.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on February 01, 2004, 03:49:00 PM

I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?

And I also find it interesting that almost all former athletes/coaches who go into politics are Republicans. Sure Dems have Bill Bradley, but the GOP has Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Jim Ryun, Tom Osborne, etc.
-------
Oh, and Go Panthers!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 01, 2004, 04:31:35 PM
No kidding.  Double didgit inflation, 7.6% unemployment, 18% interest rates..... Sheesh.  Contrast that with the present unemployment rate of 5.7%, 2% inflation, mortgage rates at below 6%.  Of course, if you listen to all the rhettoric from the other side you'd think we were all eating in soup kitchens.

Sweden had 500% interest rates 10 years ago. Now that's a crisis for you... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 01, 2004, 04:44:48 PM
not that it matters much but lots of people are urging Osborne to run for Senate in 2006 vs Nelson, all that would change is D for R in leadership vote though as Nelson always is voting with GOP anyway.

Osborne would wina dn I doubt Nelson would run against him.


I've heard things like that a lot, which I find interesting because I follow sports but certainly am very liberal. Does anybody have an explanation for why sports fans tend to vote more GOP than the national average?

And I also find it interesting that almost all former athletes/coaches who go into politics are Republicans. Sure Dems have Bill Bradley, but the GOP has Jim Bunning, J.C. Watts, Jim Ryun, Tom Osborne, etc.
-------
Oh, and Go Panthers!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 01, 2004, 05:53:36 PM
Carter-Mondale years were okay up until 1978 when gas went, and Iran hostage. We needed a great leader, and Reagan was just that.

People liked to say Carter made a better preacher than a president.  That's how people viewed him. They thought he tried hard, but just wasn't up to the task.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 05:32:36 AM
You wanna see a what a depression is like?
Try Northern England/Central Scotland/South Wales in the 1980's... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 04, 2004, 12:46:34 AM
And the corker: we have Nolan Ryan.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 04, 2004, 11:30:45 AM
DC's Political Report prediction:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 12:44:35 PM
Two Stars?  Five Stars?  What is that all about?

Hey did anyone else notice that the submitted board average is now a Democrat win in electoral votes?  What balderdash!  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 01:14:45 PM
Two Stars?  Five Stars?  What is that all about?

Hey did anyone else notice that the submitted board average is now a Democrat win in electoral votes?  What balderdash!  

I think the stars stand for excitement level, or something like that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on February 04, 2004, 02:57:35 PM
Two Stars?  Five Stars?  What is that all about?

http://www.dcPoliticalReport.com/Ratings.htm

He explains it here, although that system is more suited for congressional races.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 04, 2004, 03:39:49 PM
How is Michigan two stars dem?  It is by no means solid for the Democrat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PeteLI66 on February 05, 2004, 09:57:26 AM
Hello -- This is my first post. Today I posted my first election prediction map. I love this stuff, and have been doing these kinds of maps for years. This site is a delight.

It seems to me right now that Bush will win...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 05, 2004, 12:28:42 PM
Hello -- This is my first post. Today I posted my first election prediction map. I love this stuff, and have been doing these kinds of maps for years. This site is a delight.

It seems to me right now that Bush will win...

Welcome to the forum! :)

I saw your prediction, and it seems like an overall good assessment, even though one could argue some individual states, such as New Hampshire or Oregon. But it's a fairly likely outcome, I will agree to that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 05, 2004, 03:25:38 PM
Pretty good map, Peteli, although I disagree with your assessments of NH, WV, OH, and MN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 06, 2004, 03:26:41 AM
Here is my president forever prediction of a clark/edwards ticket...

DEMOCRAT
HA
WA
OR
CA
NV
IA
LA
IL
MI
OH
TN
WV
VA
DC
MD
DE
NJ
NY
CT
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME

with the rest republican. If anyone could be bothered to do an EV count, that would be cool. in the game there were still 160 undecideds (I only have the demo)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 06, 2004, 08:07:43 AM
Here is my president forever prediction of a clark/edwards ticket...

DEMOCRAT
HA
WA
OR
CA
NV
IA
LA
IL
MI
OH
TN
WV
VA
DC
MD
DE
NJ
NY
CT
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME

with the rest republican. If anyone could be bothered to do an EV count, that would be cool. in the game there were still 160 undecideds (I only have the demo)
President forever is a cool game, but not the most accurate.  I was Bush and I won CA without even campaigning there that much.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 06, 2004, 10:37:43 AM
281 for your list.  but I doubt a number of them, VA being at the top of the list.


Here is my president forever prediction of a clark/edwards ticket...

DEMOCRAT
HA
WA
OR
CA
NV
IA
LA
IL
MI
OH
TN
WV
VA
DC
MD
DE
NJ
NY
CT
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME

with the rest republican. If anyone could be bothered to do an EV count, that would be cool. in the game there were still 160 undecideds (I only have the demo)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 06, 2004, 01:13:58 PM
281 for your list.  but I doubt a number of them, VA being at the top of the list.


Here is my president forever prediction of a clark/edwards ticket...

DEMOCRAT
HA
WA
OR
CA
NV
IA
LA
IL
MI
OH
TN
WV
VA
DC
MD
DE
NJ
NY
CT
RI
MA
VT
NH
ME

with the rest republican. If anyone could be bothered to do an EV count, that would be cool. in the game there were still 160 undecideds (I only have the demo)


Yeah VA is solid Republican imo.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 06, 2004, 04:47:15 PM
well considering clark is from VA and Edwards is from neighboring NC, its not impossible.

As I said, it was the games prediction, not mine. but it was a fun game so I thought i'd post it. Next I'll do a Kerry/Edwards and see what happens :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 06, 2004, 04:52:12 PM
well considering clark is from VA and Edwards is from neighboring NC, its not impossible.
yes it is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 06, 2004, 05:06:58 PM
whatever, its just a game :p

Here is Kerry/Edwards. if you ant to be completely shcoked, read on:

DEMOCRAT
Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, SD, Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, DC, Delaware, maryland, New Jersey, and all NE states minus NH. I was winning Kansas by a margin of 14, and losing NH by 18 :rolleyes:


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 06, 2004, 11:03:01 PM
I also have no idea how I got that :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 07, 2004, 02:38:53 AM
I like to play observer games as Harry Browne, where I just sit and watch. I tries running Sharpton-Dean against Bush-Powell. Sharpton was leading at start in more states than Gore won, including Missouri and Tennesse. Eventually the game told me, "Get the full version if you want to beat Al Sharpton!" After noticing that Lieberman, Sharpton, Dean, and Kerry all do about the same, I decided the game wasn't the most accurate.

Say, if anyone has the full game, what additional candidates does it let you use?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 01:03:27 AM
Hello All:

Its been some time since I last posted and a lot has happened.  I think I am ready to say that Howard Dean is probably finished.  But my problem right now is who I am going to support.  I am not to wild about Kerry right now, Edwards is a conservative democrat with a middle-class upbringing, and I think Clark MUST be on the ticket in order for the Dems to beat Bush.  

Right now the media has shifted its attention to Kerry's so-called ties to special interests. (Any information from you good people about this topic, regardless of party affiliation, is helpful).  But while the media is attacking Kerry on the subject of special interests, they are contradicting themselves by supporting Bush; an embodiment of special interests (e.g. the oil industry, Halliburton, Clear Channel, News Corporation, to name a few).  

Just keep this fact (NOT OPINION, this is not coming from Fantasy land) in mind when you support Bush.  I know I will get attacked on this subject but I don't care, I am breaking my silence and I am happy and proud to do it.  

While I am not clear about who I will support for the nomination, I will say that the Dems need Clark more than he needs them.  

Sleep tight everybody and be sure to vote.

S2DM
 



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 01:14:34 AM
I forgot to mention another Bush special interest:
ENRON.

Later.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 06:01:01 AM
Edwards is a conservative Democrat from a middle class background?

I never knew that.

I had always thought that he was a populist Democrat from a working class background.

I suppose I'd better bow down before the great knowledge of someone who thinks that WV miners voted en masse for Bush in 2000...

[/end sarcasm]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 08, 2004, 06:16:55 AM
And I thought he was a moderately Conservative Democrat with a working class background.
What's that about WV miners about? The last time anybody in WV voted en masse was for Ukysses S Grant if I remember right. This is a state where the State Supervisor of Elections' (whatever the title, doesn't matter, you know what I mean) website carries or used to carry a banner: "Make Voting a West Virginia rather than a Family Tradition!" Kinda says it all...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 07:22:53 AM
Like a lot of people he seems to think that WV miners voted en masse for Bush... though I'm not sure where people get that idiotic idea from...

WV always has a low turnout... especially in the ultra-Democrat south of the state... where something like 90% of all coal in WV is mined.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 08, 2004, 08:08:55 AM
Like a lot of people he seems to think that WV miners voted en masse for Bush... though I'm not sure where people get that idiotic idea from...

WV always has a low turnout... especially in the ultra-Democrat south of the state... where something like 90% of all coal in WV is mined.
How do you know all this about West Virginia?  I guess you made a good avatar choice :)

I think Kerry is a weak candidate, because he starts out with so little and has to fight for everything else.  From the beginning, he has NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, HI, DC, and that's it.  That's only 76 Ev's, so he has to win the other 194 EV's in battleground or semi-battleground states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 08:18:30 AM
Like a lot of people he seems to think that WV miners voted en masse for Bush... though I'm not sure where people get that idiotic idea from...

WV always has a low turnout... especially in the ultra-Democrat south of the state... where something like 90% of all coal in WV is mined.
How do you know all this about West Virginia?  I guess you made a good avatar choice :)

I think Kerry is a weak candidate, because he starts out with so little and has to fight for everything else.  From the beginning, he has NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, HI, DC, and that's it.  That's only 76 Ev's, so he has to win the other 194 EV's in battleground or semi-battleground states.

Lol...he probably knows more about WV than you do about Utah or Wyoming, don't you think? ;)

I think Kerry will do better than that, the country is sufficiently polarized for him to do reasonably well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 08, 2004, 08:21:13 AM
I think Kerry will do better than that, the country is sufficiently polarized for him to do reasonably well.
Yes, I do think he will do better than that, but he has to fight for most of what he's got.  Other than Hawaii and the northeast, nothing is safe for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 08:23:45 AM
I think Kerry will do better than that, the country is sufficiently polarized for him to do reasonably well.
Yes, I do think he will do better than that, but he has to fight for most of what he's got.  Other than Hawaii and the northeast, nothing is safe for him.

It depends on how you define safe, few states are ever really safe, but I think Kerry should win states like VT, CA, IL, MD and WA without sweating too much.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 08:25:57 AM
Also, a new Wisconsin poll is out, showing Bush trailing a generic Democrat 38-54!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 08, 2004, 08:27:54 AM
Also, a new Wisconsin poll is out, showing Bush trailing a generic Democrat 38-54!
Yeah, I saw that, that's good news.  Steel tariffs hurt us there though :(

Kerry probably also would win ME, VT, DE, MD, MI, WA, and CA without much work.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 08, 2004, 09:30:03 AM
Watching this whole drama unfolding is really interesting. Howrd Dean was the person Democrats wanted to be their candidate, John Kerry is the person they (mostly) want to be their President. Howard Dean captivated so many, but he simply cannot challenge Bush, and since the New Year that has dawned on many. One good result however, is that the turnout for the primaries and caucuses have been exceptionally high, showing us that Democrats and many Independents are HUNGRY for change. They want Bush out. And that is a good thing to remember come November! The press in the UK from tabloid to broadsheet are following this race closely. John Kerry go for it!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 09:30:52 AM
Note: by south of state, I don't mean just the Coal District as the 2nd has a few counties high up in the Alleghanies that also produce a fair amount of Coal.
Nothing on Boone, Mingo or Logan scale though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 12:06:07 PM
Afternoon All:

First the issue of coal miners is irrelevent.  I am talking about the candidates and supposed ties to special interests.  Secondly, you are right Edwards is from a working-class background but I always thought he was conservative on some issues.  (I'll have to pay more attention to this) But he has become more of a populist lately.    

While we are on the subject of miners, I think everyone should know that a recent NY TIMES article commented about coal mining companies  resuming strip mining in parts of West Virginia.  

Later all.  


 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 12:07:08 PM
Hello All:

Its been some time since I last posted and a lot has happened.  I think I am ready to say that Howard Dean is probably finished.  But my problem right now is who I am going to support.  I am not to wild about Kerry right now, Edwards is a conservative democrat with a middle-class upbringing, and I think Clark MUST be on the ticket in order for the Dems to beat Bush.  

Right now the media has shifted its attention to Kerry's so-called ties to special interests. (Any information from you good people about this topic, regardless of party affiliation, is helpful).  But while the media is attacking Kerry on the subject of special interests, they are contradicting themselves by supporting Bush; an embodiment of special interests (e.g. the oil industry, Halliburton, Clear Channel, News Corporation, to name a few).  

Just keep this fact (NOT OPINION, this is not coming from Fantasy land) in mind when you support Bush.  I know I will get attacked on this subject but I don't care, I am breaking my silence and I am happy and proud to do it.  

While I am not clear about who I will support for the nomination, I will say that the Dems need Clark more than he needs them.  

Sleep tight everybody and be sure to vote.

S2DM
 

Yeah, yeah - corporations = special interests.  Wrong!  America in case  you haven't noticed, is a capitalist country.  The only thing a corporation ever tried to do to me was sell me some appealing good or service at a reasonable price, or conversely, hire me and pay me money!  Wow - how evil.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 12:13:29 PM
The issue of coal miners is relevent as you have shown some appalling ignorence about their voting patterns.

But what has the opinion of the NY Times on strip mining got to do with voting?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 12:39:35 PM
Hello All:

Its been some time since I last posted and a lot has happened.  I think I am ready to say that Howard Dean is probably finished.  But my problem right now is who I am going to support.  I am not to wild about Kerry right now, Edwards is a conservative democrat with a middle-class upbringing, and I think Clark MUST be on the ticket in order for the Dems to beat Bush.  

Right now the media has shifted its attention to Kerry's so-called ties to special interests. (Any information from you good people about this topic, regardless of party affiliation, is helpful).  But while the media is attacking Kerry on the subject of special interests, they are contradicting themselves by supporting Bush; an embodiment of special interests (e.g. the oil industry, Halliburton, Clear Channel, News Corporation, to name a few).  

Just keep this fact (NOT OPINION, this is not coming from Fantasy land) in mind when you support Bush.  I know I will get attacked on this subject but I don't care, I am breaking my silence and I am happy and proud to do it.  

While I am not clear about who I will support for the nomination, I will say that the Dems need Clark more than he needs them.  

Sleep tight everybody and be sure to vote.

S2DM
 

Yeah, yeah - corporations = special interests.  Wrong!  America in case  you haven't noticed, is a capitalist country.  The only thing a corporation ever tried to do to me was sell me some appealing good or service at a reasonable price, or conversely, hire me and pay me money!  Wow - how evil.


As long as corporations keep to their business, it isn't much to wory about. But they are people as well, and they have interests. This is apparent in the Swedish business organization, which is run by stupid bureaucrats, rather than competent business men.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 12:49:53 PM
Realpolitik:

To answer your question go to the West Virginia Geological Survey website at

www.wvgs.wvnet.edu/www/index.html
look under special features for information abou the history of the coal mining industry.  The site also has a lot of interesting maps about bitominous coal deposits all over the state.  

Also here is an article about Coal miners and supporting Bush. its on an environmental website but the author works for the Washington Times.

go to: www.enn.com/news/wire-stories/2000/10/10112000/krt_wvminers_32429.asp

Hope this helps you get an understanding about my position.  

 

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 01:23:32 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 02:07:27 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 02:12:07 PM
Good observation Realpolitik, many steelworkers were angered when Bush rescinded the steel tariffs.  This action may also cost him voters in Indiana and Ohio.  

Right now I have moved WV on my EV map to the tossup category.  



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 02:17:40 PM
Mining communities are almost always very poor, very left wing (on economics) and are also union dominated.
And don't like capitalism at all...

In the U.K, the Labour Party dominates the Coalfields, while in France the Valenciennes Coalfield is a traditional stronghold of the PCF.

And in the U.S the Appalachian Coalfield is very easy to spot on a National County Map.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 02:23:33 PM
Mining communities are almost always very poor, very left wing (on economics) and are also union dominated.
And don't like capitalism at all...

In the U.K, the Labour Party dominates the Coalfields, while in France the Valenciennes Coalfield is a traditional stronghold of the PCF.

And in the U.S the Appalachian Coalfield is very easy to spot on a National County Map.

Rather perverse given that Capitalism is what creates economic growth which creates enormous increases in coal consumption.  But I realize these may not be rational voters - more like envy/alienation voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 02:43:32 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 08, 2004, 02:52:43 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 270 to Kerry 268


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 02:55:31 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 270 to Kerry 268

That's a tough loss...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 02:56:37 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 02:58:23 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 270 to Kerry 268

Wow, Bush winning without Ohio.. now that is a cool map.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 02:59:20 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.


But it's bad for the environment and it is limited, in the sense that it will run out at some point, and definitely get more expensive.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 08, 2004, 03:03:58 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.


But it's bad for the environment and it is limited, in the sense that it will run out at some point, and definitely get more expensive.

Yeah in about 200 years.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 08, 2004, 03:07:07 PM
Actually, I had WV in the Kerry column until I saw it gave Kerry enough to win, so I took WV out so that Kerry would lose.

Never jinx it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 03:40:27 PM
Actually very few miners switched to the GOP.
What killed Gore was the fact that a lot stayed at home, add that to the Steel Workers switching to Bush (but they will probably "come home" this year), and a higher turnout amoung Republicans (37% of the WV electorate) and that was that.

I was familier with the WVGS' website, but the only party affected by Mountain Top Mining is the Mountain Party.


Why would Coal Miners vote Democrat?  The Dems are ecological nuts who would close coal power generation if they could.  Personally I'm pro-coal.

Why would you be pro-coal? Nuclear power is the way to go, imo.

Oh I like nuclear power, but coal really is best - its cheap, easily available, and the one thing it has over nuclear is it is terror-proof.  They can blow up coal plants and all we have to do is build another one.  If they blow up a nuke plant we loose a few counties at least.


But it's bad for the environment and it is limited, in the sense that it will run out at some point, and definitely get more expensive.

Yeah in about 200 years.  

Well, i the long perspective...but maybe you don't care about that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 03:44:12 PM
Actually it's at least 3000.
200-400 on current reserves.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 03:47:22 PM
Actually it's at least 3000.
200-400 on current reserves.

Are you attnding the fantasy debate, RP?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 03:51:57 PM
No, I'm going to read the transcripts... but I would like the following question to be answered:

"What measures do you intend to take to preserve Coal Mining communities?"


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 03:53:21 PM
No, I'm going to read the transcripts... but I would like the following question to be answered:

"What measures do you intend to take to preserve Coal Mining communities?"

Lol..I'll ask that for you, if possible... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 03:54:34 PM
Thanks :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 08, 2004, 03:55:54 PM
According to National Geographic's historical atlas of the U.S., this country has at least a 500 year supply of recoverable coal reserves.  The U.S. is the second-largest coal producer after China.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 08, 2004, 03:57:30 PM
Sorry... my estimates for reserves was for the U.K in the '80's... it stuck in my head for some reason...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 08, 2004, 04:25:52 PM

You're welcome, the question has been asked, and these are the answers so far:

 I would relax environmental policies inorder to allow Coal plants to catch-up with current standards rather than having to shut down.  Clinton/Gore hurt the coal industry by creating unrealistic goals for the industry and I would...
supersoulty: relax that.  done
ofthisnation: Seantor, your rebuttal.
Nym90: I feel that coal mining communities have the same needs as all of the rest of our country. I think that they want decent education, and an improving economy. Right now they are being left behind by the globalizing economy, and...
Nym90: they need to have some degree of protection in our trade policies. Relaxing environmental standards would only hurt the quality of life for all of us. Let's not wreck the environment that our children depend upon.
Nym90: ok, done.
ofthisnation: Governor, your rebuttal, if you have one.
supersoulty: Yes...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on February 09, 2004, 11:35:52 AM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()
Bush 270 to Kerry 268

Miami, I think that this map is real close to the best prediction that could be made at this point in time. In fact, not being afraid to jinx Kerry, and not wanting these republican guys to get too complacent, I would make WV red, swinging the whole thing to Kerry (without a single southwest state, not even NM).

In fact, throw in NH and IA, and you can give the GOP back MN or WS and still win.

The critical mass of this election is definitely in the midwest. OH is the lynchpin, and MN, WS, IA and WV are in no way solid Bush country this cycle, not against a strong Dem statement on jobs and working class families with a hint of protectionism thrown in for good measure.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 09, 2004, 12:50:07 PM
Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 09, 2004, 03:43:00 PM
Ohio just passed right to carry legislation and a bill against gay marriages.  A conservative trend?


Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 09, 2004, 04:01:47 PM
Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.
That was my map.

I think a perfect storm of events are happening in Ohio and Kerry will win the state 50-49% or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 10, 2004, 01:01:08 AM
Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.
That was my map.

I think a perfect storm of events are happening in Ohio and Kerry will win the state 50-49% or so.

Oh, sorry about that.  Neat Map Miami.  Anyway, what 'perfect storm of events' is happening in Ohio?  As far as I can tell, a very ordinary, somewhat conservative state is experiencing some excessive localized unemployment, but it will probably trend in the right direction over the next 10 months.  I think everything other than unemployement favors Republicans in Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on February 10, 2004, 01:07:04 AM
Ohio just passed right to carry legislation and a bill against gay marriages.  A conservative trend?


Neat map Mort, but I think Bush wins Ohio.

It's not necessarily a trend. Gallup polls in Ohio in 2001-2003 found it to be one of the most socially conservative states in the U.S.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on February 10, 2004, 01:12:50 AM
I remember seeing that posted somewhere else, Beet. Do you happen to have a link or a list of all the states?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 08:07:32 AM
Oh, sorry about that.  Neat Map Miami.  Anyway, what 'perfect storm of events' is happening in Ohio?  As far as I can tell, a very ordinary, somewhat conservative state is experiencing some excessive localized unemployment, but it will probably trend in the right direction over the next 10 months.  I think everything other than unemployement favors Republicans in Ohio.
Ohio has one fof the highest muslim populations in the USA, also, which will swing the state to Bush.  Also, Gov. Taft is VERY unpopular in Ohio, a Republican.  I don't see how anything going on helps the GOP in Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 10, 2004, 12:01:59 PM
Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 10, 2004, 12:09:04 PM
Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!

The Muslims are not going to tip any state one way or the other.  They're simply too few and too unlikely to vote.  Perhaps afraid of John Ashcroft!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 12:26:30 PM
Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!

The Muslims are not going to tip any state one way or the other.  They're simply too few and too unlikely to vote.  Perhaps afraid of John Ashcroft!

Do you think of that as a good thing?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 12:29:50 PM
Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!

The Muslims are not going to tip any state one way or the other.  They're simply too few and too unlikely to vote.  Perhaps afraid of John Ashcroft!

Do you think of that as a good thing?

I think he was joking in that last part.  I hope he was joking on that last part.  He has a point though.  The only state where the Muslims are going to have a measurible affect on the election is Michigan.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 12:31:13 PM
Have to say, thanks to the great folk at Zogby, the Muslim vote in the USA is trending more Democratic now, not a majority yet, but there are many angry people out there. The renegade Catholic vote may also swing back to the Dems, of course thats just hearsay, My (Catholic)relatives in California voted Bush last time round because of the abortion issue, but that is no longer an issue with them. As they stem from a Labour voting British Catholic family- i hope they back the Dems again!

The Muslims are not going to tip any state one way or the other.  They're simply too few and too unlikely to vote.  Perhaps afraid of John Ashcroft!

Do you think of that as a good thing?

I think he was joking in that last part.  I hope he was joking on that last part.  He has a point though.  The only state where the Muslims are going to have a measurible affect on the election is Michigan.

You never know with Opebo...

Hey, that rhymes! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 12:37:04 PM
Oh, sorry about that.  Neat Map Miami.  Anyway, what 'perfect storm of events' is happening in Ohio?  As far as I can tell, a very ordinary, somewhat conservative state is experiencing some excessive localized unemployment, but it will probably trend in the right direction over the next 10 months.  I think everything other than unemployement favors Republicans in Ohio.
Ohio has one fof the highest muslim populations in the USA, also, which will swing the state to Bush.  Also, Gov. Taft is VERY unpopular in Ohio, a Republican.  I don't see how anything going on helps the GOP in Ohio.

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on February 10, 2004, 01:43:12 PM
Given some of Opebo's other comments, I wouldn't treat anything he says as a joke. He's made it clear that Bush should do anything and everything to win this election, no matter what. A little Justice Dept. harassment of Muslims to get them not to vote is nothing compared to faking Bin Laden's capture.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 10, 2004, 02:03:59 PM
And I'm the one that chose "realpolitik" as my user name...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 02:15:23 PM
And I'm the one that chose "realpolitik" as my user name...

Lol...you're not as cynical as he is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 10, 2004, 02:30:06 PM
Depends on what you mean by cynicism ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 03:41:21 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on February 10, 2004, 03:53:58 PM
Indeed, those will all be key factors. It would be nice to see some new polls in Ohio, unfortunatley there hasn't been anything for quite some time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 03:55:56 PM
Indeed, those will all be key factors. It would be nice to see some new polls in Ohio, unfortunatley there hasn't been anything for quite some time.
Last poll from Ohio was realeased 9/19!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 10, 2004, 03:57:05 PM
Hey all:

Regardless of which candidate gets the nomination, Ohio will be an uphill battle for the Democrats.  Bush won it in 2000 by at least 150,000 votes, but then again all of us could be in for a surprise come election time.  

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 03:58:56 PM
Hey all:

Regardless of which candidate gets the nomination, Ohio will be an uphill battle for the Democrats.  Bush won it in 2000 by at least 150,000 votes, but then again all of us could be in for a surprise come election time.  
He didn't break 50%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 04:01:10 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 04:03:10 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.

The only one to suggest that is Opebo, I have, for one, contradicted it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 04:06:29 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 04:10:59 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 10, 2004, 04:23:05 PM
Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.
I could see 95% of people doing it if they felt their re-election hopes were next to dead without it, or their re-election hopes were 100% if they faked it.  Obvious, if the capture of UBL is announced on 11/1/04, it will look fake, but if it announce in September, it may not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on February 10, 2004, 04:46:47 PM
I don't think that Bush would do those things, I was merely criticizing Opebo who has stated that he thinks Bush should do those things. I fully realize that Opebo is not representative of and does not speak for Bush and the Republican party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 04:48:18 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

HE claims to be a classic liberal though... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on February 10, 2004, 05:13:40 PM
True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 10, 2004, 05:28:18 PM
True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.

He's said that he "certainly" isn't a Christian, which says something.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 08:41:12 PM
Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.
I could see 95% of people doing it if they felt their re-election hopes were next to dead without it, or their re-election hopes were 100% if they faked it.  Obvious, if the capture of UBL is announced on 11/1/04, it will look fake, but if it announce in September, it may not.

You have a really low opinion of humanity in general then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 08:44:44 PM
True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.

He's said that he "certainly" isn't a Christian, which says something.

He could be Jewish, Muslim or someother reliogion.  ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 10, 2004, 10:06:00 PM


Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.

They get their conspiracy theories from Madeleine Albright.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 10, 2004, 11:20:50 PM
Attention:

Wesley Clark has withdrawn from the race.  And now there are five.  Who will fall next?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 10, 2004, 11:36:31 PM
Attention:

Wesley Clark has withdrawn from the race.  And now there are five.  Who will fall next?

Edwards.  This is a very diappionting showing for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 11, 2004, 12:38:49 AM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 11, 2004, 12:46:42 AM
True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.

He's said that he "certainly" isn't a Christian, which says something.

Classical Liberal, not religious in any fashion, though reared as a 'Wasp'.  My only comment on religions is whether or not I like their influence on society - for example I enjoy living in a Buddhist country.  I support the Republicans because they're the party of economic freedom *relatively speaking*.  I'm a bit Machiavelian in my view of politics because I'm not quite as enamoured of 'democracy' as most of you guys.
Anyway, enough about boring old me - OH will go Bush in '04 as long as the economy booms between now and Nov.  Will be close though.  And yes Supersoulties right Muslims don't matter in OH.

Btw Soup I look a bit like Talent as well..


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 11, 2004, 10:25:21 AM
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 11:10:03 AM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.

What you're missing here is that THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has called you a Nazi. The LEAST you can do to protest is adopt a red avatar...

Good to see you engaging in this despite the fact that you're not allowed to vote! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 11, 2004, 11:57:58 AM
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 12:02:47 PM
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??????????????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 11, 2004, 12:07:42 PM
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??????????????

Yeah its a bit odd.. I think Arkansas is even more solid Bush than Missouri.  And New Hampshire seems likely to go Republican.  Actualy its a pretty odd map, but I'd like to know why he think Ohio is solid.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 12:16:33 PM
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??????????????

Yeah its a bit odd.. I think Arkansas is even more solid Bush than Missouri.  And New Hampshire seems likely to go Republican.  Actualy its a pretty odd map, but I'd like to know why he think Ohio is solid.

It doesn't seem to trustworthy, imo. Also, he only has 2 categories, so he isn't saying that Ohio is solid, only that it isn't "very competitive", like Arkansas...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 11, 2004, 12:31:44 PM
? you looking at same map?  Ohio is probably Bush where as Arkansas is listed as more competitive.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??????????????

Yeah its a bit odd.. I think Arkansas is even more solid Bush than Missouri.  And New Hampshire seems likely to go Republican.  Actualy its a pretty odd map, but I'd like to know why he think Ohio is solid.

It doesn't seem to trustworthy, imo. Also, he only has 2 categories, so he isn't saying that Ohio is solid, only that it isn't "very competitive", like Arkansas...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 12:36:17 PM
Yeah...that's what I said, I think... ;)

? you looking at same map?  Ohio is probably Bush where as Arkansas is listed as more competitive.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_college-kerry.htm

larry sabato has a new EC map out.

I notice he has Ohio as 'probable for Bush'!


He only has New Hampshire changing hands...how is Arkansas "very competitive"??????????????

Yeah its a bit odd.. I think Arkansas is even more solid Bush than Missouri.  And New Hampshire seems likely to go Republican.  Actualy its a pretty odd map, but I'd like to know why he think Ohio is solid.

It doesn't seem to trustworthy, imo. Also, he only has 2 categories, so he isn't saying that Ohio is solid, only that it isn't "very competitive", like Arkansas...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 11, 2004, 01:23:59 PM
Edwards won't be next to drop, I think Dean will be, he is way out at the back and has only performed well in Caucuses.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 01:33:51 PM
Edwards won't be next to drop, I think Dean will be, he is way out at the back and has only performed well in Caucuses.

Dean should be the next to drop, in fact he should have droppes after NH, but now Dean might never drop, so therefore I think Edwards might well be the next to drop out. He's spent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 11, 2004, 03:38:11 PM
Dean won't ever drop out...I think he will stay in the race and try to be drafted at the convention.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 11, 2004, 04:46:29 PM
Edwards won't be next to drop, I think Dean will be, he is way out at the back and has only performed well in Caucuses.

I think he still has more delegates than Edwards though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 11, 2004, 04:48:09 PM
Dean has thw second most delegates, somehow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on February 11, 2004, 04:49:45 PM
True, though he never really talks about social issues much, so maybe he is more liberal on those, but just emphasizes his conservative positions.

He's said that he "certainly" isn't a Christian, which says something.

Classical Liberal, not religious in any fashion, though reared as a 'Wasp'.  My only comment on religions is whether or not I like their influence on society - for example I enjoy living in a Buddhist country.  I support the Republicans because they're the party of economic freedom *relatively speaking*.  I'm a bit Machiavelian in my view of politics because I'm not quite as enamoured of 'democracy' as most of you guys.
Anyway, enough about boring old me - OH will go Bush in '04 as long as the economy booms between now and Nov.  Will be close though.  And yes Supersoulties right Muslims don't matter in OH.

Btw Soup I look a bit like Talent as well..

I was just joking with the nazi comment, although I think that keeping Muslims from votin through intimidation is pretty extreme.

LOL that's funny.  Yeah, If I had to pick a politician I look most like it would have to be either Talent or Bob Taft.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 11, 2004, 04:49:46 PM
Dean has thw second most delegates, somehow.

It's a mirage caused by all the endorsements he got early on.  Many of the endorsers were superdelegates.  They are not committed and can vote for whoever they want.  I doubt that all of them would even vote for Dean if the convention were tomorrow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 11, 2004, 05:41:35 PM
Dean has thw second most delegates, somehow.

It's a mirage caused by all the endorsements he got early on.  Many of the endorsers were superdelegates.  They are not committed and can vote for whoever they want.  I doubt that all of them would even vote for Dean if the convention were tomorrow.

Exactly, that is indeed the reason for Dean's hign delegate number.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: genec on February 12, 2004, 03:54:00 PM
Dean won't ever drop out...I think he will stay in the race and try to be drafted at the convention.

At the risk of violating profanity rules of this site, Dean really has shown what a jerk he is by reneging on his promise to withdraw from the race if he didn't win in Wisconsin.  Now who would want a president who acts like that?????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: genec on February 12, 2004, 03:57:21 PM
Dean won't ever drop out...I think he will stay in the race and try to be drafted at the convention.

At the risk of violating profanity rules of this site, Dean has really shown what a jerk he is by reneging on his promise to drop out of the race if he didn't win in Wisconsin.  Now who would want a president who acts like that??????


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 12, 2004, 03:58:00 PM
Dean won't ever drop out...I think he will stay in the race and try to be drafted at the convention.

At the risk of violating profanity rules of this site, Dean really has shown what a jerk he is by reneging on his promise to withdraw from the race if he didn't win in Wisconsin.  Now who would want a president who acts like that?????

Don't worry, there are no rules, lol... ;) We've seen worse than the word "jerk", I can assure you of that. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 12, 2004, 03:58:39 PM
Dean won't ever drop out...I think he will stay in the race and try to be drafted at the convention.

At the risk of violating profanity rules of this site, Dean really has shown what a jerk he is by reneging on his promise to withdraw from the race if he didn't win in Wisconsin.  Now who would want a president who acts like that?????

Don't worry, there are no rules, lol... ;) We've seen worse than the word "jerk", I can assure you of that. :)

Hm...i forgot to say welcome to the forum....Welcome to the forum! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: genec on February 12, 2004, 04:11:02 PM
Thanks!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: California Dreamer on February 12, 2004, 08:46:13 PM
Dean has thw second most delegates, somehow.

Dean's second place showing in delegates is mostly due to 'superdelegates' (party leaders and elected officials) who can change their mind. Most of them jumped on the Dean bandwagon before Iowa. In fact Tom Harkin (Iowa Senator who was standing behind Dean as he imploded during the 'I have a Scream' speach in Iowa) is reportedly thinking of pulling his support.

It is highly likely that Edwards will surpass him by Super Tuesday even if his super deleagates dont abandon him by then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 13, 2004, 03:17:23 PM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.

What you're missing here is that THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has called you a Nazi. The LEAST you can do to protest is adopt a red avatar...

Good to see you engaging in this despite the fact that you're not allowed to vote! :)

I didn't tell him to change his voting behaviour...

lol, no, but it was the clear implication of your post... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 15, 2004, 03:20:39 PM
I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 16, 2004, 05:36:04 AM
I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!

I think people have swung way too far in the direction of Democratic overconfidence now.  The reality is it will be close and that the electoral college favors Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 16, 2004, 08:02:52 AM
Prediction Map UPDATED:

()

Confidence map UPDATED:

()

I switched Ohio, Oregon, and Wisconsin into the Kerry column, but Bush still wins by the razor-thin 270-268 margin.  The confidence map totals have Bush with 221, Kerry with 200, and 117 are tossups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 16, 2004, 10:04:16 AM
Why are New Mexico, Nevada & Missouri so solidly republican, miami?  I'm also surprised you still have  Iowa, WV & NH in the republican camp.  Do you really think the dems can win Arkansas (I know you've got Bush winning, but you have it as a tossup)?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 16, 2004, 10:08:23 AM
Why are New Mexico, Nevada & Missouri so solidly republican, miami?  I'm also surprised you still have  Iowa, WV & NH in the republican camp.  Do you really think the dems can win Arkansas (I know you've got Bush winning, but you have it as a tossup)?
Lots of questions :)

New Mexico only went for us by a few hundred votes, and Nevada we lost by 4% (if I recall correctly.)  I think bush's share of the hispanic vote will increase, hence Bush winning those states.  Nevada could be close because of Yucca Mountain.

The only way Kerry could win Missouri is if he pciked Gephardt, and even then, Bush would still have the edge.

Arkansas is a southern state, I can't see Kerry winning anywhere in the south otherthan FL and AR.  Clark could push this state to Kerry.

NH is a socially conservative state, and unemployment there is only 4%, so I think bush has the definite edge there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 16, 2004, 10:14:46 AM
Oh yeah, you just have WV in the republican camp to avoid jinxing victory, right?  I'm still in doubt on Ohio, by the way.  I do think that NH is socially fairly liberal and that Bush has less claim to the "compassionate conservative" tag he ran on last time.  Plus, Kerry being close by should help in NH despite the rivalry with Massachusetts, no?

Don't forget the Nader factor either.  Arguably, without Nader, Gore could have carried Iowa, NM easier and arguably could have carried NH.  

My point on Arkansas was that it was more solidly Bush than you had it, but maybe I'm wrong.  I also see it as pretty similar to Louisiana, which was not a blowout in 2000, as I recall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 16, 2004, 10:20:52 AM
Yep, WV is for Bush so Kerry doesn't win.

I think with high unEmp rates, a high muslim population, and an unpopular Republican Governor, Ohio will swing to Kerry.

Kerry being from MA hurts him in NH, if anything.

LA is more socially conservative than AR.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 16, 2004, 10:23:00 AM
Yep, WV is for Bush so Kerry doesn't win.

I think with high unEmp rates, a high muslim population, and an unpopular Republican Governor, Ohio will swing to Kerry.

Kerry being from MA hurts him in NH, if anything.

LA is more socially conservative than AR.

Neither LA or AR were blow-outs in 2000, the conservatism, or at least the Republicanism of the South is exaggerated. Not to say that Kerry will win any southern states though... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 16, 2004, 10:25:50 AM
Kerry will get his skinny ass handed to him in the south, minus FL and maybe AR.  No margin of error in the battlegrounds.

Of course, if Roy Moore runs, that's a different story.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 16, 2004, 12:29:53 PM
Yep, WV is for Bush so Kerry doesn't win.

I think with high unEmp rates, a high muslim population, and an unpopular Republican Governor, Ohio will swing to Kerry.

Kerry being from MA hurts him in NH, if anything.

LA is more socially conservative than AR.

Cool map Miami, I agree with it except I think Bush will get Ohio.  He has a chance at MN and WI too but mainly I would make the case for OH - muslims are not a significant voting population, and unemployment will be coming down.  Its only high in the 'Democrat' areas of the state anyway - central and southwestern OH is doing great.  The state is also very socially conservative - the gay marriage issue alone will ensure Bush wins it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 16, 2004, 02:08:18 PM
Plus Taft is unpopular for RAISING TAXES.  Bush is again today campaigning how Dems ( like Kerry ) want to Raise taxes and not make tax cuts permanent.  If you let the tax cuts runout they will go UP!

Plus as I mentioned OH just became the 37th state to pass right to carry gun laws, again Kerry is ont he wrong side of this issue too.

Voinivich will win easily, plus I see 12-6 GOP lead in congressional seats there, so predominately a GOP leaning state.

Yep, WV is for Bush so Kerry doesn't win.

I think with high unEmp rates, a high muslim population, and an unpopular Republican Governor, Ohio will swing to Kerry.

Kerry being from MA hurts him in NH, if anything.

LA is more socially conservative than AR.

Cool map Miami, I agree with it except I think Bush will get Ohio.  He has a chance at MN and WI too but mainly I would make the case for OH - muslims are not a significant voting population, and unemployment will be coming down.  Its only high in the 'Democrat' areas of the state anyway - central and southwestern OH is doing great.  The state is also very socially conservative - the gay marriage issue alone will ensure Bush wins it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on February 16, 2004, 02:21:21 PM
Here are my
Bush wins 32 States Picks up Iowa Minnestoa And Califrona & the rest goes to kerry


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 16, 2004, 05:18:41 PM
I've noticed that since the start of 'Kerrymania' the prediction page has seen more confident Democratic wins, and even the Republican wins have been scaled down. I hope I don't have to eat my hat, but those 'Bush wins everything but Vermont' predictions from before the new year seem pretty ridiculous now! My own predictions are biased i'll admit. Oh and hows about a 'final prediction' topic come November where the most accurate gets a free pat on the back! Come to mention it, did anyone here predict 2000 pretty much spot on? Right down to EV's? Raise your hands now. It would be nice to hear from you!

It would be silly to think that Kerry isn't as much of a loser as Dean would have been. I trimmed 3 points off Bush's popular vote total and gave back WA, WI, MI, and ME.  Boo for Kerry...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on February 17, 2004, 06:37:00 AM
Had Dean been the nominee… he would have had a similar problem to that which McGovern had he would have had a large part of the Party opposed to his candidacy even when he became the Democrat nominee…I would say that in terms of the Popular vote Dean could have cleared the 40% mark however much beyond that would have been unlikely, so around 42-43% Dean…his performance is only better than Mondale’s in 1984 because of the much more polarised political environment and the fact that the Democrats are now completely locked out of Government for the first time since the 1950’s…

With Kerry you have a good campaigner who has proven himself in his 1996 campaign (where he defeated the “folksy” and “down to earth” governor weld) and in this primary season to be very tenacious and hard working. He has the full backing of the Democratic Party and has gained high voter turnouts across the country which would seem to bode well for him. So what could happen in the “swing states” with Kerry…

Washington: The large Nader vote largely accounts for the closeness of the race here in 2000, this time around a high turn out in Seattle and the other metropolitan coastal towns will mean that this state will be solidly for Kerry.

Oregon: Again the Green vote will be for Kerry here and it should be less close than in 2000 however Bush could pull off an upset though I doubt it.

New Mexico: More marginal than Florida in 2000 and Bush’s attempts to woo Hispanic voters might pay off here…however Gov Richardson could also boost the Dem’s chances… but defiantly a very close contest and with Bush probably having the edge this time around…

Nevada; Last time Bush won by about 4%... traditionally a socially conservative state however the growing Democrat leaning population in Vegas as well as the Yucca Mountain issue will make the race close as recent polls have suggested…But as with NM Bush has the edge…

Missouri: Closes yet not too close a win for Bush in 2000… 50.4% to Gore’s 47.1% while Nader garnered 1.6%... the male catholic vote (which Bush won last time) I would argue will go for Kerry this time and this could deliver Missouri , the successes of Gov  Holden may also be a boost for Kerry, but then again it could simply act as a boost for any incumbent to helping both Bush and Holden…it really depends on who voters here attribute the economic recovery in the state to… I get a sense that Holden will get he credit…but then again I’m biased…

Iowa: A painfully close race here in 2000…however Nader got 2.2% and you can add about 2/3rds of that to the Dem total so a Kerry edge in Iowa…However a large number of GOP congressmen and rural support for Bush will make the race competitive…

Minnesota: A very strong Green vote here last time 5.2% while Gore beat Bush by 2 points… on the basis of that I would say a solid Dem edge in a close race…however the GOP gains in the state in 2002 could help Bush however an evenly divided congressional delegation and the strong Green vote from 2000 (as well as the strong independent showing in the race for Governor) which will probably go to the Democrats should mean that Kerry holds his edge here…but as with Iowa a close contest but a stronger Democratic edge than in Iowa…

Wisconsin: As with the other Midwestern states in 2000 a very close race characterised by a strong Green vote…Unlike Minnisota or Iowa the Dems here are very strong, dominating the Congressional delegation and holding both the senate seats as well as the Governors mansion…Despite the closeness of the 2000 race WI will be more solidly Dem this time around I would argue that the formally green vote along with those voters who voted for Bush as a moderate candidate in 2000 will give Kerry a 4-6% win here…however it will remain a highly competitive race…

Michigan: A solidly Dem state in 2000 an evenly divided congressional delegation with the republicans holding the edge while both Senators are Dems as is the governor… with some bluecollar dissatisfaction with Bush as well as the green voters from 2000 turning to the Dems making Michigan highly likely to remain comfortably Democratic in 2004…

Ohio: Much closer in 2000 than was expected considering how little attention was given it by the Gore campaign…The steel tariffs issue will help then Dems here and winning over male bluecollar voters will also be important for any Dem candidate who hopes to win the state and Kerry’s vet record should help with this however his social liberalism will be a big disadvantage here in a fairly socially conservative state however I would imagine that it will be close and unlike in 2000 will be one of the most hotly contested states in November…

West Virginia: Many have said that it was a surprise that this state was a surprise in 2000… I don’t get that…it’s a socially conservative state with a hankering for economic populism and pork barrel populism, witness Robert Byrd … in 2004 the Democrats will have the disadvantage of a socially liberal candidate and an outgoing governor overshadowed by scandal however the steel tariff issue will mean that this state is still very much in contention and added to this Edward’s neo-populism and guarded support for protectionism might play extremely well with Wes Virginian voters…

Pennsylvania: A surprisingly solid win for Gore in 2000 by 4% over Bush while Nader won 2%... Rendell’s election in 2002 is another boost for the Democrats while the repeal of the steel tariffs will assist in boosting the Democratic vote in the west of the state and the Pittsburgh area, while the same issues that effected the philly mayoral race will help GOTV in the east of the state as will Rendell who is a proven and effective campaigner…Bush’s only hope for a win in PA will be fore low turnouts in the west and east and a very high turnout in the “Z” (or “T” if you like) with Dean as the nominee he had a very good shot at having a low Dem vote in the west of the state and a strong socially conservative vote in the “Z” however while the Socially Conservative vote will still turnout for Bush it will probably be heavily outweighed by the Democratic vote in the west and east of the state…an outside shot for Bush but in my view unlike unless your looking at a very solid almost landslide Bush win…

Florida: Jeb’s solid win in 2000 and the increase in Republican voter registration would suggest that Florida will very probably go to Bush in 2004…a modest increase in the Jewish vote as well as energised republican voters should give the President a solid win here…however where the conservative vote to show a low turnout for Bush (very unlikely) Kerry might be in with a chance so long as the liberal voters in the south as well as the black population turn out in strong numbers… a possibility but very unlikely…

New Hampshire: Nader voters would have given the state to Gore in 2000 and Kerry’s New England roots should help…the very high turnout for the Democratic primary this year would suggest a highly energised Democratic vote and an appeal to independents in the state…a good chance that Kerry could pick up the state this November…However if Bush can appeal to the libertarian inclinations of NH voters (unlikely if you look at his record) particularly in the north of the state he might hold the state however I think that it would be a good bet to say that Kerry will pick the state up…but a highly competitive state with many factors favouring Kerry over Bush…

That’s all Ive got time for at moment… Any thoughts?              


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 07:38:24 AM
You sure make long posts, Ben! :)

I think your reasoning is fairly sound, sounds good to me overall. If I get this right you're saying, with reservations for unforeseen factors, etc, that Kerry will hol onto all Gore states except New Mexico and, possibly Iowa, while gaining New Hampshire and Ohio, making Kerry win 272-266.

I agree with your general analyses, I think Ohio will be he key state, it's voted for the winner almost every time during American history, with the most recent misses being Nixon in 1960 and Dewey in the 40s.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 08:05:59 AM
I've looked into the 2000 result in WV and have found something very interesting:

Although turnout amoung registered voters rose slightly, the turnout in the heavily Democrat south fell sharply.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 09:07:25 AM
I've looked into the 2000 result in WV and have found something very interesting:

Although turnout amoung registered voters rose slightly, the turnout in the heavily Democrat south fell sharply.
Well Al, take a 3-month vacation to WV in Auguest, september, and October, incouraging the Dems in the southern portion of the state to vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 09:19:16 AM
Bush won WV by 40,000 votes (rounded to the nearest thousand), so a swing of 20,000 results in the Democrats winning WV.
Bush's support will have fallen a lot in the Northern Panhandle (the area around Wheeling), lets say that there is a swing of 3000 votes (a conservative estimate) towards Kerry.
As he is a Catholic make that 5000.

Lets assume that Bush loses 5000 votes across the rest of the state (another conservative estimate and assumes that Bush loses no votes around Charleston, which is unlikely).
That leaves Bush with a lead of 10,000.

I think that the Rahall machine can get an extra 10,000 votes in the Coal Distrist if they work hard at it (and Mollohan should be able to wring out at least another 1000 in the 1st district.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 09:48:38 AM
Don't jinx KErry!   He will LOSE!!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 10:23:41 AM
I've looked into the 2000 result in WV and have found something very interesting:

Although turnout amoung registered voters rose slightly, the turnout in the heavily Democrat south fell sharply.

The main thing in these Southern states like WV is to look at the future of these states. The old Dems are passing on and being replaced by solidly Republican youth. 37% of 18-29 year-olds in WV went for Gore compared to 46% for their grandparents.  Each day, the state is less hospitable to Dem nominees.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 10:29:26 AM
Had Dean been the nominee&#8230; he would have had a similar problem to that which McGovern had he would have had a large part of the Party opposed to his candidacy even when he became the Democrat nominee&#8230;I would say that in terms of the Popular vote Dean could have cleared the 40% mark however much beyond that would have been unlikely, so around 42-43% Dean&#8230;his performance is only better than Mondale&#8217;s in 1984 because of the much more polarised political environment and the fact that the Democrats are now completely locked out of Government for the first time since the 1950&#8217;s&#8230;

With Kerry you have a good campaigner who has proven himself in his 1996 campaign (where he defeated the &#8220;folksy&#8221; and &#8220;down to earth&#8221; governor weld) and in this primary season to be very tenacious and hard working. He has the full backing of the Democratic Party and has gained high voter turnouts across the country which would seem to bode well for him. So what could happen in the &#8220;swing states&#8221; with Kerry&#8230;

Washington: The large Nader vote largely accounts for the closeness of the race here in 2000, this time around a high turn out in Seattle and the other metropolitan coastal towns will mean that this state will be solidly for Kerry.

Oregon: Again the Green vote will be for Kerry here and it should be less close than in 2000 however Bush could pull off an upset though I doubt it.

New Mexico: More marginal than Florida in 2000 and Bush&#8217;s attempts to woo Hispanic voters might pay off here&#8230;however Gov Richardson could also boost the Dem&#8217;s chances&#8230; but defiantly a very close contest and with Bush probably having the edge this time around&#8230;

Nevada; Last time Bush won by about 4%... traditionally a socially conservative state however the growing Democrat leaning population in Vegas as well as the Yucca Mountain issue will make the race close as recent polls have suggested&#8230;But as with NM Bush has the edge&#8230;

Missouri: Closes yet not too close a win for Bush in 2000&#8230; 50.4% to Gore&#8217;s 47.1% while Nader garnered 1.6%... the male catholic vote (which Bush won last time) I would argue will go for Kerry this time and this could deliver Missouri , the successes of Gov  Holden may also be a boost for Kerry, but then again it could simply act as a boost for any incumbent to helping both Bush and Holden&#8230;it really depends on who voters here attribute the economic recovery in the state to&#8230; I get a sense that Holden will get he credit&#8230;but then again I&#8217;m biased&#8230;

Iowa: A painfully close race here in 2000&#8230;however Nader got 2.2% and you can add about 2/3rds of that to the Dem total so a Kerry edge in Iowa&#8230;However a large number of GOP congressmen and rural support for Bush will make the race competitive&#8230;

Minnesota: A very strong Green vote here last time 5.2% while Gore beat Bush by 2 points&#8230; on the basis of that I would say a solid Dem edge in a close race&#8230;however the GOP gains in the state in 2002 could help Bush however an evenly divided congressional delegation and the strong Green vote from 2000 (as well as the strong independent showing in the race for Governor) which will probably go to the Democrats should mean that Kerry holds his edge here&#8230;but as with Iowa a close contest but a stronger Democratic edge than in Iowa&#8230;

Wisconsin: As with the other Midwestern states in 2000 a very close race characterised by a strong Green vote&#8230;Unlike Minnisota or Iowa the Dems here are very strong, dominating the Congressional delegation and holding both the senate seats as well as the Governors mansion&#8230;Despite the closeness of the 2000 race WI will be more solidly Dem this time around I would argue that the formally green vote along with those voters who voted for Bush as a moderate candidate in 2000 will give Kerry a 4-6% win here&#8230;however it will remain a highly competitive race&#8230;

Michigan: A solidly Dem state in 2000 an evenly divided congressional delegation with the republicans holding the edge while both Senators are Dems as is the governor&#8230; with some bluecollar dissatisfaction with Bush as well as the green voters from 2000 turning to the Dems making Michigan highly likely to remain comfortably Democratic in 2004&#8230;

Ohio: Much closer in 2000 than was expected considering how little attention was given it by the Gore campaign&#8230;The steel tariffs issue will help then Dems here and winning over male bluecollar voters will also be important for any Dem candidate who hopes to win the state and Kerry&#8217;s vet record should help with this however his social liberalism will be a big disadvantage here in a fairly socially conservative state however I would imagine that it will be close and unlike in 2000 will be one of the most hotly contested states in November&#8230;

West Virginia: Many have said that it was a surprise that this state was a surprise in 2000&#8230; I don&#8217;t get that&#8230;it&#8217;s a socially conservative state with a hankering for economic populism and pork barrel populism, witness Robert Byrd &#8230; in 2004 the Democrats will have the disadvantage of a socially liberal candidate and an outgoing governor overshadowed by scandal however the steel tariff issue will mean that this state is still very much in contention and added to this Edward&#8217;s neo-populism and guarded support for protectionism might play extremely well with Wes Virginian voters&#8230;

Pennsylvania: A surprisingly solid win for Gore in 2000 by 4% over Bush while Nader won 2%... Rendell&#8217;s election in 2002 is another boost for the Democrats while the repeal of the steel tariffs will assist in boosting the Democratic vote in the west of the state and the Pittsburgh area, while the same issues that effected the philly mayoral race will help GOTV in the east of the state as will Rendell who is a proven and effective campaigner&#8230;Bush&#8217;s only hope for a win in PA will be fore low turnouts in the west and east and a very high turnout in the &#8220;Z&#8221; (or &#8220;T&#8221; if you like) with Dean as the nominee he had a very good shot at having a low Dem vote in the west of the state and a strong socially conservative vote in the &#8220;Z&#8221; however while the Socially Conservative vote will still turnout for Bush it will probably be heavily outweighed by the Democratic vote in the west and east of the state&#8230;an outside shot for Bush but in my view unlike unless your looking at a very solid almost landslide Bush win&#8230;

Florida: Jeb&#8217;s solid win in 2000 and the increase in Republican voter registration would suggest that Florida will very probably go to Bush in 2004&#8230;a modest increase in the Jewish vote as well as energised republican voters should give the President a solid win here&#8230;however where the conservative vote to show a low turnout for Bush (very unlikely) Kerry might be in with a chance so long as the liberal voters in the south as well as the black population turn out in strong numbers&#8230; a possibility but very unlikely&#8230;

New Hampshire: Nader voters would have given the state to Gore in 2000 and Kerry&#8217;s New England roots should help&#8230;the very high turnout for the Democratic primary this year would suggest a highly energised Democratic vote and an appeal to independents in the state&#8230;a good chance that Kerry could pick up the state this November&#8230;However if Bush can appeal to the libertarian inclinations of NH voters (unlikely if you look at his record) particularly in the north of the state he might hold the state however I think that it would be a good bet to say that Kerry will pick the state up&#8230;but a highly competitive state with many factors favouring Kerry over Bush&#8230;

That&#8217;s all Ive got time for at moment&#8230; Any thoughts?              


I don't know that I would characterize Weld's political style as &#8220;folksy&#8221; and &#8220;down to earth&#8221;.  Successful Republicans in the Bay State come off as competent and sympathetic and harmless to rich people (who want to vote GOP, but are guilty about it or fear social extremism and vote Dem).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 10:31:34 AM
Turnout is appalling for young people all over America, so how strong the GOP is amoung younger voters is usually exaggerated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 12:24:33 PM
I updated my prediction again. I found "finely balanced" boring...Now Kerry wins 283-255, taking Ohio, WV and Nevada but losing Iowa.
I find it most strange that the average prediction is now 275-263 for the Dems, but the aggregate one is still 278-260 for Bush.

All these stats are very weird, sorry Dave, but I don't trust them one bit. Especially since the map with percentages hasn't changed ever, as far as I've been able to see... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 17, 2004, 01:31:03 PM
A whole lot of assuming going on there! :)

Coal district; 2 words-- energy Bill--lots of provisions there that will benefit WV.  Bush will sign it and if Dems block it again, Bush can still cam0aign that Dems are blocking it which they are!

Bush won WV by 40,000 votes (rounded to the nearest thousand), so a swing of 20,000 results in the Democrats winning WV.
Bush's support will have fallen a lot in the Northern Panhandle (the area around Wheeling), lets say that there is a swing of 3000 votes (a conservative estimate) towards Kerry.
As he is a Catholic make that 5000.

Lets assume that Bush loses 5000 votes across the rest of the state (another conservative estimate and assumes that Bush loses no votes around Charleston, which is unlikely).
That leaves Bush with a lead of 10,000.

I think that the Rahall machine can get an extra 10,000 votes in the Coal Distrist if they work hard at it (and Mollohan should be able to wring out at least another 1000 in the 1st district.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 17, 2004, 01:32:05 PM
No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 01:44:46 PM
The day the Coal District is more Republican than the rest of WV is the day that Hell freezes over ;)

WV is the Dems most likely pickup this year (although I was being a tad optimistic with the Catholic thing).

You lot'll probably pick up New Mexico easily though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 01:57:50 PM
No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE :)

Thank you, you have now jinxed Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 02:19:22 PM
No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE :)

Thank you, you have now jinxed Bush.

Yay! Your clever plot to make JR jinx Bush worked, and the presidency is now secured for Kerry!! :)

Wait...did I jinx it back now? :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 02:22:19 PM
Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 02:26:16 PM
Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.

Good! That means...no wait, I don't want to mess up again, I am gonna make sure John Kerry wins this by saying nothing...DAMN! :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 02:39:01 PM
We need to talk :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 04:19:22 PM
No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE :)

Thank you, you have now jinxed Bush.

Politics needs its version of the Sports Illustrated jinx.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 04:26:29 PM
No need to jinx him, Kerry WILL LOSE :)

Thank you, you have now jinxed Bush.

Politics needs its version of the Sports Illustrated jinx.
The Time Magazine Jinx.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 17, 2004, 05:15:46 PM


remember when I said befiore you guys needed to get out more? :)


Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:19:33 PM


remember when I said befiore you guys needed to get out more? :)


Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.
You post at other forums too and your only 1300 behind me, so don't give me that crap.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:32:32 PM


remember when I said befiore you guys needed to get out more? :)


Yes.  You jinxed it back.  You costJohn Kerry the presidency.

See!  I just unjinxed it.

I like politics, and this is the only internet forum I am a member of...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:33:14 PM
this is the only internet forum I am a member of...
That isn't true.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:33:46 PM

No? Tell me which the other one is then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:34:34 PM

No? Tell me which the other one is then.
http://rainman2242.proboards25.com


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:39:29 PM

Lol...I didn't think of that, sorry...I should have said the only one I post regularly at...I will get back to your forum, it's just that previously I was always the only one on whenever I logged on, so I got bored...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:40:41 PM
Well, post in moderation to keep it running.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:41:41 PM
Well, post in moderation to keep it running.

I will, tomorrow, I have to go to bed soon, so I'll just finish off things here for tonight.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:42:44 PM
Well, post in moderation to keep it running.

I will, tomorrow, I have to go to bed soon, so I'll just finish off things here for tonight.
Okay, nighty-night.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 17, 2004, 11:40:57 PM
What about the curse of the Caytona 500?

John Kerry: "we don;t need a president who says, gentlemen, start your engines. We need a president who says, America, start your economy!"

Cute. But the last thing you do when Bush has an apealing photo op to a swing demographic, is ridicule the event itself. Kerry needs a veep that will make people forget he's there, or else he's doomed.

Or you could just nominate Edwards.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 18, 2004, 12:43:39 AM
Hey All:

Looks like Kerry pulled off a squeaker in Wisconsin, and I think Edwards is becoming more of a threat with each passing day.  Howard Dean finished third and he is all but done, which is very disappointing.  But that's politics, and I guess it just wasn't his year.

After thinking it over I am going to shift my support to John Edwards.  I think the Dems have a better chance of beating Bush if he is the nominee.  Edwards has conservative leanings, but he is more of a populist now than he was before he went on the campaign trail.
His chances will also be much better if Clark is his running mate.  

Well thats that.  Sleep tight and keep watching the CNN.  




 



   


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 12:55:14 AM
Hey All:

Looks like Kerry pulled off a squeaker in Wisconsin, and I think Edwards is becoming more of a threat with each passing day.  Howard Dean finished third and he is all but done, which is very disappointing.  But that's politics, and I guess it just wasn't his year.

After thinking it over I am going to shift my support to John Edwards.  I think the Dems have a better chance of beating Bush if he is the nominee.  Edwards has conservative leanings, but he is more of a populist now than he was before he went on the campaign trail.
His chances will also be much better if Clark is his running mate.  

Well thats that.  Sleep tight and keep watching the CNN.  
   

What conservative leanings does Edwards have?  The man's more of a socialist than Kerry.  

And no thanks on the CNN, I'll stick to FOX.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: M on February 18, 2004, 12:58:01 AM
Good old Fox. When Tweedle beetles battle with paddles in a puddle in a bottle on a poodle eating noodles, then what is that called?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 18, 2004, 01:52:31 AM
What I find amuzing is the fact that the Dems REALLY want to nominate Howard Dean because he is what they really stand for. Up until the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa, they were still behind him. They realized that the fringe of his speech was so commonplace, it would scare the commonman. So what happens next? They turn to the next best liberal, and go with Kerry who is more liberal than Tedward Kennedy. Kerry will now be the nominee, and when the news of his politics as Lt. Gov under Mike Dukakis come out, it will reinforce the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of leftys, who cannot appeal to the broad base of America.

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why the GOP has the larger support from individual donors, as opposed to the Big Corp./Union donations needed by the Dems? The GOP has a broader base, and it will be shown in the 2004 election when Bush wins...BIGTIME!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 02:07:10 AM
What I find amuzing is the fact that the Dems REALLY want to nominate Howard Dean because he is what they really stand for. Up until the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa, they were still behind him. They realized that the fringe of his speech was so commonplace, it would scare the commonman. So what happens next? They turn to the next best liberal, and go with Kerry who is more liberal than Tedward Kennedy. Kerry will now be the nominee, and when the news of his politics as Lt. Gov under Mike Dukakis come out, it will reinforce the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of leftys, who cannot appeal to the broad base of America.

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why the GOP has the larger support from individual donors, as opposed to the Big Corp./Union donations needed by the Dems? The GOP has a broader base, and it will be shown in the 2004 election when Bush wins...BIGTIME!

Well we have a broader base among the upper-middle-class and the sort of 'just barely rich' class.  There are millions of old guys or their widows with a couple/few million $ in this country (mostly small businessmen), and I'd like to see a study on how many are GOP - probably nearly all.  Nothing like making your own money and noticing someone's trying to steal it from you to excite the political donation reflex.  These small businessmen and the 'young executive' corporate types are happy to cut checks for a couple thousand.  The main upper-middle class group that goes for Dems are lawyers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 18, 2004, 02:23:35 AM
I agree wholeheartedly. How many polls do you see of those business people who want to be heard? You don't because they don't want people to see the regular class working guys in favorable light to the Republicans. People will see the President Bush's policies actually do work! How about that, a GOP Prez actually having good economic policy? How often do we see that on the news. When we have 7-8 percentage growth in a quarter, and get next to nothing in publicity, its obvious the news organizations are keeping it out of the airwaves. They have hit Bush on everything they can think of, and it just doenst work. This silly thing about his Air Guard Service will backfire, it keeps them worked up, but will tick off the common voter. They see Bush in a real USA Fighter Plane as a real USA Fighter Pilot! The dems may not want all those images after all.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 04:35:04 AM
Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 08:35:20 AM
What about the curse of the Caytona 500?

John Kerry: "we don;t need a president who says, gentlemen, start your engines. We need a president who says, America, start your economy!"

Cute. But the last thing you do when Bush has an apealing photo op to a swing demographic, is ridicule the event itself. Kerry needs a veep that will make people forget he's there, or else he's doomed.
He doesn't have a prayer at the south anyway.  Those fundamentalist NASCAR uneducated white men down there are stuck in the 14th century.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 18, 2004, 10:54:37 AM
Don't you love people that don't agree with Dems are seen as uneducated.  NASCAR is growing and is popular otside of the south too.


What about the curse of the Caytona 500?

John Kerry: "we don;t need a president who says, gentlemen, start your engines. We need a president who says, America, start your economy!"

Cute. But the last thing you do when Bush has an apealing photo op to a swing demographic, is ridicule the event itself. Kerry needs a veep that will make people forget he's there, or else he's doomed.
He doesn't have a prayer at the south anyway.  Those fundamentalist NASCAR uneducated white men down there are stuck in the 14th century.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 18, 2004, 11:07:22 AM
Anyone have that website where the states were shown with reapportionment and then colored by how they voted in the past 4 elections?

It had the campaign signs of each ticket and all.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 11:35:42 AM
Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".

The worst of both worlds.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 11:43:29 AM
Don't you love people that don't agree with Dems are seen as uneducated.  NASCAR is growing and is popular otside of the south too.
It is?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: jravnsbo on February 18, 2004, 11:52:49 AM
oh yeah, lot sof people int he midwest I know , in IA, MN and SD, NE too love NASCAR, Oh add MO too.  


Don't you love people that don't agree with Dems are seen as uneducated.  NASCAR is growing and is popular otside of the south too.
It is?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 11:54:59 AM
NASCAR is a waste of gas.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 12:20:03 PM
I wouldn't worry about "NASCAR dads"... the last time a lot of them voted would have been for Wallace in '68...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 12:23:09 PM
I wouldn't worry about "NASCAR dads"... the last time a lot of them voted would have been for Wallace in '68...

You're mocking precisely the kind of people who live in your adopted West Virginia.  But I suspect you know best for them.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 12:39:20 PM
Who said I was mocking anyone???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 18, 2004, 12:41:54 PM
This poll is great news for Bush. He's basicly got his red states in the bag and is neck and neck overall in Gore states. Bush's overall deficit in Gore states was much worse than a point. In fact Gore won the presidency of Gore-merica, 53.73% vs. 41.79%, by nearly 12 points.  If this poll were to hold, Bush would be outperforming by 11 points. That would leave Kerry with only California, Illinois, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and District of Columbia because Bush would have made up his deficit in the other Gore states. Again, it's a match-up poll and so of dubious usefulness, but still, it's interesting, I think.  It also looks like Bush's best bet is to basicly say that the world is too dangerous to elect Kerry.



Bush Leads in Red States, Kerry Ahead in Blue States Voters Hardened on the Economy, War,  Gays Marriage

A new poll conducted by Zogby International for The O'Leary Report and Southern Methodist University's John Tower Center from February 12-15, 2004 of 1,209 likely voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points found that if the election for president were held today, Democrat John Kerry would edge George W. Bush 46% to 45% in the "blue states" -- or states won by Al Gore in the 2000 election.  In the "red states,"-- or states won by George W. Bush in 2000, however, Bush wins handily by a 51% to 39% margin.

In terms of right direction/wrong direction, blue state voters felt the country was headed in the wrong direction by a 47% to 45% margin while red state voters felt the country was headed in the right direction by a 50% to 40% margin, according to an additional Zogby International/O' Leary Report/John Tower Center survey of Red States/Blue States conducted from February 12-15, 2004 of 532 likely Blue State voters and 543 likely Red State voters with a margin of error of + 4.3 percentage points found that.

Forty-seven percent of blue state voters rated Bush's job performance as good or excellent while 51% said the president's job performance was only fair or poor.  Fifty-five percent of red states, however, rated the president's performance as good or excellent while 45% had a fair or poor opinion of the President's job performance.

On the issue of a strong economy and low unemployment versus job creation, Blue State voters who feel a strong economy is a bigger priority than job creation by a 50% to 40% margin while Red State voters also agreed by a 48% to 40% margin a 49% to 40% margin.

A majority of voters in the survey also reject the filibuster strategy employed by Senate Democrats against some of President Bush's judicial nominees.  This is consistent with polling results under President Clinton when voters rejected Republican efforts to block judicial nominees. Fifty-three percent of Blue State and 59% of Red State voters felt the Democratic filibuster of judicial nominees was wrong while 35% of Blue State and 32% of Red State voters feel a minority of Senators are right to use whatever means to necessary to block the nominees.

While the issue of gay marriages dominates the news in San Francisco and Boston, a majority of Americans remain opposed to the idea. Fifty-two percent of Red State voters and 50% of Blue State voters support such a constitutional amendment while 43% of Red State voters and 44% of Blue State voters disagree.

Voters gave Bush a decided edge when asked who would do a better job of dealing with Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gaddafi, North Korea and Iran.  Bush was the clear choice among Red State voters (53%) and Blue State votes (47%).  Only 31% of Red State voters and 35% of Blue State voters felt Kerry would do a better job in dealing with rogue states and leaders.

Pollster John Zogby will be presenting these poll results at a meeting of the Wednesday Morning Club at the Beverly Hills Hotel at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 18, 2004.  There will be a press availability at 1:45 p.m. for Los Angeles press.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 12:48:21 PM
Fascinating, NHpolitico - and this represents, given the date of the poll, a low point for Bush.  More likely to go up from here than down.  Still I think Kerry could campaign his way to more than 46% in Goremerica.  On the other hand he's unlikely to pick up anything Bush won in 2000.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 18, 2004, 01:00:24 PM
On the other hand he's unlikely to pick up anything Bush won in 2000.


Which sort of makes it hard to win the WH.

:)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 01:29:08 PM
That makes the map look like this:

()

But, Polls have shown Kerru ahead in VT and WA, plus big leads for generic democrats in WI and MI, so the acuracy of the poll isn't all that great.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on February 18, 2004, 01:32:12 PM
Fascinating, NHpolitico - and this represents, given the date of the poll, a low point for Bush.  More likely to go up from here than down.  Still I think Kerry could campaign his way to more than 46% in Goremerica.  On the other hand he's unlikely to pick up anything Bush won in 2000.


And loose some states that Gore won.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 01:37:05 PM
I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on February 18, 2004, 01:37:55 PM
I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...

That's who does his polling.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 01:40:06 PM
I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...

True, though most of the time his polls favor the Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 01:40:38 PM
Zogby's polls are usually inaccurate, and they lean left.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 18, 2004, 01:52:56 PM
What I find amuzing is the fact that the Dems REALLY want to nominate Howard Dean because he is what they really stand for. Up until the "I have a Scream" speech in Iowa, they were still behind him. They realized that the fringe of his speech was so commonplace, it would scare the commonman. So what happens next? They turn to the next best liberal, and go with Kerry who is more liberal than Tedward Kennedy. Kerry will now be the nominee, and when the news of his politics as Lt. Gov under Mike Dukakis come out, it will reinforce the fact that the Democratic Party is a party of leftys, who cannot appeal to the broad base of America.

Has anyone ever thought about the reason why the GOP has the larger support from individual donors, as opposed to the Big Corp./Union donations needed by the Dems? The GOP has a broader base, and it will be shown in the 2004 election when Bush wins...BIGTIME!

Dean lost Iowa by a huge margin before he held his CONCESSION speech.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 02:20:37 PM
I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...

That's who does his polling.

That wouldn't suprise me at all...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 18, 2004, 03:01:54 PM
That makes the map look like this:

()

But, Polls have shown Kerru ahead in VT and WA, plus big leads for generic democrats in WI and MI, so the acuracy of the poll isn't all that great.


Well, I didn't go in and calculate how Nader voters would affect the margin, so a few of the states might be moved back over-- Vermont would be the first to shift back.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 18, 2004, 03:04:14 PM
I would trust a drunken farmer over a Zogby poll...

That's who does his polling.

That wouldn't suprise me at all...

Well, the problem with my analysis is that we are talking about individual states and not a Gore-merica nation. Still, I think it's interesting.  Zogby does have a history of doing well in presidential election match-ups, though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 18, 2004, 10:35:44 PM
I just don't see it.

From where I'm sitting, the Zogby results line up with about a 55%+ approval rating for Bush, which is way over the 8-poll moving average (at 51.50, even filtering 1-stdev outliers) as of the latest Gallup poll.

Let's say Zogby has a superior handle on the situation at the moment: If so, and this holds true in November,  Bush sweeps Red States and pockets IA, NM, WI, OR, MN, MI, ME, WA and PA, as well.

Final score in ye olde EC:  370-168. Not a sweep, but good enough for more government work.

I'd be inclined to accept Zogby if the Gallup poll had shown a significant upward bump in Bush's approval ratings; as it stands, I cannot help but notice that the sample was taken in the midst of the short-lived scandal surrounding Kerry last week. There may be a distortion in the results; a follow-up sample seems prudent.

What am I saying? It's nine months to Election Day. Of course there will be follow-up!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 18, 2004, 11:08:09 PM
Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".


Yeah you're right about that.  
This is unrelated but who is Elliot Richardson? A friend of mine mentioned to me about him being a potential running mate for Kerry if he gets the nomination.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 11:34:03 PM
Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".


Yeah you're right about that.  
This is unrelated but who is Elliot Richardson? A friend of mine mentioned to me about him being a potential running mate for Kerry if he gets the nomination.


Do you mean Bill Richardson?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 19, 2004, 08:44:07 AM
Edwards is a moderate on social issues, while being the most left wing candidate on economic issues.
This is often called "Populism".


Yeah you're right about that.  
This is unrelated but who is Elliot Richardson? A friend of mine mentioned to me about him being a potential running mate for Kerry if he gets the nomination.



Easy, he's a super-clone from the future. He's part Eliot Spitzer, fearless crusader against corporate corruption, and Bill Richardson,  fearless crusader against protecting our nuclear secrets.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: havok201 on February 19, 2004, 02:09:01 PM
The Question must be asked... If Kerry chooses Edwards as his running mate, how many Southern states suddenly come into play?  1? 3? All of them?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 19, 2004, 02:13:04 PM
I'm not sure any do.  I don't think Edwards has much impact in Louisiana or Arkansas.  I doubt he has much in Tenn or Va either.  Georgia and SC are too out of reach I suspect.  NC is the only one where he'll make a serious difference, but I think there may be too much ground to make up there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 19, 2004, 02:17:02 PM
I think the Deep South is too heavily GOP, with the exception of LA. I'd say LA, AR, NC, TN and VA are the states that could concievably be in play. But that's it, and not all of these would be in play, they just could.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2004, 02:54:51 PM
The Deep South isn't heavily GOP, the Democrats just need our voters to actually vote...genuine white-black coalition...populism...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 19, 2004, 03:23:11 PM
The Deep South isn't heavily GOP, the Democrats just need our voters to actually vote...genuine white-black coalition...populism...

Me Tarzan...you Jane...love... ;)

I don't think that coalition will come into being in this election that's all.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 19, 2004, 03:55:47 PM
I just don't see it.

From where I'm sitting, the Zogby results line up with about a 55%+ approval rating for Bush, which is way over the 8-poll moving average (at 51.50, even filtering 1-stdev outliers) as of the latest Gallup poll.

Let's say Zogby has a superior handle on the situation at the moment: If so, and this holds true in November,  Bush sweeps Red States and pockets IA, NM, WI, OR, MN, MI, ME, WA and PA, as well.

Final score in ye olde EC:  370-168. Not a sweep, but good enough for more government work.

I'd be inclined to accept Zogby if the Gallup poll had shown a significant upward bump in Bush's approval ratings; as it stands, I cannot help but notice that the sample was taken in the midst of the short-lived scandal surrounding Kerry last week. There may be a distortion in the results; a follow-up sample seems prudent.

What am I saying? It's nine months to Election Day. Of course there will be follow-up!



Hey man, welcome to the forum.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2004, 03:58:16 PM
True :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 19, 2004, 03:58:55 PM
The Question must be asked... If Kerry chooses Edwards as his running mate, how many Southern states suddenly come into play?  1? 3? All of them?


If Edwards and Kerry are on the same ticket you may get NC, SC, VA (the governor recently endorsed Kerry).  Florida and Georgia are tossups, so is Tennessee.  But thats it.

By the way, welcome to the forum.  



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 04:01:32 PM
The Question must be asked... If Kerry chooses Edwards as his running mate, how many Southern states suddenly come into play?  1? 3? All of them?


If Edwards and Kerry are on the same ticket you may get NC, SC, VA (the governor recently endorsed Kerry).  Florida and Georgia are tossups, so is Tennessee.  But thats it.

By the way, welcome to the forum.  


Even with Edwards I think Kerry loses every southern state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 19, 2004, 04:31:07 PM
Breakout of Southern States in the 2004 presidential election (as of the latest poll data)

Bush continues to be strong in the South, and support for him in the core of reliably Republican states isn't seriously threatened in my model until his nationwide approval ratings dip under 45%. (At the moment, the average of the latest eight major polls is 51.5%.)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Lousiana
4. Kentucky (border state)
5. Arkansas
6. South Carolina
7. Georgia
8. Alabama
9. North Carolina
10. West Virginia (border state)

Leans Republican
11. Virginia
12. Tennessee                  
13. Missouri (border state)

Leans Democrat
14. Florida                          

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 04:32:41 PM
Florida leans Bush, Arkansas isn't solid Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 19, 2004, 04:36:23 PM
Saratoga - Thanks for the welcome aboard. :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 19, 2004, 04:44:09 PM
Florida leans Bush, Arkansas isn't solid Bush.

I'm working on a liberal/conservative model; I think Arkansas is as conservative a state as Georgia or South Carolina, and Florida is as liberal a state as Minnesota or Oregon...rather, about as closely divided as those states.

A weakness of my model is that conservatism and Republicanism (likewise, liberalism and Democratism) are imperfectly correlated.

And fixing the leaks is why I'm here. :)

Arkansas - Why are the Democrats relatively strong there? The Clintons? A strong party organization?

Florida - I don't really need to ask the reverse question, given whose brother is governor there. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 04:50:49 PM
Arkansas is a socially conservative state but the right economic message can win there.  I think Edwards would win Arkansas.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 19, 2004, 04:52:52 PM
Arkansas is very much like Lousiana, a Southern state that's similar to MS and AL, but for some reason more Democratic.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 04:59:23 PM
Arkansas is very much like Lousiana, a Southern state that's similar to MS and AL, but for some reason more Democratic.
Economics


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 19, 2004, 05:03:02 PM
Breakout of Southern States in the 2004 presidential election (as of the latest poll data)

Bush continues to be strong in the South, and support for him in the core of reliably Republican states isn't seriously threatened in my model until his nationwide approval ratings dip under 45%. (At the moment, the average of the latest eight major polls is 51.5%.)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Lousiana
4. Kentucky (border state)
5. Arkansas
6. South Carolina
7. Georgia
8. Alabama
9. North Carolina
10. West Virginia (border state)

Leans Republican
11. Virginia
12. Tennessee                  
13. Missouri (border state)

Leans Democrat
14. Florida                          

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)


West Virginia is not reliably Republican.  Tennessee might be, however.  Take a look at the 1988 results vis a vis the rest of the country.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on February 19, 2004, 07:02:46 PM
I think the only Southern State that Kerry could carry (especially without Edwards) is Louisiana.   It had been trending Democratic (recent House, Senate and Gov wins), and unlike the rest of the South, is predominantly  Catholic.  I haven't seen any recent polls, though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 07:14:02 PM
I think the only Southern State that Kerry could carry (especially without Edwards) is Louisiana.   It had been trending Democratic (recent House, Senate and Gov wins), and unlike the rest of the South, is predominantly  Catholic.  I haven't seen any recent polls, though.
No recent polling.  Old polls show Bush trouncing Dem rivals, but times have changed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 19, 2004, 07:33:19 PM
DURHAM, NH -- President George W. Bush’s approval rating in New Hampshire has dropped to the lowest level of his presidency. Bush is now bested by his two top Democratic challengers for the November presidential election.

These findings are based on the latest Granite State Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center. The Granite State Poll is sponsored by the University of New Hampshire. Five hundred eleven (511) randomly selected adults were interviewed by telephone between February 4 and February 12, 2004.

The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/-4.3 percent.

Approval Continues to Slide

President Bush’s approval ratings in New Hampshire have declined to their lowest levels during his tenure as president. While Bush’s job approval has been sliding since the official end of the war in Iraq, the recent visibility of Democratic presidential candidates – and their rhetoric targeting the president’s troubles with the economy and Iraq – has hurt Bush in New Hampshire. In the most recent Granite State Poll, 47 percent of New Hampshire adults say they approve of the job Bush is doing as president, 48 percent disapprove, and 5 percent are neutral. The percentage of Granite Staters who approve of Bush is down from a post Iraq war high of 71 percent in the April 2003 Granite State Poll and down 9 percentage points from the October Granite State Poll. "Although Bush is currently in a tough spot, the large number of Republicans in the New Hampshire should pull his approval ratings upward as we get closer to the election," said Andrew Smith, Director of the UNH Survey Center. "But approval ratings in the 40s for an incumbent president are a cause for concern."

Bush's personal favorability ratings have also declined to a new low. Currently, 48 percent of New Hampshire adults say they have a favorable opinion of Bush, 48 percent have an unfavorable opinion of him, and 4 percent are neutral. Bush's net favorability rating, the percentage who have a favorable opinion minus the percentage who have an unfavorable opinion, is at 0 percent, down from +19 in October and his record high of +80 percent in October 2001.

Economic Approval Rating

While the U.S. economy grew strongly in the 3 rd and 4 th quarters of 2003, assessments of Bush’s handling of the economy continue to decline in New Hampshire. In the most recent Granite State Poll, only 41 percent of New Hampshire residents say they approve of the job President Bush is doing handling the economy, 54 percent disapprove, and 5 percent are neutral. This is down 5 percentage points since October, when Bush’s economic approval ratings dropped below 50 percent in New Hampshire for the first time.

Foreign Affairs & Iraq

When asked to rate the job Bush is doing handling foreign affairs, 44 percent of New Hampshire adults say they approve, 52 percent disapprove, and 5 percent are neutral. This represents a decline of 9 percentage points since October and the lowest since the September 11 attacks.

When asked about how Mr. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq, only 44 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove, and 3 percent are neutral. This represents a 10 percent decline since October, and represents a significant decline since April when 79 percent of Granite Staters approved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq.

Despite criticism of his handling of Iraq by candidates in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary, most New Hampshire residents still support the war with Iraq, but by an ever smaller margin. Currently, 58 percent of New Hampshire adults say they support the United States having gone to war with Iraq, 33 percent oppose, and 10 percent are neutral. Support for the war was highest in the April poll when 80 percent of New Hampshire adults said they supported the US having gone to war with Iraq.

2004 Presidential Election

Presidential approval ratings are closely followed by political analysts because of the correlation between approval ratings and reelection. In October, Bush led his two most likely Democratic challengers in New Hampshire in 2004 presidential election trial heats, but now has relinquished his lead to John Kerry. When asked to think ahead to a 2004 presidential matchup with Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, only 38 percent of likely November voters say they would vote for Bush, 53 percent say they would vote for Kerry, 1 percent favor some other candidate, and 8 percent are undecided or will not vote.

When matched with North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 37 percent say they would vote for Bush, 51 percent say they would vote for Edwards, 1 percent say they prefer some other candidate, and 11 percent say they are undecided or will not vote.

Regardless of who they plan to vote for in the 2004 election, 45 percent of New Hampshire residents believe Bush will win the election, 42 percent think the Democratic party’s nominee will win, 1 percent think some other candidate will win, and 12 percent don’t know who will win the election. While Granite Staters still believe Bush will win in November, the 42 percent gap between the president and the Democratic nominee has slowly melted to 11 percent in October and only 3 percent in the most recent Granite State Poll.

SUB-GROUP ANALYSIS

New Hampshire is extremely polarized in how it views President Bush. Republicans are quite supportive while Democrats strongly disapprove of his performance as President. Bush gets his highest overall, economic, and foreign affairs approval ratings as well as his highest personal favorability ratings from Republicans, conservatives, those with an education level of high school or less, and people who have lived in New Hampshire between 6 and 10 years. He gets low marks from Democrats, liberals, and those who have attended graduate school.

And New Hampshire is even more polarized over Iraq with 83 percent of Republicans approving and 83 percent of Democrats disapproving of Bush’s handling of the situation in Iraq. Similarly, 90 percent of Republicans support the US having gone to war with Iraq while 52 percent of Democrats oppose the war. Independent voters support the war, but at significantly lower levels than Republicans - 53 percent say they support the US having gone to war with Iraq.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Brutus on February 19, 2004, 08:25:17 PM
Breakout of Southern States in the 2004 presidential election (as of the latest poll data)

Bush continues to be strong in the South, and support for him in the core of reliably Republican states isn't seriously threatened in my model until his nationwide approval ratings dip under 45%. (At the moment, the average of the latest eight major polls is 51.5%.)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Lousiana
4. Kentucky (border state)
5. Arkansas
6. South Carolina
7. Georgia
8. Alabama
9. North Carolina
10. West Virginia (border state)

Leans Republican
11. Virginia
12. Tennessee                  
13. Missouri (border state)

Leans Democrat
14. Florida                          

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)


West Virginia is not reliably Republican.  Tennessee might be, however.  Take a look at the 1988 results vis a vis the rest of the country.  

I don't why pundits are always lumping West Virginia in with the GOP's southern block.  From what I've heard, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans two to one, and that the only reason Bush carried it in 2000 was due to Gore's environmental positions.  Furthermore, other than the Republican landslides in 1972 and 1984, WV has been pretty reliably Democrat in presidential elections.

First posting from a newbie and political junkie.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 08:37:54 PM
Aagh!  Kerry isn't leading in NH!  Please no!  Now I have to take another state out of his column on the prediction map.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 19, 2004, 08:46:51 PM
Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. :)

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 09:04:33 PM
Not bad this time!  I'll make my own list:

Solid Republican

1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican

1. Virginia
2. Florida
3. West Virginia
4. Missouri
5. North Carolina (Only in play if Edwards is at the TOP of the ticket)
6. Vrginia (Only in play if Warner is VP selection)
7. Louisiana (Lean Dem if Edwards is the nominee)
8. Arkansas (Lean Dem if Edwards is the nominee)

Leans Democratic

(Empty)

Solid Democratic

1. Maryland



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 09:37:15 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush 276 to Kerry 262

It actually looks like the election favors Kerry about now, but I can't jinx it!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Firefly on February 20, 2004, 01:37:08 AM
There are rumors that Roy Moore is going to run on the Constitution Party ticket for President.  Anyone have any predictions on a Bush vs. Kerry vs. Moore race?  Would Moore's candidacy put states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Utah into play?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 20, 2004, 02:25:50 AM
There are rumors that Roy Moore is going to run on the Constitution Party ticket for President.  Anyone have any predictions on a Bush vs. Kerry vs. Moore race?  Would Moore's candidacy put states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Utah into play?

Moore would not put any of the states you mentioned at risk.  Bush's margin will be big enough in AL and MS to absorb a few points for Moore.  It would have little or no effect in Utah.  However I guess it could have some effect in places like Florida or West Virginia, if they're close enough.

Remember, Southerners will dread a Kerry presidency, so even if they like Moore, they'll be careful how they vote.  The last time they screwed up in this way was voting for Perot in 92, and Bush senior was much less popular in the South than GW is.. in addition Kerry is more repulsive to Southerners than Clinton was in 92 (before they got to know him).  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 20, 2004, 02:34:58 AM
Thank you, everybody.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)


Wow, Missouri leans Democrat?  I doubt it.  Also it is a midwestern state btw.

Here's my view:

Solid Republican:

1) Texas
2) Mississippi
3) Kentucky
4) Alabama
5) South Carolina
6) Georgia
7) North Carolina
8) Virginia
9) Tennessee
10) Arkansas
11) Louisiana

Leans Republican:

1) Missouri
2) West Virgina
3) Florida

And Maryland is not a Southern state by any stretch - its a Mid-Atlantic and there for Northeastner state, which is why its reliable Democrat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 20, 2004, 04:58:58 AM
Defining the South by the Mason-Dixon line and the Ohio river:

R-beyond reasonable doubt

Oklahoma
Texas

R-balance of probabilities

Mississippi
Alabama
Georgia
South Carolina
North Carolina*
Kentucky
Florida

No Clear Favourite

Virginia
Tennessee
Arkansas

D-balance of probabilities

West Virginia
Delaware
Louisiana

D-beyond reasonable doubt

District of Columbia
Maryland


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on February 20, 2004, 05:05:32 AM
woldn't you say Alabama and Mississippi are R beyond reanble doubt?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 20, 2004, 05:09:26 AM
No... because of possible 3rd party run by Roy Moore.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on February 20, 2004, 05:15:31 AM
will he ran in most/all states or just the deep south?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 20, 2004, 05:30:42 AM
All the states that the Constitution Party is on the ballot for I'd guess...
I still think that Dubya will win Alabama and Mississippi but I'm not certain.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on February 20, 2004, 05:33:46 AM
isn't that funny? he was ousted for not obyeing a federal-contitutional rulling and will run under the constitution party?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 20, 2004, 05:39:21 AM
All the states that the Constitution Party is on the ballot for I'd guess...
I still think that Dubya will win Alabama and Mississippi but I'm not certain.

I am, though.

Rep Totally safe
1 Oklahoma
2 Mississippi
3 South Carolina
4 Alabama
5 Texas
6 Georgia
7 Kentucky
Rep clear Favorite
8 North Carolina
9 Missouri
10 Tennessee
11 Virginia
12 Louisiana
13 Arkansas
Tossup, Rep if I have to choose one
14 Florida
Tossup, Dem if I have to choose one
15 West Virginia
Dem Favorite
(empty)
Dem totally safe
16 Delaware
17 Maryland
18 D.C.
Maryland and Delaware are traditionally Southern states that have been transformed immensely and are now disputable.
Missouri tends to be classified as Midwestern rather than Southern, but is a former slave state, votes basically like a border state, and has a high percentage of members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In other words, I classified all states that can be classified as Southern, rather than all states everybody would agree are Southern.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 20, 2004, 08:45:48 AM
There are rumors that Roy Moore is going to run on the Constitution Party ticket for President.  Anyone have any predictions on a Bush vs. Kerry vs. Moore race?  Would Moore's candidacy put states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Utah into play?

That's a believable rumor. He attended the Christian Coalition's "Family and Freedom" rally in Atlanta and loved the attention he got there.  The Constitution Party has 320,000 registered voters nationwide and has guaranteed ballot access in some states and would probably end up in about 40-45 states this year with Moore on the ticket. He's been making the rounds at all the state party meetings.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 20, 2004, 09:49:02 AM
All the states that the Constitution Party is on the ballot for I'd guess...
I still think that Dubya will win Alabama and Mississippi but I'm not certain.

I am, though.

Rep Totally safe
1 Oklahoma
2 Mississippi
3 South Carolina
4 Alabama
5 Texas
6 Georgia
7 Kentucky
Rep clear Favorite
8 North Carolina
9 Missouri
10 Tennessee
11 Virginia
12 Louisiana
13 Arkansas
Tossup, Rep if I have to choose one
14 Florida
Tossup, Dem if I have to choose one
15 West Virginia
Dem Favorite
(empty)
Dem totally safe
16 Delaware
17 Maryland
18 D.C.
Maryland and Delaware are traditionally Southern states that have been transformed immensely and are now disputable.
Missouri tends to be classified as Midwestern rather than Southern, but is a former slave state, votes basically like a border state, and has a high percentage of members of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In other words, I classified all states that can be classified as Southern, rather than all states everybody would agree are Southern.

I'm in full agreement with you.   If the dems win any state where the republicans are clear favorites, it is because they have solidly won the election, in my opinion, other than Missouri, which is arguable to be in this category anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 20, 2004, 09:54:23 AM
the average prediction went to 276 Dem to 262 Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 20, 2004, 11:05:43 AM
Regarding Missouri -

I guess I'd better show you, rather than tell you. :)

All of this is driven by an 8-poll moving average of national approval ratings for President Bush.

Each state has its own conservative/liberal predisposition. For Missouri, this is what you get

MISSOURI scenarios (as of 2/20/2004)

Bush ratings     Status
57.2%+            Strongly Republican
54.3-57.1%       Republican
51.5-54.2%       Leans Republican
48.5-51.4%       Leans Democrat
45.5-48.4%       Democrat
45.4%-            Strongly Democrat

As of the latest polls, the moving average is 50.5%.

Whatever it actually will be come Election Day is a matter for the voters to decide.

But this sure is a lot of fun. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Firefly on February 20, 2004, 11:25:26 AM
My breakdown of Southern states (as defined by states that joined the Confederacy) w/ Kerry as Dem. nominee and no significant 3rd party candidacies:

Safe Democratic
-none
Lean Democratic
-Louisiana
Tossup
-Florida
-Arkansas
Lean Republican
-Virginia
-Georgia
-Tennessee
Safe Republican
-Texas
-Alabama
-Mississippi
-South Carolina
-North Carolina

W/ Roy Moore and John Edwards as Kerry's VP
Safe Democratic
-Louisiana
-Arkansas
-Florida
Lean Democratic
-North Carolina
-South Carolina
-Virginia
-Georgia
-Tennessee
Tossup
-Alabama
Lean Republican
-Mississippi
Safe Republican
-Texas


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 20, 2004, 11:29:30 AM
Sounds about right, firefly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 20, 2004, 11:30:47 AM
Run Roy Run!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 20, 2004, 11:34:08 AM
BTW, I like the 'draftmoore04' URL.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 20, 2004, 11:35:05 AM
Agreed.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on February 20, 2004, 11:37:37 AM
Go to my forum, we can discuss the web design a little.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on February 20, 2004, 02:48:29 PM
As much as I despise Roy Moore...run! Suck a few percent from Bush so the Dems can take Florida, Louisiana and so on...gosh its such a BRILLIANT plan!! Gimme water!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: SeattleSquirrel on February 20, 2004, 04:32:01 PM
My analysis shows the Democrats winning these states in 2004:  California, Connecticut, Delaware, D.C., Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin; for a total of 255 delegates.  

Republicans win these states in 2004:  Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, N. Carolina, N. Dakota, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, S. Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virgina, Wyoming; for a total of 170 delegates.

Of the remaining "battleground" states, I predict that Democrats should win W. Virginia and New Hampshire, bringing their total to 264.

I predict that Republicans will likely win Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, and Tennessee, bringing their total to 238.

This leaves Missouri (11 delegates), New Mexico (5 delegates) and Ohio (20 delegates).  

New Mexico is the reason for Bush's otherwise incomprehensible new immigration policy.  I believe that this will not sway voters enough and NM will stay Democratic.

This brings up the intriguing possibility of a 269 to 269 result!  

I expect Ohio to remain narrowly Republican, which makes Missouri the big question mark this year.  If Bush can somehow sway New Mexico in his favor, however, he could easily win re-election.  Even if he doesn't, there's a good chance of a tie.  (I wonder what happens then... it's been too long since I read up on that.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on February 20, 2004, 04:40:26 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: SeattleSquirrel on February 20, 2004, 04:43:58 PM
There is also the chance that W. Virginia could remain Republican; if this occurred and New Mexico also went Bush's way, the Democrats would be faced with a must-win situation in Missouri.  This would give them the victory, 270 to 268.  

Missouri is especially intriguing to me this year for the above reasons.  It should be noted that of the 11 "battleground states" listed above, Bush Sr. beat Dukakis by the lowest margin in Missouri in 1988.  Missouri went Democratic in 1992 and 1996; then in 2000, went Republican by the fourth-smallest margin behind Florida, New Mexico and New Hampshire.  This shows great promise for the Democrats, and I expect them to concentrate their efforts there to guard against a possible upset in New Mexico.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Brutus on February 20, 2004, 05:05:29 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on February 20, 2004, 06:04:47 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 20, 2004, 06:13:00 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?

Well, that's just it; this time around, it looks like Bush is the one who is at risk of winding up with the popular vote but losing in the Electoral College.

From where I'm sitting, Bush has to have just under a 52% approval rating to win.

This is doesn't sound like too demanding a hurdle to clear, but his average poll ratings at the moment are under that.

Here are the last eight that I have a hold of:

Gallup   2/7/04   52
   ABC   2/10/04   50
Gallup   2/11/04   51
   CBS   2/14/04   50
   Pew   2/15/04   48
Harris   2/15/04   51
Gallup   2/17/04   51
   Fox   2/18/04   48

Note: I use the day before the end date of a survey as the timestamp.

Worst case scenario (for purposes of Constitutional law and general civil unrest): There is a (highly unlikely) change of control in the House of Representatives AND there is a tie in the Electoral College.

Yikes.

On the other hand, I'd be content with taking back Congress. Divided government is good. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 20, 2004, 06:15:03 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.

Those are some significant qualifiers.

Is there anyone other than George W. Bush who is in that box? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 20, 2004, 06:27:38 PM
My Nailbiters

Conditions - Bush's approval ratings going into the election are right on the cusp, votes are decided by less than 0.5% in each case.

In the case of Ohio (remember, we're going out of our way to cause a crisis here) it's a tie.

Not a statistical dead heat; a tie.

1. Ohio
2. Nevada
3. Iowa
4. New Hampshire
5. Missouri
6. New Mexico

The good news is that reality is NEVER so capricious.

I mean, when's the last time that the deciding state's votes were so close that there were...recounts...court appearances...hanging chads... :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on February 20, 2004, 09:38:59 PM
cskendrick

where do you get your data?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on February 20, 2004, 11:29:50 PM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.

Those are some significant qualifiers.

Is there anyone other than George W. Bush who is in that box? :)
GWB is in excellent company, since 1860 (GOP vs DEM) the situation has happened five other times:
Lincoln 1864
T Roosevelt 1904
F Roosevelt 1936
Eisenhower 1956
Reagan 1984

Every incumbent in that period with both those other factors against lost reelection (4 times).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 21, 2004, 12:57:21 AM
Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. :)

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 01:42:54 AM

The job approval data is publicly available; I use www.pollingreport.com as my source of first resort. It's easy and the tables I am interested in are free.

The rating of each state by a "Conservative Percentage") is derived from the voting history of the last three presidential elections (1992 1996 2000), extrapolated forward to 2004.

The sensitivity of each state to a change in Bush's approval ratings is updated using the by-party breakout of Bush numbers. The greater the "conservative" factor, the more the state's predicted electoral behavior converges on Republicans' views of Mr. Bush, and vice-versa.

It works pretty well, I think. Right now, Bush's approval ratings are under what he needs to secure re-election, and my assessments of the states are based on that, not any predicted approval rating.

If I have to place a bet down, I'd say this one's going to be a close, dirty expensive contest...and I'd be saying nothing new or interesting. :)

Not sure if I answered the question, but it's late and I've got one more post to reply to before turning in.

Until next time...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 21, 2004, 01:42:59 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 01:47:52 AM
The election goes to the House of Representatives

What a nightmare scenario.  Does anyone have any thoughts about the possibility of another result that gives Bush the electoral majority but has the Democrats winning the popular vote?
It's very early to consider that possibility. Furthermore, it would be historic. I believe the popular vote has never been lost by an incumbent who had no challenge for the nomination, and who had a net gain for his party in the House over the two preceding House elections.

Those are some significant qualifiers.

Is there anyone other than George W. Bush who is in that box? :)
GWB is in excellent company, since 1860 (GOP vs DEM) the situation has happened five other times:
Lincoln 1864
T Roosevelt 1904
F Roosevelt 1936
Eisenhower 1956
Reagan 1984

Every incumbent in that period with both those other factors against lost reelection (4 times).

Ah. It's not as rare a combo as I originally thought.

I'd be careful about historical determinism in politics, though.

The Democrats got exactly what they deserved in 2002 for assuming that historical trends would be friendly.

Human beings make or break their own destiny.

But I don't have to tell Republicans that. :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 02:15:56 AM
Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. :)

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them. :)





Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 21, 2004, 03:18:52 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 08:38:16 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DarthKosh on February 21, 2004, 11:17:00 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

There is proof of dead people voting in Missouri.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 21, 2004, 11:24:23 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

Purging criminals is a good policy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 02:17:09 PM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

There is proof of dead people voting in Missouri.

Some would say that there is proof of living, eligible voters being denied the vote in Florida.

If the acts are equally reprehensible, then we can resolve the moral weight by a simple comparison of frequencies: (a) how many dead people voted in MO, and for which party? versus (b) how many living people were WRONGLY denied the vote in FL, and for which party would they have voted for?

Is this a game you are comfortable playing?




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 02:20:05 PM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

Purging criminals is a good policy.


At no point do I criticize that position.

I think that purging eligible voters is bad.

I think reasonable, freedom-loving people the world over would agree with me.

And I am sure that you do, as well. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 21, 2004, 03:46:35 PM
Cskendrick... opebo is the most consistantly ammoral person on this site.
He likes gerrymandering and low turnouts, and also thinks that Dubya should fake Bin Laden's capture to get re-elected...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 21, 2004, 05:34:57 PM
Cskendrick... opebo is the most consistantly ammoral person on this site.
He likes gerrymandering and low turnouts, and also thinks that Dubya should fake Bin Laden's capture to get re-elected...

What interesting views!

I'll have to ask about them later on. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 21, 2004, 05:42:10 PM
Cskendrick... opebo is the most consistantly ammoral person on this site.
He likes gerrymandering and low turnouts, and also thinks that Dubya should fake Bin Laden's capture to get re-elected...

What interesting views!

I'll have to ask about them later on. :)

And he ain't exactly wild about democracy either, considering it ti be mob rule...he makes the mistake of many libertarians to mix up the size of the political domain with the question of how that domain should be ruled...a mix up that plays straight into the nads of the left... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 21, 2004, 05:42:57 PM
All this about not allowing people to vote, look for a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, an investigative journalist who looked into all of this, it has a copy of a bit of the "scrub list" in it which was the list of people who were stopped from voting because they were "criminals", it has the criminal and all the info and the info of the person stopped from voting, some of whom were of different race from each other so unless they pulled a Michael Jackson, it is unlikely they were the same person


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on February 21, 2004, 05:46:39 PM
All this about not allowing people to vote, look for a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, an investigative journalist who looked into all of this, it has a copy of a bit of the "scrub list" in it which was the list of people who were stopped from voting because they were "criminals", it has the criminal and all the info and the info of the person stopped from voting, some of whom were of different race from each other so unless they pulled a Michael Jackson, it is unlikely they were the same person

Isn't that book very biased? I am not sure, but I seem to recall that it is...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on February 21, 2004, 05:47:43 PM
All this about not allowing people to vote, look for a book called "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast, an investigative journalist who looked into all of this, it has a copy of a bit of the "scrub list" in it which was the list of people who were stopped from voting because they were "criminals", it has the criminal and all the info and the info of the person stopped from voting, some of whom were of different race from each other so unless they pulled a Michael Jackson, it is unlikely they were the same person

Was that the same topic in Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them? I read that in Florida, Katherine Harris had ordered people with the same names as likely criminals not to vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 21, 2004, 05:50:55 PM
not so much ordered them not to vote as ordered their rights to vote taken away by having them removed from the voter list.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 21, 2004, 06:26:19 PM
The only qualification was the same four first letters of the surname and given name, the rest good be 'similar'. Middle names could be different, they could have suffixes (Jr., II, etc.), and it wouldn't matter.

Also, only people who were incarcerated in Florida and other states that purged ex-felons were allowed to be purged, but they purged people who had been incarcerated in states that restored their rights, like New York. Considering 90% of ex-felons vote Democrat, just these few thousand people who were not allowed to vote would have swung the election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 21, 2004, 06:58:01 PM
not all were ex felons though, like 50,000 people were stopped from voting, around 40,000 of whom i think it was were black and about 98% of black people vote democrat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 21, 2004, 08:20:52 PM
slight exaggeration, its more like 88%.

Also, 80% of the people who were excluded were ot black, it was around 40%-still disproportionally high, but not by such a huge margin.

Eitgher way, it was illegal, immoral and disgusting.

It was just another example of the partisanship of our elections-n both sides-and it needs to be stopped. We need a nation-wide, independent body, like Britain has, that runs the elections, not individual states, and even worse, counties.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 22, 2004, 12:37:23 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

There is proof of dead people voting in Missouri.

Some would say that there is proof of living, eligible voters being denied the vote in Florida.

If the acts are equally reprehensible, then we can resolve the moral weight by a simple comparison of frequencies: (a) how many dead people voted in MO, and for which party? versus (b) how many living people were WRONGLY denied the vote in FL, and for which party would they have voted for?

Is this a game you are comfortable playing?


The dead people voting in Missouri were of course voting Democrat, in inner city districts.  The Democrats are way ahead of the Republicans in the arena of voter fraud.  I was never prouder of Kit Bond than after the 2000 debacle when Ashcroft was 'defeated' - the worthy man nearly burst a blood vessel on the stump complaining of the Democrat shenanigans in the City of St. Louis.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 22, 2004, 08:11:11 AM
The florida race was so close because of the bring 5 campaign, where african-americans were encouraged to bring five friends and relatives with them when they voted.

Whilst it was highly sucessful for those who were allowed to vote...

Five real friends or five imaginary friends?



There are allegations that Katherine Harris used her office as FL Secretary of State to give Republicans a boost in the 2000 election.

Specifically, that she engaged in selective purging of the voter rolls on the eve of the 2000 election.

It's a testable hypothesis.

I'd like to hear more about how we can test for real versus imaginary voters.

Sounds like a useful confidence test in instances where the mechanism of tallying votes is suspect, invisible...or proprietary.

There is proof of dead people voting in Missouri.

Some would say that there is proof of living, eligible voters being denied the vote in Florida.

If the acts are equally reprehensible, then we can resolve the moral weight by a simple comparison of frequencies: (a) how many dead people voted in MO, and for which party? versus (b) how many living people were WRONGLY denied the vote in FL, and for which party would they have voted for?

Is this a game you are comfortable playing?


The dead people voting in Missouri were of course voting Democrat, in inner city districts.  The Democrats are way ahead of the Republicans in the arena of voter fraud.  I was never prouder of Kit Bond than after the 2000 debacle when Ashcroft was 'defeated' - the worthy man nearly burst a blood vessel on the stump complaining of the Democrat shenanigans in the City of St. Louis.  

Maybe it's just me, but it seems to me that tampering with elections a terrible thing, even when Republicans do it.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 22, 2004, 08:31:02 AM
well the fact is, Republicans won Florida by 537 votes, if even only 25,269 of those 50,000 voted Democrat then they would have won Florida and the election, considering the majority of the 50,000 were Democrats, that wouldn't have been too hard


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 22, 2004, 09:02:45 AM
well the fact is, Republicans won Florida by 537 votes, if even only 25,269 of those 50,000 voted Democrat then they would have won Florida and the election, considering the majority of the 50,000 were Democrats, that wouldn't have been too hard

Well worth it to make sure no felons voted.  I for one don't want criminals voting.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 22, 2004, 10:00:54 AM
but we have already established that a large proportion of these people were NOT criminals, they just had similar names to criminals. How would you feel if the majority of these had been Republicans and Al Gore had won because of this, I bet you would change your mind then.

Besides they were not Felons, they were EX-felons, they had committed a crime and served their debt to society, by denying these people the right to vote you treat them like second class citizens.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 22, 2004, 10:04:26 AM
but we have already established that a large proportion of these people were NOT criminals, they just had similar names to criminals. How would you feel if the majority of these had been Republicans and Al Gore had won because of this, I bet you would change your mind then.

Besides they were not Felons, they were EX-felons, they had committed a crime and served their debt to society, by denying these people the right to vote you treat them like second class citizens.

There's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'.  You're a felon for the rest of  your life - lucky to be out of prison, but still marked.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on February 22, 2004, 10:05:52 AM
you didn't answer my first point, would you feel differently if the Republicans had lost the vote and the reason was the prevention of eligible voters from voting


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 22, 2004, 11:22:00 AM
well the fact is, Republicans won Florida by 537 votes, if even only 25,269 of those 50,000 voted Democrat then they would have won Florida and the election, considering the majority of the 50,000 were Democrats, that wouldn't have been too hard

Well worth it to make sure no felons voted.  I for one don't want criminals voting.

Katherine Harris' partisan zeal cost thousands of ELIGIBLE voters their franchise.

Tampering with elections is bad news, even when Republicans do it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 22, 2004, 11:24:00 AM
but we have already established that a large proportion of these people were NOT criminals, they just had similar names to criminals. How would you feel if the majority of these had been Republicans and Al Gore had won because of this, I bet you would change your mind then.

Besides they were not Felons, they were EX-felons, they had committed a crime and served their debt to society, by denying these people the right to vote you treat them like second class citizens.

There's no such thing as an 'ex-felon'.  You're a felon for the rest of  your life - lucky to be out of prison, but still marked.

And there's no such thing as a LEGITIMATE stripping of an eligible person's voting rights.

In fact, it's a crime to do so, several times over.

Even when Republicans do it. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on February 25, 2004, 12:23:18 PM
MY PREDICTION

At this point in the primary season, I have seen enough to be persuaded that the Democrats are a party still reacting to the Cliniton impeachment and 2000 electoral debacles. The leadership is unable to articulate coherent, positive domestic or foreign policies, and instead is hoping that enough goes wrong with the economy or Iraq that the incumbent will be judged harshly. I don't see this message changing much through Election Day.

If Iraq stays out of a civil war and the economy stays clear of oil-price-induced inflation, the Republicans should be able to persuade the dwindling middle to stick with them, in spite of the highly polarized environment. Although Bush could lose the popular vote and still squeak out a win, I predict he'll get about 49.7% of the PV, less than 1% more than the Dems, but giving him the edge in the key Midwest battleground states of IA, WS, OH, and MO. He'll lose MN and MI, PA will be the closest state, which the Dems will win by a hair:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041035C1.gif


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 25, 2004, 12:33:21 PM
not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 12:50:11 PM
not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.

My pick for the closest race is Ohio.

As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

From where I'm sitting, he needs about 52% approval ratings (not exactly a high bar to clear) to win, though the inevitable arrival of Ralph Nader to the party may change that. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 01:24:07 PM
Quote
As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 25, 2004, 01:43:24 PM
Quote
As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 01:50:39 PM
I'm NOT talking about GDP growth etc.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 25, 2004, 02:01:51 PM

Yeah I know, I was talking about the unemployment rate.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstrk.htm


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 02:09:27 PM
Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 25, 2004, 02:13:23 PM
Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.

Textile workers didn't make much anyway - not a significantly better job than WalMart.  Besides, my point was that the Carolinas are so strongly Republican that even some unemployment-induced voting will not shift them.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 02:15:35 PM
It's not just about the money... you seem to lack a basic understanding of people sometimes...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on February 25, 2004, 02:20:12 PM
not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.

My pick for the closest race is Ohio.

As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

From where I'm sitting, he needs about 52% approval ratings (not exactly a high bar to clear) to win, though the inevitable arrival of Ralph Nader to the party may change that. :)
I don't understand your popular vote analysis. It seems to me that Bush can win handily without even getting 50% of the PV.

Assume for a moment that there is no Nader vote (things only get worse for the Dems if there is), and that the total independent vote is the same 1% as 2000. Bush has to gain Gore and Nader voters from the last election to win.

If Bush wins half of the combined 2000 Gore-Nader margin in FL, he secures the state. The Gore-Nader margin was 1.63%, so Bush needs an additional 0.82% of total Floridians who voted Gore or Nader.

If we extrapolate to all states (making the assumption that each state's vote totals are affected by only one thing - a shift in the national PV), again, a 0.82% shift to Bush would secure FL. He would lose NH (where Gore-Nader had a greater PV margin) but would still win the election. His national PV would be his 2000 total of 47.87% + 0.82% = 48.7%. the Dems get 50.3%, lose this time with a majority of the PV (even worse than 2000, where they lost with a plurality).

Similarly, the way other states fall could be predicted by halving the Gore-Nader (or Bush) margin from 2000 and shifting it to the other side. You then know what shift in national PV is required to throw that state into the other column:

DEM ELECTORAL WINS

       Bush       Gore     Nader   Gore+ Nader  Margin      
VA   52.47%   44.44%   2.17%   46.60%   5.87%
WV   51.92%   45.59%   1.65%   47.24%   4.67%
AK   51.31%   45.86%   1.46%   47.32%   3.99%
AZ   50.95%   44.67%   2.98%   47.65%   3.30%
CO   50.75%   42.39%   5.25%   47.64%   3.11%
TN   51.15%   47.28%   0.95%   48.24%   2.91%
MO   50.42%   47.08%   1.63%   48.72%   1.71%
NV   49.52%   45.98%   2.46%   48.44%   1.08%
OH   49.97%   46.46%   2.50%   48.97%   1.00%


REP ELECTORAL WINS

FL   48.85%   48.84%   1.63%   50.47%   1.63%
IA   48.22%   48.54%   2.23%   50.77%   2.55%
NH   48.07%   46.80%   3.90%   50.70%   2.63%
NM   47.85%   47.91%   3.55%   51.46%   3.61%
WS   47.61%   47.83%   3.62%   51.45%   3.84%
OR   46.52%   46.96%   5.04%   52.00%   5.48%
PA   46.43%   50.60%   2.10%   52.70%   6.27%
MI   46.14%   51.28%   1.99%   53.27%   7.12%
MN   45.50%   47.91%   5.20%   53.10%   7.60%
WA   44.56%   50.13%   4.14%   54.27%   9.72%
               
U.S.   47.87%   48.38%   2.73%   51.12%   3.25%

SCENARIO 1 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327    Reps 211

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291    Reps 247

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

So according to this method, Bush gets a 300 EV win without even getting a majority of the PV (though beating the Dem's PV).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 25, 2004, 02:24:13 PM
It's not just about the money... you seem to lack a basic understanding of people sometimes...

I'll admit I have little experience with or understanding of either textile or WalMart workers - though I do occasionly shop at Supercenters when in the States (love the 24 hour convenience and insanely cheap prices).  But I will say neither group is likely to vote.   And if they did vote, they would certainly be unlikely to vote Republican anyway - so really not a big concern.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on February 25, 2004, 02:25:53 PM
MortfromNY,

You're right, there's virtually zero chance of Bush winning the PV and losing the EC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on February 25, 2004, 02:27:38 PM
Woops!
Ignore the "Dem Electoral Wins" and "Rep Electoral Wins" in the preceding analysis.

Obviously, these are just sorted by margins of the win by Bush over Gore-Nader or vice-versa. FL and NH are the only Rep electoral wins in the lower group. The upper group are straight Rep PV and EV wins, with a Bush margin over Gore-Nader.

However, the argument holds despite the labeling mistake.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 25, 2004, 02:39:45 PM
I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 02:46:34 PM
I was using textile workers as an example (and in 2000 a lot did vote GOP. Not this year methinks).
Point is a lot of people are worse off than they were 4 years ago and most of these people are pretty pissed off with Dubya.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 03:12:55 PM
Quote
As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.

All politics is local, but all economics is personal.

And across time and the set of countries, the worst thing you can have for regime instability is high growth with most of the people getting very little of the proceeds.

A sustained disparity between market performance and net job creation (new jobs less net growth in the workforce) is not only bad news for the incumbent administration...it's bad news for the country at large.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 03:18:21 PM
Hah! A textile worker who loses his job and gets one at Walmart isn't going to be happy about it.

Textile workers didn't make much anyway - not a significantly better job than WalMart.  Besides, my point was that the Carolinas are so strongly Republican that even some unemployment-induced voting will not shift them.

Not that I know anything about the Carolinas (see logo to upper left) but my mom is a diehard Republican and hangs out only with diehard Republicans.

None of them are voting Bush this time around, and now that Dean's no longer the nightmare alternative, they're contemplating either (a) voting Kerry/Edwards (they'd DEFINITELY vote Edwards at top billing) or (b) sitting this one out.

My mom's reasons: Bush promised to restore honesty to the White House....then he lied.

But that's anecdotal, and impossible to verify independently.

What I can validate is that if Bush's numbers drop to about 49%, he'll lose North Carolina no matter who the Democratic candidate is.

He'll lose South Carolina at about 47%.

Figure out the odds around those.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 25, 2004, 03:33:20 PM
Two excellent posts Cskendrick!
Not much for me to add... except this: the most recent "matchup" poll for SC I could find (done last autumn) had Bush below the National average.
Food for thought.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 03:34:58 PM
not a bad analysis.  I still think Wisconsin will go with Kerry, and that Iowa is a tossup.  Ohio is also going to be close and I suspect WV will go to Kerry.  Nevada may also go to Kerry.  I think your percentages will be close +/- 2%, which pretty much tells you nothing.

My pick for the closest race is Ohio.

As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

From where I'm sitting, he needs about 52% approval ratings (not exactly a high bar to clear) to win, though the inevitable arrival of Ralph Nader to the party may change that. :)
I don't understand your popular vote analysis. It seems to me that Bush can win handily without even getting 50% of the PV.

....
             
SCENARIO 1 Bush loses 0.9% of total popular vote, loses FL, NH, OH, MO, and NV
PV: Dems 52.0% Reps 47.0%
EV: Dems 327    Reps 211

SCENARIO 2 Bush gains 0.68% of total popular vote, loses FL and NH
PV: Dems 50.4% Reps 48.6%
EV: Dems 291    Reps 247

SCENARIO 3 Bush gains 1.93% of total popular vote, holds FL and NH, gains IA, NM, and WS
PV: Reps 49.8%  Dems 49.2%
EV: Reps 300      Dems 238

So according to this method, Bush gets a 300 EV win without even getting a majority of the PV (though beating the Dem's PV).

I've been treating Bush's job approval ratings as a proxy for the nationwide popular vote.

Some states have much higher concentrations of Bush supporters than others; which I took to mean that Bush needs greater than 50% approval ratings to win this time around.

I need to modify predictions based on Nader bleed-off, and I am waiting on some poll figures to come out before doing that.

At CURRENT poll ratings, these are my predictions, by state (moving average 50.8% Bush job approval)

State   % Bush
WY   61.5%
ID   60.2%
UT   59.6%
TX   57.7%
SD   57.4%
ND   57.2%
OK   55.4%
MT   55.2%
AK   54.7%
NE   54.6%
MS   54.4%
KY   53.9%
SC   53.4%
GA   53.1%
IN   52.9%
AL   52.8%
NC   52.7%
WV   52.3%
TN   52.3%
LA   51.6%
KS   51.6%
AR   51.4%
VA   50.2%
FL   50.1%

CO   49.9%
AZ   49.9%
MO   49.5%
NV   49.2%
OH   49.1%
IA   48.8%
NH   48.8%
NM   48.6%
WI   48.1%
OR   47.9%
MN   47.5%
MI   47.1%
ME   46.8%
WA   46.6%
PA   46.5%
VT   45.0%
IL   44.9%
CA   44.4%
DE   43.3%
NJ   43.1%
HI   43.0%
MD   42.8%
CT   41.8%
NY   41.7%
MA   39.9%
RI   38.7%
DC   29.4%

Pubs 219 Dems 319

If Bush gets his average approval ratings to 51.9%, he wins....not exactly a challenging goal.

We're close to the inflection point here, so miniscule changes in overall popularity carry significant weight.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on February 25, 2004, 03:39:54 PM
I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.
It could happen, but if you believe that FL will go to Bush, it's almost imperative that the Democrat take OH to make it a competitive EV race. If the PV stays close, that would mean that the Democrat manages to come away with a margin in OH that is skewed way off the 2000 results, i.e., wins a significant number of Ohio Bush voters from 2000. (Bush had a 1% margin over Gore+Nader in OH in 2000, so the Democrat needs to shift 0.5% of total voters AWAY from Bush PLUS win all the 2.5% of Nader voters in that state.

Other states present even more of a challenge to the Dems in a tight race, as the Bush margins over Gore+Nader in 2000 are even higher.

I believe Bush can lose only if he fails to gain an additional 1% of the total national vote, to bring his total at least to 48.8%. The Dems, however, cannot win unless they get at least 50.4%, a gain of a full 2% of the total nationwide vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 03:47:17 PM
Two excellent posts Cskendrick!
Not much for me to add... except this: the most recent "matchup" poll for SC I could find (done last autumn) had Bush below the National average.
Food for thought.

Re: Props

Thanks! I'll take what I can get!

This is a tough room! :)

I find it difficult to imagine South Carolina turning on Bush, but then again I never thought I'd hear my mom saying that she intended to do so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 25, 2004, 03:52:56 PM
I tend to agree that a scenario where Bush is "Gored" is unlikely but you have to admit your analysis, while logical is simplistic.  The way it "could" happen is if some of the Bush states go for Bush, by wider margins than in 2000 (Florida would be a likely candidate), some Gore states go for Kerry (or Edwards) by a lesser margin than in 2000 (California is often cited as a possibility), but Kerry (or Edwards) manages to eke out a victory in, say Ohio, or NH & MO or some other combination which results in an electoral victory.  I don't see it, but it "could" happen.
It could happen, but if you believe that FL will go to Bush, it's almost imperative that the Democrat take OH to make it a competitive EV race. If the PV stays close, that would mean that the Democrat manages to come away with a margin in OH that is skewed way off the 2000 results, i.e., wins a significant number of Ohio Bush voters from 2000. (Bush had a 1% margin over Gore+Nader in OH in 2000, so the Democrat needs to shift 0.5% of total voters AWAY from Bush PLUS win all the 2.5% of Nader voters in that state.

Other states present even more of a challenge to the Dems in a tight race, as the Bush margins over Gore+Nader in 2000 are even higher.

I believe Bush can lose only if he fails to gain an additional 1% of the total national vote, to bring his total at least to 48.8%. The Dems, however, cannot win unless they get at least 50.4%, a gain of a full 2% of the total nationwide vote.

Re: Florida

Florida is a card the Republicans NEED, so it's best to assume that considerable effort will be exerted by the GOP to hold down the fort there.

Re: The resurrection of the Democratic rank and file

2000 was a moribund voter turnout for the Dems and quite frankly the party got exactly what it deserved for taking its electoral fortunes for granted.

Unperturbed, the Democratic leadership had to take a second dose of ASSumption Pie in 2002, counting on a historical trend that the President's party loses seats in the midterm, rather than making their own fate.

I think the Boys in Blue got the message finally: that this is a contest, and you must play hard to have any chance of winning.

I think it will be a close contest again, and so do the Republican campaign managers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on February 25, 2004, 07:54:32 PM
Quote
As for the popular vote/electoral vote situation, I think Bush is in much greater danger of being "Gored" (gets the PV, loses in the EC) than is being considered.

True
After all, the states that Dubya's economic [mis]managment have hit hardest have a tendency to be small...

Which states are those?  The states in worst shape economically are mostly big, and mostly Dem.  Such as CA, WA, MI, IL.. also a few medium ones like OR and MA.  Its interesting how poorly the West Coast has done for a long time now - even before Bush was president.  
The only Republican states in anything close to bad shape are the Carolinas and they're not in any doubt going for Bush.  WV and PA are doing fine, better than OH, which is not that bad.
But the overarching truth is the economy isn't that bad anyway.

All politics is local, but all economics is personal.

And across time and the set of countries, the worst thing you can have for regime instability is high growth with most of the people getting very little of the proceeds.

A sustained disparity between market performance and net job creation (new jobs less net growth in the workforce) is not only bad news for the incumbent administration...it's bad news for the country at large.



Even people who are employed have high credit debt and slow wage growth and higher state and local tax burdens.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on February 25, 2004, 10:44:07 PM
OK, I'll give my prediction.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1453

Not too much to add to what I said there...this is before the Nader and Moore announcements, but I'm going to wait to adjust for those. I believe I gave Alaska, Wyoming and Utah to GWB by 70%+ totals, which I can see happening. I was more confident about the Dems ability to hold what they got in 2000 because I don't think the Reps have done a very good job at trying to sway the Gore states. And, like him or hate him, GWB has turned out to be quite a polarizing president, which means that all you people predicting huge margins for either side are being awfully silly. :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 25, 2004, 10:50:49 PM
you didn't answer my first point, would you feel differently if the Republicans had lost the vote and the reason was the prevention of eligible voters from voting

Where are you getting your data for this accusation? And how are you showing that ALL those names were "similar" or the "same" as eligible voters? And how are you sure those voters who were turned away would have voted democrat and not republican? Please respond.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 25, 2004, 10:52:51 PM
OK, I'll give my prediction.
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1453

Not too much to add to what I said there...this is before the Nader and Moore announcements, but I'm going to wait to adjust for those. I believe I gave Alaska, Wyoming and Utah to GWB by 70%+ totals, which I can see happening. I was more confident about the Dems ability to hold what they got in 2000 because I don't think the Reps have done a very good job at trying to sway the Gore states. And, like him or hate him, GWB has turned out to be quite a polarizing president, which means that all you people predicting huge margins for either side are being awfully silly. :)



Hey WMS...has Moore stated he is running? I didn't hear that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: GOPman on February 25, 2004, 11:06:42 PM
Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. :)

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them. :)

To answer your response about your fantasy leagues (your term, not mine), I think what everyone knows that my comment is the fact that the Kerry Democratic-types DO NOT work in the South. If a candidate with his mentality and beliefs tried to run in LA he would be soundly defeated. The dem and rep gov candidates were conservative enough last go around to not have the differences normally associated with a race...that is a fluke it doesn't normally happen. Anyway, had the other democrat running been the nominee, the GOP would have won LA too!

Regarding my comment about not concerning yourself with gov races, thats not what I said. I said you have to put them together collectively. You have to look at a presidential trend as carrying more weight in the overall outcome. You may have a state that votes dem or rep for the last 30 years in the presidential race, and votes the other party in the last election for a state race.

I hope I answered your question regarding your football fantasies of a Mass. senator running for LA gov, even though I never said it. You did.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on February 26, 2004, 01:58:01 AM
Hello All:

Well, its been a while since I last posted something so I took this opportunity to point out that Edwards has a very good shot at winning NY's primary.  This would be a huge win and it could give him the support he needs to win several other states.  

As for predicting the 2004 election, I think if Kerry gets the nod, this country will face another polarized electorate.  But if Edwards gets it, I think the Dems could win by at least 30 Electoral votes.  

See you all later.

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on February 26, 2004, 08:39:36 AM
Thank you, everybody.

Here's what I did on short notice: I swapped 5% of the electorate from one side to the other, depending on the straw poll of suggestions here.

Figuring it prudent, I boosted the conservative count in Texas, as well...not that I needed to. :)

I might contest the suggestion that Tennessee is reliably Republican, given its Democratic governor. But two years ago, South Carolina had a Dem governor, too, so I will concede the point.

Adjusted to More Republican: Texas, Tennesee, Florida

Adjusted to More Democrat: Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia.

Breakdown of Southern State, version 2.0 :)

Reliably Republican
1. Texas
2. Mississippi
3. Kentucky (border state)
4. South Carolina
5. Georgia
6. Alabama

Leans Republican
7. North Carolina
8. Tennessee
9. Louisiana
10. Arkansas

Leans Democrat
11. Virginia
12. Florida
13. West Virginia (border state)
14. Missouri (border state)

Reliably Democrat
15. Maryland (border state)

You know, this makes a lot more sense.

Thanks, folks!

NOTE: The Pew report came out today; the moving average of nationwide Bush approval ratings (which I use to drive my predictions) now stands at 50.50. This information is incorporated here:

You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes. You have to look at the past presidential elections, and factor those together. West Va would be considered more democratic, however I believe that they will go Bush this time.

Florida on the other hand has ALWAYS been solid GOP. This notion about how it leans democratic must be coming from the close election of 2000. FL went GOP in 1992, and would have went GOP in 1996 had Perot not been running. Clinton did not win but by a few points. I think with all that in mind you have to consider 2000 as more a fluke for being so close. Since 2000, more people in FL are now registered GOP than Dem, the first time in the state! FL doesn't lean GOP, it will be reliably GOP in 2004.

If you look at the LA Gov race, you had basically identical candidates for Gov. It was an off year so the GOP expected to do worse than normal. Had you had a John "F" Kerry run in LA, GOP would have won big time. The Dems win in the south with a "moderate" dem, or at least in Edwards case, a "perceived" moderate.

First off: I am not looking at gubernatorial races as a driver for my model, I am not sure what you are getting at, and I am incorporating the last few presidential elections.

WEST VIRGINIA - Darn it. I just knew I shouldn't have gotten in the business of manual adjustments yesterday.

Yesterday, I took a suggestion to tweak my predictions for West Virginia...now I hear the exact opposite from you.

Ruling: I'm moving WV back to the original settings and keeping it there!

FLORIDA: This adjustment I will keep; I boosted Florida's "Conservative Quotient" (that has a nice ring to it) already, per the consensus suggestion yesterday.

All Bush has to do is keep his approval ratings from falling any lower and he'll win the Sunshine State. That's not going to be difficult now, is it?

LOUISIANA: I stand by this one. Bush clears Lousiana even if his nationwide ratings fall below 49%.

What I don't get is that in your first paragraph, you tell me not to concern myself with gubernatorial races, and here you create a fantasy football league situation in which a candidate from Massachusetts runs for Lousiana governor. Of course he'd be killed. He's not from Louisiana!

And Trent Lott would be killed if he ran for governor in Michigan; things that Mississippians are willing to accept or overlook, the Michiganders won't.

That's why I don't get into these fantasy football discussions, save to make light of them. :)

To answer your response about your fantasy leagues (your term, not mine), I think what everyone knows that my comment is the fact that the Kerry Democratic-types DO NOT work in the South. If a candidate with his mentality and beliefs tried to run in LA he would be soundly defeated. The dem and rep gov candidates were conservative enough last go around to not have the differences normally associated with a race...that is a fluke it doesn't normally happen. Anyway, had the other democrat running been the nominee, the GOP would have won LA too!

Regarding my comment about not concerning yourself with gov races, thats not what I said. I said you have to put them together collectively. You have to look at a presidential trend as carrying more weight in the overall outcome. You may have a state that votes dem or rep for the last 30 years in the presidential race, and votes the other party in the last election for a state race.

I hope I answered your question regarding your football fantasies of a Mass. senator running for LA gov, even though I never said it. You did.




YOUR EXACT WORDS were

"You can't look at Govs races as an indicator for the direction a state votes." And you provided no context.

I rest my case.

THE "FANTASY FOOTBALL" TERM

Of course it was mine. I used it, and I did so very effectively.

It perfectly describes what can most politely called a game that political wonks play, the "what if Gore had been president during 9/11?" game, in which any and every horrible worst-case variation on an already-devastating event are expressed with abandon...and often with relish.

You Kerry-in-Louisiana quip is nothing more than a diluted variation of that motif.

It's also likely to be correct. Louisiana is becoming more conservative over time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nation on February 26, 2004, 09:16:27 PM
Very nice analysis, Voltron. If that one Maine district goes for Kerry, it'd be a 269-269 split.

Welcome to the boards, keep posting elsewhere. Would like to hear your opinions on other things.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on February 27, 2004, 05:19:12 AM
There was a Democratic governor of New Jersey in 1992.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on February 27, 2004, 12:33:21 PM
Vorlon,

Nice anaysis. One prediction sticks out as contrary to the analysis. NM has been increasing in Hispanic voting strength throughout the 1990's, but your trend shows an increase in GOP strength. Given how close it was in 2000, wouldn't it be a candidate to flip to the GOP based on the analysis (excluding Richardson as VP)?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on February 27, 2004, 12:44:04 PM
Vorlon, I've been wanting to do this analysis for a long time.  Thanks for helping me out.  I would like to see 1988 included as well, given that the Republicans won that year and the Democrats ran a "Massachusetts liberal".  I think this would help with the analysis in the south.  I've actually started it already only with the southern states so I think I can use what you did to solidify what I've done so far.

It's going to be another close election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on February 27, 2004, 12:56:59 PM
Hi folks, here are my early thoughts on 2004, I've made state by state comments where required... I've included the 2000 general election results as a guide

SOLID DEMOCRATIC

Baring a blowout of Reagan like proportions, these should go democratic

District of Columbia   - 3 EVs - Gore was + 76.20%
Rhode Island - 4 EVs - Gore was + 29.08%
Massachusetts - 12 EVs - Gore was +27.30%
New York - 31 EVs - Gore was +24.98%
Hawaii - 4 EVs - Gore was +18.33%
Connecticut - 7 EVs - Gore was +17.47%
Maryland - 10 EVs - Gore was +16.39%
New Jersey -15 EVs - Gore was +15.83%
Delaware - 3 EVs - Gore was +13.06%
Illinois - 21 EVs - Gore was +   12.01%
California - 55 EVs - Gore was +  11.80%
Vermont - 3 EVs - Gore was +  9.94%

SOLID DEMOCRATIC - 165 EVs

BATTLEGROUND STATES - LEAN DEMOCRATIC

Washington   11 - EVs - Gore was +5.58%

A very interesting state.  In 2000 The Democrats won the Senate seat by about 2000 votes, despite only carrying 2 of 68 counties.
Huge Democratic turnout in King County (Seatle) carried both the Senate seat and the State for the Democrats.

The Gay Marraige issue really hurts Bush in Seattle, but really helps everywhere else.  All the extra military spending helps Bush as you get further away from the Coast.  

Over the last few cycles this state is actuallly mildly tending GOP

I tentatively lean this one to the Democrats, but I suspect the margin will be less than in 2000 - Keep this state on your watch list

Michigan      17   EVs - Gore was +5.13%

Rust belt state has been pounded as US auto production shifts from Unionized big 3 auto plants in the Rust Belt, to Non-Union non- big 3 plants in the South - Kerry and the Dems wins this state going away...

Maine      4   EVs - Gore was +-5.11%

Trivia about Maine - allows for a split electoral college vote, who ever carries each of Maine's 2 house districts gets 1 EV, and the overall state winner gets the other 2.  The GOP has a very strong chance of picking up Maine2 this cycle, so I will make a quirky prediction and say that Kerry gets 3 EVs and Bush gets 1...

Pennsylvania   21   EVs - Gore was +-4.17%

Everything I said about MIchigan, but more so....

Oregon      7   EVs - Gore was +0.44%

Politically a very weird state.  Somebody once defined Oregon as a place that supports the Death penaly... but only if the electric chair is solar powered...  

Softwood Lumber dispute with Canada gives Bush some advantage here due to Bush Tariffs,... historically too close to call...  Will leave it with the Dems for now..

Wisconsin   10   EVs - Gore was +0.22%

Semi-Rust Belt state (curdled cheese?)...think this one stays in the Dems column

New Mexico   5   EVs - Gore was +0.06%

Growing Hispanic Vote helps the Dems, may be partly offset by Gay Marraige issue as most Hispanics tend to be social conservatives.

Too close to call, but I'll leave this one in the Dem column,   Bill Richardson is a Democratic Governor, but in reality, flip a coin....

New Hampshire   4 EVs   Bush was +1.27%

Bush took a huge pounding during the Democratic primary, and state hurt bad by high tech outsourcing.  This one flips to the Dems.

Ohio   20 EVs   Bush was +3.51%

This state will be very, very close.  It may even be 2004's Florida.
As a rust belt state that has taken it on the chin - I'll tentatively put this one in the Democratic column. - If your a Republican, Ohioi for the DEms has GOT to hurt - No GOP candidate has won the Presidency without Ohio duriing the entire 20th century...

West Virginia   5 EVs - Bush was +6.32%

2000 was an anomaly over the coal issue.  Back to the Dems

LEAN DEMOCRATIC - 103 EVs (took one off for Maine)
SOLID DEMOCRATIC - 165 EVS
TOTAL - 268 EVs

BATTLEGROUND - LEAN GOP

Minnesota   10   EVs - Gore was +2.40%

Tending GOP gradually, GOP took the Senate seat in 2000, GOP state party much better organized and mobilized than before.  I will give this on to Bush & the GOP... Hmmm.. GOOP has a shot in Minnesota... they times they ARE a changing...

Iowa      7   EVs - Gore was +0.31%

Buchanan cost Bush this state in 2000, it was so close that Buchanan being out of the race may tilt it to Bush, also the whole military scene helps Bush, plus the Gay Marraige thing

I'll Give this one to Bush and the GOP

Missouri   11   Bush was +3.34%

No Carnahan sysmpathy vote, no Ashcroft, and hopefully no unusual goings on in St. Loius.  Bush should hold.

Florida   27 EVs - 0.01%

Brother Jeb won big in 2002, plus the elderly factor HELPS bush.  Bush actually won the +65 vote 50/46 in 2000.  The elderly actually break into two groups the young seniors (under 70) who tend GOP fairly strongly, and the old seniors (over 70) who are strongly Democratic.  Naturally, the +70s are dying off faster than the under 70s...

Nevada   5 EVs - Bush was +3.55%

State is getting very very close as Las Vegas grows and become more of a typical big city, it helps the Dems.  I'll leave it GOP for now, but DEFINITELY on the watch list

Tennessee   11 EVs Bush was +3.86%

Tennessee is a GOP state now.  Gore couldn't even carry his home state.  This puppy ain't even close any more.

Arkansas   6 EVs - Bush was +5.44%

Same as Tennessee

Arizona   10 EVs - Bush was +6.28%

A lot like Nevada in terms of demographic changes - I'll leave it GOP for now, but also on the watch list.

TOTAL BATTLEGROUND LEAN GOP - 87 EVs + 1 for Maine = 88

SOLID GOP STATES

Louisiana   9 EVs - Bush was +7.68%
Virginia   13 EVs - Bush was +8.04%
Colorado   9 EVs - Bush was +8.36%
Georgia   15 EVs - Bush was +11.69%

Some Dems say it will be close - I have a one word reply -Zel Miller...

North Carolina   15 EVs - Bush was +12.83%
Alabama   9 EVs - Bush was +14.88%
Kentucky   8 EVs - Bush was +15.13%
Indiana   11 EVs - Bush was +15.63%
South Carolina   8  EVs - Bush was + 15.93%
Mississippi   6  EVs - Bush was +16.91%
Kansas   6    EVs - Bush was +20.80%
Texas   34 EVs - Bush was + 21.32%
Oklahoma   7 EVs - Bush was + 21.88%
South Dakota   3  EVs - Bush was +22.73%
Montana   3  EVs - Bush was + 25.07%
North Dakota   3  EVs - Bush was + 27.60%
Nebraska   5  EVs - Bush was + 28.99%
Alaska   3 EVs - Bush was +30.95%
Idaho   4 EVs - Bush was + 39.53%
Wyoming   3 EVs - Bush was +40.06%
Utah   5 EVs - Bush was +40.49%

SOLID GOP = 182 EVs
TOTAL BATTLEGROUND LEAN GOP - 87 EVs + 1 for Maine = 88

BUSH WINS 270/268 in the Electoral College

I Like that it is a Show down what will Happen


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 27, 2004, 04:17:19 PM
Oregon (But Iowa and Wisconsin were also damned close).

Whilst they are certainly useful guides, I think that basing predictions solely on trends and history can be a bit misleading. If we did it in 2000, we probably would have predicted a much larger Gore win.

The publuic is fickle, figures aren't-but only the public votes.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 27, 2004, 04:59:02 PM
Some states can certainly be predicted by trends, for sure.

BTW, was I right with Oregon?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 27, 2004, 11:15:42 PM
Vorlon, I've been wanting to do this analysis for a long time.  Thanks for helping me out.  I would like to see 1988 included as well, given that the Republicans won that year and the Democrats ran a "Massachusetts liberal".  I think this would help with the analysis in the south.  I've actually started it already only with the southern states so I think I can use what you did to solidify what I've done so far.

It's going to be another close election.
1988 is a frak election. Massive Democratic strength in the remaining farming areas. Republican Total Control in the suburbs frightened stiff of Willie Horton. it's not a year I'd base any predictions on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 01, 2004, 12:17:26 PM
Well it appears the map has finally shifted from all the Democratic fantasy scenarios submitted - New Hampshire is now Red.  I think this is very unlikely to be the case in November.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 01, 2004, 12:25:33 PM
Well it appears the map has finally shifted from all the Democratic fantasy scenarios submitted - New Hampshire is now Red.  I think this is very unlikely to be the case in November.

Cool! It's the first time that the prediction map has actaully changed, as far as I remember! :D

The last NH poll gives Kerry a 15 point lead there, so it certainly appears competitive to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 01, 2004, 01:58:22 PM
you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fmr. Gov. NickG on March 01, 2004, 02:04:29 PM
you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

I think they are talking about the map that lists the median of everyone's general election predictions.  Until now, it has always been identical to the 2000 results.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 01, 2004, 02:05:00 PM
ah ok


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 01, 2004, 02:06:36 PM
you guys talking about the switch of colours for the democratic primary so Kerry is red, Edwards green and Dean purple?

I think they are talking about the map that lists the median of everyone's general election predictions.  Until now, it has always been identical to the 2000 results.

Spot on. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Saratoga2DM on March 03, 2004, 01:02:46 PM
Hello All:

Super Tuesday has finally revealed the Democratic nominee for the presidency,  and for the first time since 1988 he is a northerner.  John Kerry told GW Bush last night on the phone that he wanted to "stick to the issues" yet our conservative media has not revealed to the voting public how they will interpret that statement.  

Kerry vs.  Bush will be an interesting ticket and it will be a close election unless one or the other candidate falls apart  prior to the election.  Can Kerry sustain his momentum now that he will be harassed by the GOP, the media, and to an extent Ralph Nader?  I don't know.  Kerry understands how improtant this election is to the future of our great democracy, and we can only hope the voting public answers his call to dethrone Bush from his Supreme Court appointed-presidency.  

I have a feeling that legitimacy will be another key issue in this campaign, especially since election 2000 will come back to haunt Bush in november.  

Finally, the issue of potential running mates for both candidates is a puzzling one.  Will Cheney decide to leave the politics and if so, who will replace him?  Maybe Colin Powell, but I have heard that NY governor George Pataki may want to be Bush's running mate.  His strong environmental record and his current popularity in NY would make the Republican ticket very difficult to beat.  

For Kerry, Geographical balance is necessary.  Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be great for the Dems but in an interview with Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago, he said he would rather stay as governor.  Edwards would be a likely choice since he is very popular in the South.  Some have mentioned Hillary Clinton but in my opinion she should stay as senator and leave politics when her term ends in 2006.   But I think when all is said and done, Kerry will make the right choice.  

As for me, I need to reevaluate my prediction map.  
See you later and long live the Empire State.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 03, 2004, 05:03:49 PM
Hello All:

Super Tuesday has finally revealed the Democratic nominee for the presidency,  and for the first time since 1988 he is a northerner.  John Kerry told GW Bush last night on the phone that he wanted to "stick to the issues" yet our conservative media has not revealed to the voting public how they will interpret that statement.  

Kerry vs.  Bush will be an interesting ticket and it will be a close election unless one or the other candidate falls apart  prior to the election.  Can Kerry sustain his momentum now that he will be harassed by the GOP, the media, and to an extent Ralph Nader?  I don't know.  Kerry understands how improtant this election is to the future of our great democracy, and we can only hope the voting public answers his call to dethrone Bush from his Supreme Court appointed-presidency.  

I have a feeling that legitimacy will be another key issue in this campaign, especially since election 2000 will come back to haunt Bush in november.  

Finally, the issue of potential running mates for both candidates is a puzzling one.  Will Cheney decide to leave the politics and if so, who will replace him?  Maybe Colin Powell, but I have heard that NY governor George Pataki may want to be Bush's running mate.  His strong environmental record and his current popularity in NY would make the Republican ticket very difficult to beat.  

For Kerry, Geographical balance is necessary.  Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be great for the Dems but in an interview with Wolf Blitzer a couple of weeks ago, he said he would rather stay as governor.  Edwards would be a likely choice since he is very popular in the South.  Some have mentioned Hillary Clinton but in my opinion she should stay as senator and leave politics when her term ends in 2006.   But I think when all is said and done, Kerry will make the right choice.  

As for me, I need to reevaluate my prediction map.  
See you later and long live the Empire State.

A few points to you about what you just said:

1. What momentum does Kerry have? Democratic Primary victories? they are democrats voting, he needs to pull people away from the GOP or Nader.

2. He won't pick Colin Powell, the reason Colin Powell has never run for President is that his wife was afraid he would get shot because he is Afro-Carribean.

3. Even if he offered it to Hillary Clinton she probably wouldn't take it, she wants Kerry as she thinks he will lose meaning 2008 will be wide open to Hillary.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 03, 2004, 05:14:27 PM
'Kerry will love'? :D

it supposed to be 'lose', right? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 03, 2004, 05:18:06 PM
what are you talking about man? it says lose *shifty eyes*

no love of course, Kerry is gonna have a sex scandal involving Hillary!!!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 03, 2004, 05:56:46 PM
what are you talking about man? it says lose *shifty eyes*

no love of course, Kerry is gonna have a sex scandal involving Hillary!!!!!

That's not a very nice mental image... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 03, 2004, 09:06:01 PM
If your going by current polling NH is solid Kerry, 53-38% in the latest poll I believe.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on March 04, 2004, 09:35:53 AM
Thanks, Vorlon, for sharing what sounds like an informed opinion on polling.

The upcoming campaign is sure to be hard fought and bitter, and polls will likely be used to misinform as much as inform.

Knowing what's scientific and what's not would be very helpful.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 04, 2004, 11:02:00 AM
Yes, VORLON, excellent information on polls.  Can you share any websites where one can find these polls?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 04, 2004, 12:06:25 PM
Those are indeed some good points. Thanks for sharing... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 04, 2004, 01:37:49 PM
It seems like the question of reliabilty in polls always pop up...I tried to explain some of the basics before, Angus, I think it was, did it as well in a more pedagogic way. Than my way that is, not trying to bash you... ;)

Basically, you jsut have to use your common sense when it comes to statistics, most of it is more or less self-explanatory, as long as we're talking general guidelines, as with most of these thinga. It's quantifying them that is the hard part...  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 04, 2004, 02:08:06 PM
Yes, VORLON, excellent information on polls.  Can you share any websites where one can find these polls?


Three sites that list a lot of polls..

From waaaaaaay to the left...

http://prorev.com/amline.htm

From waaaaaaay to the right...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Just the numbers...

www.pollingreport.com

Do you need to pay anything at any of these sites?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 04, 2004, 02:12:34 PM
no


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 04, 2004, 02:14:28 PM

Good then. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 04, 2004, 02:48:26 PM
Yes, VORLON, excellent information on polls.  Can you share any websites where one can find these polls?


Three sites that list a lot of polls..

From waaaaaaay to the left...

http://prorev.com/amline.htm

From waaaaaaay to the right...

www.realclearpolitics.com

Just the numbers...

www.pollingreport.com

Also:
www.dcpoliticalreport.com (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com)


Title: what will Bush run on?
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 04, 2004, 11:03:39 PM
Foreign policy? The economy? Culture wars?

I consider Kerry a weak candidate--too many votes on big issues based on political expediency--but what does Bush campaign on.

The Iraq War was based on fraud and exploded the deficit.

To the extent the tax cuts have affected the economy, it's been good for the rich and not helpful for middle class workers.

Bush has mismanaged the economy, although Kerry doesn't have much credibility on fiscal discipline.

Bush can run on his Gay marriage amendment, but I detect a lack of sincerity. Bush only believes in the amendment when it's good politics. This sort of duplicity enrages the TBs.

Bush will suffer from depressed turnout and outright defection by social reactionaries.

The big business people are going to defect because of the deficit and a loopy foreign policy.

With Bush's credibility shot, he will have trouble across the country. I predict he will lose at least one state the GOP has won in the last three presidential elections. Virginia? Indiana? one of the Carolinas?


Title: Re:what will Bush run on?
Post by: opebo on March 05, 2004, 11:39:00 AM
Foreign policy? The economy? Culture wars?

I consider Kerry a weak candidate--too many votes on big issues based on political expediency--but what does Bush campaign on.

The Iraq War was based on fraud and exploded the deficit.

To the extent the tax cuts have affected the economy, it's been good for the rich and not helpful for middle class workers.

Bush has mismanaged the economy, although Kerry doesn't have much credibility on fiscal discipline.

Bush can run on his Gay marriage amendment, but I detect a lack of sincerity. Bush only believes in the amendment when it's good politics. This sort of duplicity enrages the TBs.

Bush will suffer from depressed turnout and outright defection by social reactionaries.

The big business people are going to defect because of the deficit and a loopy foreign policy.

With Bush's credibility shot, he will have trouble across the country. I predict he will lose at least one state the GOP has won in the last three presidential elections. Virginia? Indiana? one of the Carolinas?

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  


Title: Re:what will Bush run on?
Post by: Gustaf on March 05, 2004, 01:10:36 PM
Foreign policy? The economy? Culture wars?

I consider Kerry a weak candidate--too many votes on big issues based on political expediency--but what does Bush campaign on.

The Iraq War was based on fraud and exploded the deficit.

To the extent the tax cuts have affected the economy, it's been good for the rich and not helpful for middle class workers.

Bush has mismanaged the economy, although Kerry doesn't have much credibility on fiscal discipline.

Bush can run on his Gay marriage amendment, but I detect a lack of sincerity. Bush only believes in the amendment when it's good politics. This sort of duplicity enrages the TBs.

Bush will suffer from depressed turnout and outright defection by social reactionaries.

The big business people are going to defect because of the deficit and a loopy foreign policy.

With Bush's credibility shot, he will have trouble across the country. I predict he will lose at least one state the GOP has won in the last three presidential elections. Virginia? Indiana? one of the Carolinas?

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.


Title: Re:what will Bush run on?
Post by: Mort from NewYawk on March 05, 2004, 01:29:21 PM

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.
A change from the Bush administration to a Kerry administration would mean a turnaround in foreign policy. The people advising the President in national security, a completely appointed area, would be completely different.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 05, 2004, 01:33:44 PM
Not so Gustaff - theres a big difference in a 10-20% higher tax rate on the rich, or in having or not having a capital gains tax, or estate tax, or tort reform, or in the Supreme Court.


Title: Re:what will Bush run on?
Post by: Gustaf on March 05, 2004, 01:34:10 PM

Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

I think vital is a bit of an overstatement. Politicians have relatively little effect, moreso in the US than anywhere else.
A change from the Bush administration to a Kerry administration would mean a turnaround in foreign policy. The people advising the President in national security, a completely appointed area, would be completely different.

Ywah, I agree foreign policy might change some, but most politicians are rather pragmatic and end up doing very much the same things anyway. Especially in the US, since you're so big, have a realtively weak goverment and a lot of checks and balances in the system.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 06, 2004, 03:06:57 PM
I have my map ready. This is what I think will happen. Democrats are fooling themselves.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WalterMitty on March 06, 2004, 04:05:07 PM
alright guys, i entered my map.  let me know what you think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 06, 2004, 10:10:52 PM
alright guys, i entered my map.  let me know what you think.

You just took the 2000 map and switched NH...that's no fun :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 06, 2004, 10:16:40 PM
I have my map ready. This is what I think will happen. Democrats are fooling themselves.

I don't see your prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 06, 2004, 10:44:51 PM
Here it is :

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041170P1 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041170P1)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 06, 2004, 10:46:57 PM
Link doesn't work


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 06, 2004, 10:52:31 PM
Miami you posted your map on this board earlier how'd you do that?

BTW, Canes stink, go Hokies!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 06, 2004, 11:22:32 PM
I see it now, I didn't type in the speace before.

You ask me how to post an image, and then you say that my Hurricanes suck?  Try again :)

You do it like this:

put [ img] and [ /img ] tags around the web adress of the image you want to post, minus the spaces.


Title: Bush doesn't have to worry about base?
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 06, 2004, 11:31:50 PM
Bush doesn't have to worry about his base - either cultural conservatives or business people - for one big reason:  the alternative is so horrible.  The conservatives see that two or three Supreme Court justices will be appointed by the next President, and the business people see that Kerry will raise their taxes enormously.  For all Republicans, a Bush victory is vital.  

One, Bush can't win with just his base; he needs swing voters. You know the people that bought his line about being a "united not a divider".

But beyond Bush getting weak with swing voters he's gonna have trouble with his base.

The business people are jittery about deficits. They probably think divided gov't helps with fiscal discipline. But there's a long list of reasons business people might want to let the Dems run the show.

1. Single-payer health care looks like a good way to cut off a number of labor disputes before they happen.
2. In the tension between optimizing the economy between the stock market and employment, it may make sense to shift toward the employment-centered management.
3. WTO and NAFTA is not working for all industries. There are losers as well as winners.
4. Bush's radical foreign policy is probably making it harder for Americans to do business overseas. Int'l business types also might be nervous about "invade first; ask questions later". There's a bunch of foreign policy issues that aren't being handled well.
5. Bush's strong ideological bent to management and surrounding himself with "yes men" looks like bad management.
6. People may have nostalgia for the Clinton years when everybody was better off.

Cultural reactionaries may defect from Bush for the following reasons.
1. Bush's immigration policies are optimized around business and pandering to Latino voters. He has sold out the cultural reactionaries on this issue.
2. On gay marriage Bush mouths the words, but it's easy to get the impression he's just saying it during an election year and has no intent to push the issue after the election.
3. If any cultural reactionaries haven't been converted from worrying about "Zionist Occupied Government" to thinking greater Israel needs to be achieved before the Second Coming, it would be easy to think that Bush is having his strings pulled by the Sharon gov't.
4. There isn't a political issue that really galvanizes anti-Black sentiment. So it's hard to stir this pot.
5. Members of Right Wing organizations, including socially reactionary organizations, are nervous about the implementation of the PATRIOT Act. I even saw the PATRIOT Act covered in a skeptical light in an evangelical Christian mag being passed at street corners.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 06, 2004, 11:52:55 PM
Ok go to the predictions part and type in

States Rights  as the user name. It works for me.
I can't complain about the map. It is almost the same as my update after the Tuesday results. Just switch WI for PA and NH. I figure I'll make adjustments when the VP is announced as it may carry some weight in a state or two.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 06, 2004, 11:55:41 PM
Here we go :

()

Any chance of California ever going Republican again?


Title: why will people vote for Bush?
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 07, 2004, 12:00:53 AM
Here we go :

Any chance of California ever going Republican again?

I'll bite. Why do you think Bush is popular? Why will people vote for him?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 12:03:16 AM
Bringing morality back to the oval office, cutting taxes, and fighting terrorism. Clinton whereas  brought shame to the oval office, hiked taxes (the largest tax hike in US history), and did very very little about terrorism. Most people dont want to change horses during wartime either.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Kghadial on March 07, 2004, 12:22:18 AM
Bringing morality back to the oval office, cutting taxes, and fighting terrorism. Clinton whereas  brought shame to the oval office, hiked taxes (the largest tax hike in US history), and did very very little about terrorism. Most people dont want to change horses during wartime either.

Clinton actually came close to killing Osama, i think the missile arrived 90 minutes late. Its much Closer than dubya's done. Although we may very likely capture or kill osama this year, but so far dubya hasn't got close.  

Clinton presided over the greatest economy in modern US history. If you look at the lowest employment rate that certain states have ever had you see that many have '99 , '00 or early '01 as the lowest unemployment rates in their modern history. His tax hike allowed a balanced budget.
Dubya is doing much obscene spending, with a half trillion dollar deficit. Its either pay now , or pay twice as much through interest over the years. Thanks to the Vietnam war and Reagan and now Bush roughly 1/6 (estimation on my part I can't remember the actually fraction) of the federal government's expenditures are to paying off the national debt.

So Clinton lied about getting a Blow Job from an relatively unattractive girl, hell most guys would lie about that too. Clinton's lies hurt basically only himself and Hillary. Dubya's lies about Iraq has cost the US its credibility abroad .

A vote for Bush is a vote to increase the National Debt over 9 trillion (1.5 trillion his next term, and .5 trillion for someone to bring it under control), and increase hatred for the US the world over, among other bad things.


Title: CI responds to the usual GOP talking points
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 07, 2004, 12:25:07 AM
Bringing morality back to the oval office, cutting taxes, and fighting terrorism. Clinton whereas  brought shame to the oval office, hiked taxes (the largest tax hike in US history), and did very very little about terrorism. Most people dont want to change horses during wartime either.

If Bush lied to get us into a war we didn't need to fight and cost a bunch of money, would that qualify as being immoral?

What's the virtue of cutting taxes if it's just putting the bill on the credit card? Didn't the GOP used to complain about Dems doing this?

Are there more people taking up arms against the United States today than there were when Bush took office? How many "terrorists" do you reckon have been captured, killed or quit for personal reasons? How many new "terrorists" have joined organizations or taken up arms against the USA freelance?

Why do you think Clinton getting blown in the White House will have any bearing on the 2004 election? Are you really that uptight about sex? Do you feel like you can't ask your wife for what you want sexually?

You can criticize Clinton taxing and spending, but it worked better. Deficits were down; economic growth and jobs were up. By what measure is Bush tax/spending policy a success?

Clinton foreign policy stunk. I didn't vote for him in 96 and didn't vote for Gore in 2000. I'm leaning toward not voting for Kerry either. But if you're gonna beat-up on Clinton on terrorism, what do you think Bush is trying to hide by limiting his and Condie Rice's testimony to the 9/11 commission?

If the policies aren't working--and Bush's policies aren't addressing the big threats--why not change leadership?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2004, 04:59:05 AM

Not bad... but Alabama and Arkansas will not go for Bush with over 60%, and I doubt that Mississippi will either.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 07, 2004, 09:51:29 AM

Any chance of California ever going Republican again?

Not in this election.  Even though Gore "only" won it by 11%, that's still a 650,000 vote swing needed to sway it to Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 10:35:41 AM
I would contend the National Debt is really meaningless. Everyone carries debt, debt isnt always a bad thing. Only one president in US History has ever payed off the National Debt and no president will ever do it again. Americans are overtaxed and thats a fact, overtaxed by a questionable tax system in the first place. Get rid of the IRS and put in a national sales tax. So its ok the Clinton lied to a grand jury? Ok, if you ever get called for a grand jury and lie what are they going to do to you? Let you go free and clear? Doubtful. Perjury is criminal whether its lying about a blowjob or lying about murder. I bet you'd be the first the crucify Nixon though. I remember Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster and on and on. Bush didnt lie about Iraq, he stated what he believed, Kerry agreed with Bush before the start of the war. Sadam did have WMD and they are probably still in Iraq or in Syria. Anyone that says their are no WMD are lying to themselves and to the Americans. Some of those weapons they had that killed thousands you can fit into a tube that you can put in your pocket. So whats not to say they weren't snuck out or buried? What about all the weapons the US Soldiers have found buried since the war? They wouldnt bury the WMD which would be the most damning evidence against them? Just for example. Have the Europeans ever found all the art work and gold the Nazis hid in the Second World War?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 07, 2004, 11:58:50 AM
The only problem was that the economy got better too quickly for the stock market.  When the growth abated a bit, the overvalued stocks plummeted taking consumer confidence with it.  Companies couldn't afford to remain here so an accelerated wave of outsourcing screwed the job numbers.  Companies who could afford to stay had to give pay cuts and reduce their workforce.  A reduced workforce doing the samer activity translates into higher productivity.  Productivity = Profits.  However, with mandatory overhead at 3%-7% in Mexico and 22% in the US, corporations are performing their profit induced hiring in Mexico.  This translates into depressed job markets in the US.

Note that none of this has much of anything to do with profligate spending or iresponsible tax cuts; both parties are irrelevant in their claims.

The point is that the cycles of the economy, good and bad have nothing to do with governemtn programs.  If the government just leaves well enough alone things will work out.  The only thing is that until the mandatory overhead is tripled, or at least doubled in Mexico, the job market will be less attractive here; the US public would never stand for a reduction of more than 2% here.  In this suite, the Dems' cry for fair trade is not as far off as many would pose.  But, the overhead will naturally rise in 20 years to match the US; we don't need to renegotiate or cancel the treaties.  This is why we Reps are saying to continue to leave well enough alone; the unemployment is low enough as it is.  It's also a good way to break the vicious cycle of a consumer culture and credit card debt.  With a pay cut a family is likely to rethink their spending habits.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Firefly on March 07, 2004, 12:12:12 PM
I would contend the National Debt is really meaningless. Everyone carries debt, debt isnt always a bad thing. Only one president in US History has ever payed off the National Debt and no president will ever do it again. Americans are overtaxed and thats a fact, overtaxed by a questionable tax system in the first place. Get rid of the IRS and put in a national sales tax. So its ok the Clinton lied to a grand jury? Ok, if you ever get called for a grand jury and lie what are they going to do to you? Let you go free and clear? Doubtful. Perjury is criminal whether its lying about a blowjob or lying about murder. I bet you'd be the first the crucify Nixon though. I remember Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, Vince Foster and on and on. Bush didnt lie about Iraq, he stated what he believed, Kerry agreed with Bush before the start of the war. Sadam did have WMD and they are probably still in Iraq or in Syria. Anyone that says their are no WMD are lying to themselves and to the Americans. Some of those weapons they had that killed thousands you can fit into a tube that you can put in your pocket. So whats not to say they weren't snuck out or buried? What about all the weapons the US Soldiers have found buried since the war? They wouldnt bury the WMD which would be the most damning evidence against them? Just for example. Have the Europeans ever found all the art work and gold the Nazis hid in the Second World War?

Re: National Debt:  National debt may or may not be meaningless; however, long-term budget deficits drag down the economy.

You say that it is a fact that Americans are overtaxed.  Do you have any evidence for this supposed fact?  Here's some that disputes your claim:

Total tax as percent of GDP:
United States- 28.9
Japan- 28.4
Germany- 37.0
United Kingdom- 37.2
Canada- 37.4
Italy- 42.7
France- 45.2
Sweden- 52.0

As you can see, among the top 8 industrialized countries in the world, only the citizens of Japan (barely) have a lower tax burden.  Replacing our progressive income tax system with a national sales tax would shift the tax burden to the lower, working, and middle classes.  If you want to destroy the middle class, then a national sales tax is a great idea.  Without the middle class, there would be noone to buy all the fancy products that corporations produce, so a national sales tax would eventually hurt business and the upper classes, too.

Taxes pay for social services on which many lower-income people depend.  Perhaps you make enough money that you don't need many of these services, but to rob these programs from those Americans who do need them so that you can pay lower taxes is just plain selfish.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2004, 12:19:59 PM
Good points Firefly :)

Whenever the Right promise Tax Cuts they mean big tax cuts for the rich... and maybe a very small one for normal people.
This is morally wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 12:35:15 PM
States have sales tax and it doesnt "kill" the middle class. If the national sales tax was say 6%, everyone would pay 6%. Not just poor or middle class. If their weren't any deductions for tax from your pay check you would have that extra money to spend and would more then make up for what the sales tax would take. You are right I dont depend on any government assistance but I am far from rich, I'm just barely middle class. Their is plenty of work in this nation for people to keep themselves off assistance, it's the motivation of people thats the problem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 12:38:36 PM
Good points Firefly :)

Whenever the Right promise Tax Cuts they mean big tax cuts for the rich... and maybe a very small one for normal people.
This is morally wrong.

The following is the actual distribution of who pays what it terms of taxes:

Percentage of Total Federal & Estate Taxes paid by Income Quintile      
Congressional Budget Office - 2002 Taxation Year   
   
Top 10%       69%
9th Quintile      14%
8th Quintile      8%
7th Quintile      6%
6th Quintile      4%
5th Quintile      3%
4th Quintile      1%
3rd Quintile      -0.6%
2nd Quintile      -1.7%
Bottom 10%      -2.4%

Negative numbers indicate a net refund, where variouis credits refunded exceed that amount of tax actually paid.

You seem to feel the current distribution to be unfair.

Please provide the taxation distrubution that you believe would be fair.

For example, the top 10% currently pay 69% of the nations tax burden - what do you believe would be a "fair" number?

The bottom 50% of the population pays about 4% of the tax burden - what % would you feel would be appropriate?

This is a serious question - not rhetorical - I would honestly like your answer...




Cool Ayn Rand picture. I got a number of friends who are Rand-fanatics. :) Odd map also...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2004, 12:41:43 PM
Good points Firefly :)

Whenever the Right promise Tax Cuts they mean big tax cuts for the rich... and maybe a very small one for normal people.
This is morally wrong.

The following is the actual distribution of who pays what it terms of taxes:

Percentage of Total Federal & Estate Taxes paid by Income Quintile      
Congressional Budget Office - 2002 Taxation Year   
   
Top 10%       69%
9th Quintile      14%
8th Quintile      8%
7th Quintile      6%
6th Quintile      4%
5th Quintile      3%
4th Quintile      1%
3rd Quintile      -0.6%
2nd Quintile      -1.7%
Bottom 10%      -2.4%

Negative numbers indicate a net refund, where variouis credits refunded exceed that amount of tax actually paid.

You seem to feel the current distribution to be unfair.

Please provide the taxation distrubution that you believe would be fair.

For example, the top 10% currently pay 69% of the nations tax burden - what do you believe would be a "fair" number?

The bottom 50% of the population pays about 4% of the tax burden - what % would you feel would be appropriate?

This is a serious question - not rhetorical - I would honestly like your answer...

The rich should pay more (as should Big Business). Normal people should pays less.
The rich should NOT be given another tax cut.
Considering that the top 10% in America own most things, 69% seems far too low.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 12:41:58 PM
Gustaf I like your signature. The Oscar Wilde quote though sure doesnt hold up with Kerry. Being consistent isn't one of Kerrys strongpoints. Also, when is the last time a senator, one whos spent any time in the senate, has been elected President. J.F.K. was often out so skip him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 12:44:38 PM
Al, how about scrapping the whole system and implementing a fairer tax system? One that doesn't have "Constitutional Questionability". The first thing that needs to go is the IRS.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 12:48:14 PM
Gustaf I like your signature. The Oscar Wilde quote though sure doesnt hold up with Kerry. Being consistent isn't one of Kerrys strongpoints. Also, when is the last time a senator, one whos spent any time in the senate, has been elected President. J.F.K. was often out so skip him.

Thanks. Are you saying that liking THAT quote is not consistent with supporting Kerry? I won't state the obvious answer to that... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 07, 2004, 01:18:34 PM
States Rights-

You're sorely mistaken if you think that our Federal Deficit is good debt.  Good debt is debt incurred in the attainment of a positive cashflow statement.  Last time I checked our cash flow amounts to  -$527,000,000,000.00.  Negative cashflow ==> BAD debt.

The only way to responsibly reduce taxes is to cut services as well.  I think that we should, as Chairman Greenspan suggested, eliminate Social Security and Medicare and make the tax cuts permanent, eliminate the FICA while we're at it.  Then revenues are reduced to $1.3t and outlays are reduced to $1.4t plus the cost of war.  We could easily make up the other $100b in loophole closings and cross-purpose program elimination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 07, 2004, 01:57:43 PM
Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 01:59:41 PM
Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?



Not to mention losing New Hampshire...maybe he's doing a 'Miami'.. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 02:11:08 PM
States Rights-
The only way to responsibly reduce taxes is to cut services as well.  I think that we should, as Chairman Greenspan suggested, eliminate Social Security and Medicare and make the tax cuts permanent, eliminate the FICA while we're at it.  Then revenues are reduced to $1.3t and outlays are reduced to $1.4t plus the cost of war.  We could easily make up the other $100b in loophole closings and cross-purpose program elimination.

That would go over like a lead ballon? I think thats a little extreme. Although, I dont believe in this "Social Security Trustfund", aren't the social security checks that old folks receive now the Social Security Taxes that the younger working people are paying now? How would their be any Trustfund in that case?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 02:15:10 PM
States Rights-
The only way to responsibly reduce taxes is to cut services as well.  I think that we should, as Chairman Greenspan suggested, eliminate Social Security and Medicare and make the tax cuts permanent, eliminate the FICA while we're at it.  Then revenues are reduced to $1.3t and outlays are reduced to $1.4t plus the cost of war.  We could easily make up the other $100b in loophole closings and cross-purpose program elimination.

That would go over like a lead ballon? I think thats a little extreme. Although, I dont believe in this "Social Security Trustfund", aren't the social security checks that old folks receive now the Social Security Taxes that the younger working people are paying now? How would their be any Trustfund in that case?

If they didn't save money for retirement, too bad, let them starve. They would probably be needy-greedy Democrats anyway... :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 02:22:57 PM
Nowadays if you end up with no money in your old age it's your own fault. Many, many companies offer excellent retirement packages and 401(K). I do not expect social security to be there by the time I'm able to retire. I'm almost 25 now, I'll probably have to be 80 to get benefits, I know right now its 75 for me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 07, 2004, 02:51:00 PM
I find it disturbing to read Republicans on this board try to explain away the national debt of the USA, with phrases such as 'it's not a problem' and even more that the Clinton recovery was 'too much too fast.' Get realistic. The growth in jobs in February was so low it couldn't keep up with the growth in the working population, never mind alieviating the existing unemployed. Bush has lost more jobs than Herbert Hoover, and as one economist put it quite simply; 'Yuck' The stockmarket is lumbering along and the value of the Dollar has fallen so much that in the long trend, soon the Euro will be worth more than the Dollar! Yes the economy is better than it was a year ago, but it is far far worse than it was on the day Clinton left office. And all the Republicans can shout about is Clinton's morality! It would almost be excusable if this was part of a worldwide economic downturn, but no. The economy of Japan is gathering speed, as is that of China. The UK's economy is now into its 11th year of sustained growth, it's unemployment rate is the lowest for almost 30 years and we can still afford to pump billions into education and healthcare. Ross Perot where are you now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 07, 2004, 02:53:13 PM
I think Ross Perot is in some sort of asylum.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 02:57:26 PM
Yes the economy, the jobs everything being bad is because of the President. I forgot Companies that are laying people off are run by Individual CEOs and that individuals buy into the stock market. I'm sorry but everything cant be blamed on the President. What about Alan Greenspan, doesnt he have more power over the economy then Bush?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:01:14 PM
Yes the economy, the jobs everything being bad is because of the President. I forgot Companies that are laying people off are run by Individual CEOs and that individuals buy into the stock market. I'm sorry but everything cant be blamed on the President. What about Alan Greenspan, doesnt he have more power over the economy then Bush?

Not really, he rules the interest rate, but that's not the only thing affecting the economy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 03:04:35 PM
So many things affect the economy I find it hard to believe it can be blamed on one man and one man alone. Companies dont follow lockstep with the president. Companies are going to layoff or hire whether or not the President says jobs need to be increased. Just like where I work our boss tries to tell us "We havent got a cost of living raise because Republicans are in office." What a bunch of horse mess. Our companys profits have increased 5% every quarter since Bush took office. And they continue growing. Too many people try to blame the President for all the woes of our country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:07:29 PM
So many things affect the economy I find it hard to believe it can be blamed on one man and one man alone. Companies dont follow lockstep with the president. Companies are going to layoff or hire whether or not the President says jobs need to be increased. Just like where I work our boss tries to tell us "We havent got a cost of living raise because Republicans are in office." What a bunch of horse mess. Our companys profits have increased 5% every quarter since Bush took office. And they continue growing. Too many people try to blame the President for all the woes of our country.

Well, that's politics for you. Politicians, luckily, have much less effect on things than people think, especially when it comes to the economy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 03:09:54 PM
And if you want to take it another step, the congress actually has more authority and influence then the President does. Gustaf have you ever traveled to the US?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:11:07 PM
And if you want to take it another step, the congress actually has more authority and influence then the President does. Gustaf have you ever traveled to the US?

No, but I will after I finish my current level of studies. Why?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 03:12:32 PM
Just curious is all. I recommend touring Florida first. ;-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:17:27 PM
Just curious is all. I recommend touring Florida first. ;-)

Lol...I'll probably go to the Northeast first, since most places one would want to visit are nicely clustered there...but I should of course try and visit all states before I die...with an exception or two... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 03:20:28 PM
The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:22:31 PM
The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?

You use combinaitons of :s and )s mostly. If you quote this post you'll see how they're written: :) :( ;) :P :D ;D etc


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 03:26:08 PM
The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?

You use combinaitons of :s and )s mostly. If you quote this post you'll see how they're written: :) :( ;) :P :D ;D etc


;) ok I was putting a - between the ; and the )



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 03:35:08 PM
The Northeast? Hope you come armed. lol. BTW how do you do the graphic smiles?

You use combinaitons of :s and )s mostly. If you quote this post you'll see how they're written: :) :( ;) :P :D ;D etc


;) ok I was putting a - between the ; and the )



Ah, OK, now it works. :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: afleitch on March 07, 2004, 04:02:32 PM
I hope to visit the US too. I'll head to NY, then New England before heading into Canada! Though I really should pay those relatives in San Diego a visit...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 05:24:57 PM
Fair analysis Vorlon, but just to play Devil's advocate for a little while:

Oregon poll: Kerry +5%, with Nader at 5%

Wasington poll: Kerry +12%

Wisconsin poll: generic Dem +16%

Iowa poll: Kerry +7%

Minnesota poll: +2%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 07, 2004, 05:41:38 PM
Iowa, NH and Minnesota will *probably* switch, the rest wll probably stay the same, IMHO. That said, there is a hell of a long time to go...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 05:43:58 PM
Iowa, NH and Minnesota will *probably* switch, the rest wll probably stay the same, IMHO. That said, there is a hell of a long time to go...

It's way too much time left to make accurate predictions of swing states. However, I do think that Florida will be a tossup again, and that both the pacific and the Mid-West will be stronger for Kerry than people think. I also think Kerry has a chance in the South-West, but those states still lean Bush. I think Kerry will have a much harder time in the rust belt than people expect. PA could go for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 05:44:15 PM
I want to see a 72 or 84 style election this year just for a laugh. Man I'd love that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 07, 2004, 05:44:48 PM
I want to see a 72 or 84 style election this year just for a laugh. Man I'd love that.

Not a chance. Or at least almost not a chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 05:46:28 PM
Yeah I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Politicians nowadays are afraid to speak their mind! Its like the spoof the MAD TV did where the Democrat and Republican were saying the same things and then arguing with each other it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 05:49:26 PM
Forlon, how do you justify Florida going Democrat? JEB won in a landslide and is still very popular. The Gay Marriage issue is going to put Bush ahead of Kerry IMHO. I think Bush should definately make the Gay Marriage Issue a important part of his campaign. I'd generalize and say most Gays dont vote republican, so he doesnt have anything to lose by being against Gay Marriage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 05:55:56 PM
The schools are a big big big issue around here. JEBs school policies are liked by many. Kerry might want to steer clear of the education issue unless he supports vouchers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 07, 2004, 06:17:24 PM
Yeah I doubt that will ever happen again in my lifetime. Politicians nowadays are afraid to speak their mind! Its like the spoof the MAD TV did where the Democrat and Republican were saying the same things and then arguing with each other it.
If the dems nominate Hillary it will. Any rep would beat her. A good rep will make it hurt


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 07:57:19 PM
Unlike many I dont really believe polls. Their are 15 million people that live in Florida. Eight Hundred is a small small small number.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 07, 2004, 10:52:22 PM
Vorlon - your map interests me.  Cool to see a map that has a GOP win without FL or OH.  Why do you think the GOP will win Oregon and more particularly Washington, while losing Florida, Ohio, and WV?


My thoughts as well. I see from your further posts some of your thinking. It would be an interesting campaign that can get out the Dem vote in OH yet leave WA suppressed so that it goes to the GOP.

I do think that the upper midwest states have a lot of possiblility to go GOP, despite the current surge for Kerry. The turnout in the cities of the upper midwest are the critical element for Democratic hopes. The rural/suburban vote tends to be more consistent in its turnout for the GOP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 07, 2004, 11:16:56 PM
Thats how it has been as of late. States the contain the very largest cities have gone democrat. New York, PA, NJ, NY, CA, MI, and Ill.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on March 08, 2004, 12:48:55 AM
Thats how it has been as of late. States the contain the very largest cities have gone democrat. New York, PA, NJ, NY, CA, MI, and Ill.

Texas and Florida have some big-ass cities and they (the Florida ones) were decisive in the last election. Atlanta and Phoenix are also pretty big, not as big as Chicago and New York, but they can match up with Detriot easily.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 12:50:32 AM
I agree large cities are ruling the roost right now. Thank God the framers were wise enough to put a system in that takes some of the edge off that influence (Electoral College).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on March 08, 2004, 01:02:48 AM
I agree large cities are ruling the roost right now. Thank God the framers were wise enough to put a system in that takes some of the edge off that influence (Electoral College).

Well theres a reason they're important. It's because the majority of the population either lives in one or works in the economic umbrella created by one. Actually I think the electoral college is outdated. One vote in Wyoming wields as much power as three votes in Georgia. Thats disenfranchising Georgia voters.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 01:08:04 AM
IMHO 1 vote in a major city is worth 3 votes compared to Stick Town, North Dakota.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on March 08, 2004, 01:10:07 AM
IMHO 1 vote in a major city is worth 3 votes compared to Stick Town, North Dakota.

No, look at Dave's EV/population ratios. Its not about city vs country but big state vs small state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Beet on March 08, 2004, 01:11:51 AM
Actually its worse than I thought. Wyoming has about 150,000 persons per EV whereas Georgia has about 600,000 persons per EV.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 10:50:01 AM
Sounds fair and balanced to me. Large States are equals to Small states. The whole basis of the system of our Government.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: California Dreamer on March 08, 2004, 11:05:17 AM
The EC is as fair and balanced as Fox news.

the EC system has ensured that America IS NOT one man one vote. it is clear that the bigger the state the less your vote counts, as a Californian my vote counts for a fraction of a Wyomingan, North Dakotan or Vermonter

and due to the politics of the day, the Republicans are more popular in the smaller states (so therefore they couldnt be more pleased by this system)

If we changed to a popular vote, or changed so that each state got ECs equivelent to the number of congressional disticts (but not add two for the senators) then it would be 'fair and balanced'


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 11:10:19 AM
We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 08, 2004, 11:20:36 AM
My current prediction:

()

A bit heretical I suppose... but I like thinking for myself...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 08, 2004, 11:23:00 AM
Why are you afraid of democracy, statesrights?  I'm not sure I'd be for a popular vote for president, but I don't know why you fear such a vote.  First of all in over 200 years, there have been only 2 elections where the results were different.  Secondly, if the "big cities" go overwhelmingly for one candidate, I would think that would matter.  Big cities do not vote as a block, anymore than any other group does.  It just happens that the democrats currently appeal to the cities (often due to high concentrations of blacks and other minorities).  I think your fears may reveal your political affiliation more than a valid concern that the results would be less "valid".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: California Dreamer on March 08, 2004, 11:26:35 AM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party


The fact is the current system is 'rigged' in favor of rural and smaller states. Although the framers of the constitution wanted some kind of system to ensure larger states dont dominate smaller states, they couldnt envision an America with the number of smaller states we have and the size disparirty we have today. The bottom line is that the system that was built to ensure the bigger states dont dominate the smaller states has instead created a situtation where the smaller states dominate the bigger ones.

so for 2004, just like 2000, it means the Dems have to work that much harder to get the win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 08, 2004, 11:48:34 AM
It is valuable and appropriate that the votes of rural people and people from smaller communities count for more than voters in huge cities.  Its one of the checks and balances - it prevents democracy, which the Founders quite sensibly saw as a bad thing: the tyranny of the majority.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 08, 2004, 11:52:25 AM
Vorlon -

Your rationale makes a lot of sense, especially regarding WA and OR.  I've always written them off based on little more than 2000 and the fact that their economies are perpetual underperformers.  But I guess they're used to it - their unemployment rate has been much higher than the national average for I believe decades.

Anyway, I see it as quite possiblie Bush wins everything you see  him winning plus FL, OH, WV, and PA.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 08, 2004, 12:02:55 PM
I find it disturbing to read Republicans on this board try to explain away the national debt of the USA, with phrases such as 'it's not a problem' and even more that the Clinton recovery was 'too much too fast.' Get realistic. The growth in jobs in February was so low it couldn't keep up with the growth in the working population, never mind alieviating the existing unemployed. Bush has lost more jobs than Herbert Hoover, and as one economist put it quite simply; 'Yuck' The stockmarket is lumbering along and the value of the Dollar has fallen so much that in the long trend, soon the Euro will be worth more than the Dollar! Yes the economy is better than it was a year ago, but it is far far worse than it was on the day Clinton left office. And all the Republicans can shout about is Clinton's morality! It would almost be excusable if this was part of a worldwide economic downturn, but no. The economy of Japan is gathering speed, as is that of China. The UK's economy is now into its 11th year of sustained growth, it's unemployment rate is the lowest for almost 30 years and we can still afford to pump billions into education and healthcare. Ross Perot where are you now!

I'd just like to pick out the fact you said that soon the Euro will be worth more than the dollar, it ALREADY IS.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 08, 2004, 12:12:41 PM
Quote

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on March 08, 2004, 12:26:14 PM
My current prediction:

()

A bit heretical I suppose... but I like thinking for myself...

I Think That Map is Great


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 12:48:02 PM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 08, 2004, 01:06:02 PM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... :P ;)

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 08, 2004, 01:07:55 PM
Quote

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 01:13:28 PM
Bush wins 52% to Kerrys 48%. Etch it. People don't forget 9/11 or terrorism. Dont depend on the polls.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 08, 2004, 01:15:01 PM
Bush wins 52% to Kerrys 48%. Etch it. People don't forget 9/11 or terrorism. Dont depend on the polls.

I don't know who you're talking to...the majority of voters care more about domestic issues than terrorism.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 08, 2004, 01:17:00 PM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... :P ;)

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

Actually Texas is underrepresented in the ec.  Also, I don't think there should be an 'i' in North or South Dakotans or Montanans.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 08, 2004, 01:19:21 PM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party

Are you implying that I'm a racist? Disgusting. I am far from a racist. In all honest opinion I wish that blacks would wake up and see what the democratic party is really all about and that is the enslavement of the black people and minorities through dependence on the federal govt.

Dependence = slavery
Independence = freedom

'Freedom is slavery'... :P ;)

The EC only makes sense if one supposes that Americans are Texans, Montanians, North Dakotians, South Dakotians, New Mexicans, etc rather than Americans. Otherwise, it's just unfair and stupid.

Actually Texas is underrepresented in the ec.  Also, I don't think there should be an 'i' in North or South Dakotans or Montanans.  

I wasn't saying that Texas was overrepresented, did I? ;)

And I honestly have no idea how to spell North Dakotans correctly, I just went with my gut feeling...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 08, 2004, 01:19:51 PM
Quote

Florida and Ohio are, I believe, pure tossups - they will be very close.  Bush has to get to about 6 points up before Pennsylvania and WV get into play... IMHO anyway...
Quote

As I always like to remind people - Bush (or Gore) don't have to be up a certain number of points up for states to switch.  There's no direct connection between the national numbers and one state - Bush could actually be down from 2000 in national PV and still win PA or IA or WS.. the point is 'all politics is local', and states can shift to differring degrees with the national trend or even against it.

I agree weith you that there is ALWAYS a local factor in each race.  West Virginia in 2000 is the easy example where a local issue trumps the national trend.

I disagree with you that it happens a lot, and to a great degree.  If Kerry or Bush were to get up say 10 points in this race, you would find that in the majority of states they would do 8-12 points better than their party did in 2000.

Granted, there are also regional factors - I suspect that Kerry will do better in the NorthEast than Gore did by  a few points, and worse than Gore in the South by a few points...

I would compare the effects in any individual state to a guy in a rowboat battling the tide... You can make a small difference at the state level, but if the tide is not going you way, usually it will not matter...

Actually, a national swing of 10% would HAVE to correspond to a swing of 8-12% in the majority of states, since the average would have to be 10%...if you see what I mean, lol. ;)

I guess my point is that things do tend to move on a national basis.  

It is very hard to imagine a scenario where Bush GAINED 10 points in Michigan and LOST 10 points in Pennsylvania.  

The national trend is certainly not perfect - you could gain 10 in Georgia and only gain 7 in Louisiania, but it is rare for states to go in the opposite direction - the direction is almost always the same, sometimes the pace is just a little different...

The only real exception is when you have a small state, with a big issue - IE West Virginai and coal in 2000, and perhaps Nevada and the nuclear waste depository in 2004...?

Yeah, I know, and I agree with you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 01:22:28 PM
As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 08, 2004, 01:29:48 PM
As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.
I have no problem with the networks making predictions before polls close.  People have to care enough to vote anyway, in my opinion.  Jeez, if the only criteria were whether you thought your vote would ACTUALLY impact the election, turnout would be EVEN lower than it is.  

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think Dubya lost ONE vote due to the early projection for Gore; biggest nonissue ever.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 08, 2004, 09:24:42 PM


I've said it before and I'll say it again; I don't think Dubya lost ONE vote due to the early projection for Gore; biggest nonissue ever.

Well your 'thought' contradicts hundreds of eye-wittness acounts including one from my cousin.  Are you calling my cousin a liar?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 08, 2004, 09:29:58 PM
What affect do you think Elian Gonzalez had on Gores election loss in Florida?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 08, 2004, 09:32:17 PM
What affect do you think Elian Gonzalez had on Gores election loss in Florida?

I'd say that it cost him maybe 10% of the cuban vote.  It didn't have a huge effect over all, because most Cubans would have voted Bush anyway, but it did cost him the state and the election.

Thank You Elian.  Your sacrafice was not in vain and someday, we will free your people.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 09, 2004, 01:08:39 AM
Yes someday you will be freed. As long as Kerry is kept out of office.

Did you hear about carry voting to cut funding to the CIA right after the 93 World Trade Center bombing. I hope no more bombshells like this come out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 09, 2004, 09:17:48 AM
do you have to ask why he doesnt want the urban areas to have an equal vote to the rural areas?

think back to the platform for the 'States Rights' party


The fact is the current system is 'rigged' in favor of rural and smaller states. Although the framers of the constitution wanted some kind of system to ensure larger states dont dominate smaller states, they couldnt envision an America with the number of smaller states we have and the size disparirty we have today. The bottom line is that the system that was built to ensure the bigger states dont dominate the smaller states has instead created a situtation where the smaller states dominate the bigger ones.

so for 2004, just like 2000, it means the Dems have to work that much harder to get the win.

Actually... I think the system works as intended...

The reason we have a house of Representatives is that the large states were afraid of being outvoted by the smaller states.

The reason we have a Senate is the small states were afraid of being outvoted by the large states.

WE have =/- a structural situation where you need a "super majority" on all things - you need to get the majority of the people (The House of Reps), AND, the majority of the States (The Senate)....

Yes, Wyoming is very much over represented at 3 electoral votes... but with 27 EVS I have a sense Florida will not feel too neglected in the next 8 months...
I'm not so sure that the small states are as overrepresented as it would seem by their EVs. I would be true if every state operated like ME or NE and decided their electors on individual CDs. All the big states use winner-takes-all in the EC and that magnifies the margin for the majority. One can make a statistical case that CA's block vote in the EC is as unfair as WY.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 09, 2004, 10:15:12 AM
What the truth is is that Democrats dont want the small states to count because they have their hands in the backpockets of CA, NY, and all the North East. If they got a popular vote and no electoral college it would be a huge boost to their party. They just want to destroy the constitution for their own political game. It's sad really.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 09, 2004, 10:58:13 AM
As long as the news reporters dont say "Florida goes to Kerry (or vice versa)" before ALL the polls have closed! Geesh reporters, Florida is in two time zones.

Reporters are scoundrels anyhow.

I disagree with you.

There is actually pretty good evidence that an early call of an election impacts turnout in other areas.

When it became clear in 1980 that Reagan was blowing out Carter, a lot of Dems stayed home in the western time zones.  Most pros figure that this vost the DEms maybe a half dozen house seats in California.

When bush "lost" florida in 2000 it likely cost the GOP senate swats in Missori and Washington state.

I'd like to see a uniform nation wide closing time for this reason.
You are raising a separate issue here, which is the impact of projections of the entire election (Reagan projected to win once the East coast & some of the central time zone were done) impacting states still voting.  I was talking about the projection of the state of Florida with 10 minutes or so left to vote.

Supersoulty, I don't know your brother in law (who may or may not be a liar) and I have heard of no accounts of voters leaving the lines to vote due to the projections of the networks within minutes of polls closing in the panhandle of Florida.

I did make another point which is still valid.  A candidate/party has no one to blame but themselves if voters in, for example, California stay home because Reagan is winning, I say too bad. I'm also uncertain how many Reagan voters might also stay home thinking their vote is not needed for Reagan to win, so that would minimize the impact of Carter voters staying home.  If the support is that weak and the voter's concern for the election that shallow, then too bad.  I say this even though, most would agree in general it is more likely to hurt democrats, given that Republicans historically have had a more solid base of support and turnout has been a positive for democrats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 09, 2004, 01:31:23 PM
I think Vorlon is my favorite member here.  Always informative and educational, never partisan.  I see you changed your map, putting Minn to Kerry.  Any particular reason for that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 09, 2004, 02:58:18 PM
What the truth is is that Democrats dont want the small states to count because they have their hands in the backpockets of CA, NY, and all the North East. If they got a popular vote and no electoral college it would be a huge boost to their party. They just want to destroy the constitution for their own political game. It's sad really.

It wouldn't be a huge boost, that's ridiculous. And the small state's voters would still count, just as much as those of the big states. The issue is whether people should be discriminated against on the basis of their residence or not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 09, 2004, 03:28:13 PM
hold both candidates in near equal comtempt...

Reminds me of McKay in Porridge...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 09, 2004, 05:51:12 PM
Hello Forum members, I'm new here and I have high hopes. Let me first say, I'm a foreigner. I'm an Ontario resident in Canada, so I appologize if I make any mistakes. I've made some educated guesses, and I think I did pretty well.

I think the Democrats will win ME, NH, VT, Mass., Conn., RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, DE, MD, DC, LA, IL, WI, IA, MN, OR, WA, and HI.

Republicans: VA, FL, AL, MS, TN, IN, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD,ND, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, ID, NV, CA, AK, and KY.

I think the swing states are WV, NC, GA, SC, and MO. I think that if Edwards is selected as VP the Democrats will win NC, SC and GA.

That's 246-D 225-R and 51- Swing. Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mooster on March 09, 2004, 05:58:23 PM
I'm new to this web-site.  I'm impressed by Vorlon's almost casual mastery of the electoral map.

Why isn't Penn amongst the toss-up states?

What does voter registration data tell us?

I have a statistics background, and I'm curious about the "model" that you refer to.  Is this a formal mathematical predictive model, and if so, what are the input variables?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 09, 2004, 06:01:46 PM
Hello Forum members, I'm new here and I have high hopes. Let me first say, I'm a foreigner. I'm an Ontario resident in Canada, so I appologize if I make any mistakes. I've made some educated guesses, and I think I did pretty well.

I think the Democrats will win ME, NH, VT, Mass., Conn., RI, NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, DE, MD, DC, LA, IL, WI, IA, MN, OR, WA, and HI.

Republicans: VA, FL, AL, MS, TN, IN, AR, TX, OK, KS, NE, SD,ND, MT, WY, CO, NM, AZ, UT, ID, NV, CA, AK, and KY.

I think the swing states are WV, NC, GA, SC, and MO. I think that if Edwards is selected as VP the Democrats will win NC, SC and GA.

That's 246-D 225-R and 51- Swing. Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.

Siege40
Welcome.  You're the first I've seen to have the Republicans win California, and have them behind.  I think you overestimate the Dems support in the south, but I think Cal will go dem and a few others you had in the rep column, I think could be up for grabs.  I'll be visiting your fair province in a couple of weeks.  Maybe I'll see ya there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 09, 2004, 06:03:26 PM
Who knows, maybe I'm completely nuts.


yes, I think you are :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 09, 2004, 06:31:59 PM
So maybe I'm crazy, the reason I picked the Republicans to win in California is that Schwarzanegger is doing pretty well out there, not to mention the Democrat Davis was thrown out on his ear, easily. I assumed that this support could continue. I don't know, I'm just a Canadian.

You're right, South Carolina is a stretch, so is Georgia, but you never can tell, the economy down there is pretty messed up, people have lost their jobs in the South too. Does being Southern mean you have to vote Republican? I don't think so, but to rule out the possibility of a Democratic showing in the South is likely a mistake. But I'm still new at this.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 09, 2004, 06:46:48 PM
Governors don't mean a thing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mooster on March 09, 2004, 07:52:25 PM
Thanks , Vorlon, for the info on the voter registrations.

So about this predictive model...

Siege40 - if Canada had won the war of 1812, we'd now have universal healthcare, one quarter of the present level of gun violence, and we'd currently hold the hockey gold medal, in other words, peace, order, and good government.  Oh well, we'll have to be happy with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, your predictions are, to use the technical term, perquacky.

 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: agcatter on March 09, 2004, 10:34:54 PM
Vorlon,
Thanks for that explanation regarding turnout and polling.  That was interesting.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on March 10, 2004, 12:31:22 AM
(lots of really interesting info cut for brevity)

Prior to the Voter Fraud Promotion & Enablement Act "Motor Voter" act, polling was much easier - If somebody took the time and effort to actually go down to their local courthouse and register to vote, they were a likely voter.  You asked somebody if they had registered, and if they had - you counted them in the survey results.

Because of "Moter Voter" the number of people registered to vote has gone up dramatically, but most of the newly registered simply don't vote.  Indeed overall turnout still seems to be at best stable and if anything modestly trending downward.

To try to limit their sample to the 50ish% who actually vote, pollsters ask a whole bunch of screening questions, such as how carefully the voter is paying attention, do they know where their poling place is, did they vote in the last election, how enthusiastic they are about their candidate, etc...  Depending on the firm doing the poll there is a screen of anywhere from 7 to 13 questions.  

(more really interesting stuff cut)

Hurray, someone who feels the same way I do about the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, e.g. the "Motor Voter" Act, e.g., the Voter Fraud Promotion & Enablement Act! What a piece of {censored}-up leftist tripe! What possible sense is there in NOT deleting voters who don't vote? Most people on this board would not believe how much cr*p is stuffed into county voter registration rolls because of this!

Vorlon, you are absolutely correct about this. And I KNOW - I spent four years in a County Bureau of Elections, and the things I've seen! The potential for election fraud because of this act is immense, and I know of one local race where it WAS used - a *very* left-wing organization went around a particular city council district asking registered voters if they were intending to vote. In the cases of those voters who said "no", they then arranged to send in their OWN people to vote in their stead. And a VERY corrupt leftist candidate won the race, and has been every bit as bad of a councilor as you might expect. So there's a case study for you, Vorlon. :)

And do you know about the very surprising findings of Dr. Michael McDonald about voter turnout rates, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm ? It isn't that voter turnout has been declining - it's that, and I'll say it bluntly if he won't, the numbers have been skewed by the huge surge in illegal Mexican immigration since about 1965, which increased the numbers of *people counted by the Census* but not of *eligible voters*. Fun!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 10, 2004, 01:06:49 AM

And do you know about the very surprising findings of Dr. Michael McDonald about voter turnout rates, at http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm ? It isn't that voter turnout has been declining - it's that, and I'll say it bluntly if he won't, the numbers have been skewed by the huge surge in illegal Mexican immigration since about 1965, which increased the numbers of *people counted by the Census* but not of *eligible voters*. Fun!
I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 10, 2004, 11:27:22 AM
Gustaf

I note in your signature that you are a self discribed "libertarian with conservative leanings"

Ignoring for the moment the mental gymnastics that being Libertarian AND conservative implies.. how the ^&##@! does that equate to supporting John Kerry?

Kerry is many things... a Libertarian is NOT one of them...  I am not saying Bush is a Libertarian either .. I just can't get my brain around Kerry, Libertarian, and Conservative happily co-existing....

Heh, lol...I use the word 'libertarian' to not confuse all you Americans too much...I would be a liberal conservative in Europe, but that would be even worse for you, wouldn't it? ;)

I am not happy with Kerry, believe me, I will not be very happy OR sad regardless of the out-come of this election. But I really don't trust GWB, I think he's a fake. Also, he's messing up the image of the US abroad, making it a hated country again. Kerry is way too weak too inflict too much damage when it comes to terrorism, etc. And having a Dem president and a Rep congress is good since it locks them all to an extent. But I could go more in-depth in you want, though I'm no sure this is the thread for it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nation on March 10, 2004, 11:29:46 AM
Vorlon, just out of curiosity, how accurate were your predictions in 2000?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 10, 2004, 11:32:37 AM
Does anybody know where Kerry stands on any issue? If so I'd like to know. He was against all executions, now he's only for executing terrorists. He was for the current Iraq conflict, now hes against it? Sounds like all we have here is a political vulture. Ted Kennedy has even voted against some of his proposals.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 10, 2004, 11:37:14 AM
Does anybody know where Kerry stands on any issue? If so I'd like to know. He was against all executions, now he's only for executing terrorists. He was for the current Iraq conflict, now hes against it? Sounds like all we have here is a political vulture. Ted Kennedy has even voted against some of his proposals.

This is primarily a thread for the user predictions we add, so if you wanna bash Kerry you could start a thread for it. I know this goes off topic at times anyway, but we can at least try, you know?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on March 10, 2004, 02:58:11 PM
Vorlon, what do you base your information on and where do you get it?

By the way, anyone, where can I get state polls for 2004 election?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 10, 2004, 03:17:10 PM
[url]www.dcpoliticalreport.com[/i]

And several other sites


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 10, 2004, 03:35:22 PM
Thanks , Vorlon, for the info on the voter registrations.

So about this predictive model...

Siege40 - if Canada had won the war of 1812, we'd now have universal healthcare, one quarter of the present level of gun violence, and we'd currently hold the hockey gold medal, in other words, peace, order, and good government.  Oh well, we'll have to be happy with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

However, your predictions are, to use the technical term, perquacky.

 


Had Canada won the War of 1812 they had no chance to annex America, you guys were too big to control even then. We would of checked American expansion and we likely would of annexed Michigan and Northern Maine, so they'd be fortunate enough to enjoy our good graces.

I'll do my best to make my estimate a little less perquacky. Thanks for the tips.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on March 10, 2004, 04:05:09 PM
[url]www.dcpoliticalreport.com[/i]

And several other sites

it seems that the site does not work.... ???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 10, 2004, 04:06:16 PM
Sorry it's: www.dcpoliticalreport.com (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on March 10, 2004, 04:35:01 PM
Sorry it's: www.dcpoliticalreport.com (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com)

seems for some reason that when going through my original ISP.. i get no connection to that site... then i went through AOL... and got a connection.... then i tried ...

http://www.DCPoliticalReport.com/index.htm

that seems to work for BOTH of my ISP ....

Thanks a lot for the link... i really appreciated it ... i think this is the site i used last election.. been looking for it :)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on March 10, 2004, 10:19:03 PM

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more... :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 11, 2004, 03:34:45 PM
My new prediction:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 11, 2004, 04:50:50 PM

Now, let's not be pessimistic, surely Kerry could do better than that? :o


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 11, 2004, 04:57:02 PM
yeah.  losing OR & NH seem unlikely to me.  I've been thinking about moving NH into definite dem territory, away from battleground territory, myself.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 11, 2004, 04:57:03 PM
lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 11, 2004, 04:58:46 PM
yeah.  losing OR & NH seem unlikely to me.  I've been thinking about moving NH into definite dem territory, away from battleground territory, myself.

I was being sarcastic, but ,maybe you are too... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 11, 2004, 04:59:49 PM
I was being sarcastic, although I do think Kerry will win NH for sure, barring major world events between now & November.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 11, 2004, 05:05:38 PM
I was being sarcastic, although I do think Kerry will win NH for sure, barring major world events between now & November.

New Hampshire does seem fairly likely to go for Kerry. But I'd want a reliable poll before I get too certain abut it.


Title: legitimacy of direct election?
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 11, 2004, 05:26:34 PM
We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.

While I concede the EC isn't going anywhere...

Are you saying that direct election would be less legitimate? Why?


Title: hating both parties
Post by: CollectiveInterest on March 11, 2004, 05:30:12 PM

I worked in the election industry till 1998 as a pollster/media consultant - I have strong political leanings...  I hate both parties equally and hold both candidates in equivalent contempt...

What's your beef with GOP? Dems?

Do you have separate grievances against Kerry and Bush?


Title: Re:legitimacy of direct election?
Post by: Gustaf on March 11, 2004, 05:31:22 PM
We've discussed this already on another board. Going to a direct popular vote would be an absolute disaster, because in that case the large cities would pick the president. Look at how much Gore won just from big metropolitan areas alone. We may as well not even have a voting system if it went to direct popular vote. I know I'd quit voting.

While I concede the EC isn't going anywhere...

Are you saying that direct election would be less legitimate? Why?

He got some odd views...but look at his username. It speaks for itself on this issue.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 11, 2004, 09:37:41 PM
Who are you planning on voting for in November, as of now, Vorlon?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 12, 2004, 12:07:00 AM
I'm going to write-in Sen. Sununu/fmr. Rep. Watts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 06:01:18 AM
You're close to me politically Vorlon, judging from that post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mooster on March 12, 2004, 01:37:14 PM
Vorlon,

On the prediction pages, you are listed as I-indep, but on the discussion pages, you are listed as I-california.  Also, I notice that your email address is @shaw.ca, which, when googled, turns up a canadian service provider.

Also, what happens when you plug your own demographics into your model (age, occupation/employer, level of education, etc.)?  Surely it does't return a high probability for a libertarian vote?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on March 12, 2004, 01:38:38 PM
Hmm, with that motto, and that avatar, are you Donald Trump by any chance, Mooster? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 06:00:40 PM
Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 06:28:51 PM
Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 06:36:48 PM
Vorlon,

On PA, it appears that all voters everywhere are against gay marriage (OK, slight exaggeration, but you get the point), but that it doesn't stop them from voting Kerry. So I'd say that it doesn't say too much.

From a purely political point of view, what matters in not how many gay marriage voters there are, but rather how many single issue gay marriage voters there are.

There are, for reasons I personally have never been able to understand, a lot of voters who decide who to vote for on a single issue, regardless of the rest of what a candidate stands for.

The classic example of such a "wedge" issue (ie it can wedge a voter away from their usual voting pattern) is abortion.  

There are pro-choice people who would support Osama Bin Laden over Joan of Arc if Bin Laden was pro-choice and Joan was pro-life (and the other way around as well) -

From a GOP perspective, if just 1 in 25 Democratic voters feels strongly enough on the Gay Marriage issue to have it swing their vote, it might be enough to swing the state to the GOP.

If I was Bush I'd be polling the $%$$#@# out the gay marriage issue in Pennsylvania right now...

And I am sure he is... which is one of the reasons I am not a Republican...

All good points. But my point is that this doesn't really seem to be the case, since Kerry is doing pretty well despite the big majority against gay marriage. Also, look at the popular view of abortion. It suggests that the Dems have some potential for headway on gay marriage.

I am not saying the gay marriage issue WILL work for Bush, I am saying that there is enough of of chance that it MIGHT work, to give it a try.

I suspect Bush & Co will "test drive" the issue, i.e. pound Kerry with it in smaller state that is fairly cheap to buy media in (Iowa would be my pick) and see if the issue has any traction.... if it does, they will expand it to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, MIssori, WEst Virginia, etc,... if not... not...

Yeah, that seems liekly. Somehting I reacted to was that people apparently are more accepting of abortion then of gay marriage, which makes absolutely no sense to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 12, 2004, 06:42:15 PM
Do you think a similar attack on Madrid in America would lose the Republicans the White House? If so, where do you think the effects would be felt hardest, which states and why? Or do you believe that if there was a terror attack on that scale, that the Republicans would be doomed for re-election?

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 12, 2004, 06:46:59 PM
Do you think a similar attack on Madrid in America would lose the Republicans the White House? If so, where do you think the effects would be felt hardest, which states and why? Or do you believe that if there was a terror attack on that scale, that the Republicans would be doomed for re-election?

Siege40

A terror attack would help Bush by creating an urge for strong leadership on national security, but hurt him by raising questions about his ability as CIC. Overall, I think it would help him, but that's my opinion.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 12, 2004, 07:12:00 PM
Bush is betting that his claim that we have maimed al-Qaeda is true- and a terrorist attack here would not muster the same unity for him this time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 09:35:55 AM
I'm really surpirsed by how many people think that another terror attack will not hurt the Republicans. From all I've seen Bush wants to run on his National Security policy, if there's another terror attack doesn't that prove that it is ineffective, make it a poor issue for him? In my mind it would at least neutralize the issue as a good point for the Republicans to a niether advantage nor disadvantage.

I agree if there's enough time he'll come out as a strong leader, but if not couldn't the electorate say. "Why is this happening again on your watch?"

Never the less, I also hope we don't have to find out...

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 10:17:45 AM
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 13, 2004, 10:38:23 AM

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more... :(

He stopped updating the redistricting scorecard after he moved to GMU. He has some interesting work at elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm (http://elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 01:29:00 PM
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 13, 2004, 02:09:04 PM
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.
I think this is Bush's strongest message. It also seems to be the item on which he consistently polls best.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 02:37:59 PM
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.

Their is a lot of truth in his messages to us about Americas resolve and the way the terrorists think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: josh c on March 13, 2004, 04:28:10 PM
BUSH WILL WIN IN NOV!! AND ALL THE DEMOCARTS NEED TO STOP CRYING OVER IT!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 05:11:11 PM
BUSH WILL WIN IN NOV!! AND ALL THE DEMOCARTS NEED TO STOP CRYING OVER IT!!!

John is that you? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 05:13:09 PM
You could look at it that way or you could look at it like this. Bush says we are in a continuing fight against terrorists and we need to keep the pressure on. If we are attacked he could just say "This is why you need to stick with me, what would Kerry do in this situation?"

Bush would be all: 'We said from the beginning that this would be a tough fight. But, my fellow Americans, we're not giving in. We will not falter, we will not retreat, we will not fail. This does nothing to our morale and our determination. We stand as firmly now as we have ever done. We will not be intimidated or blackmailed by terrorists. 3 years ago America was attacked. We proved then that we will not be defeated. I intend to continue this fight, etc,etc'

He could easily make it work. I think most Amiercans would buy the message, not the hard-core Dems maybe, but they were never in the equation anyway.

This is a bit unrelated - but I though the way spain has reacted to the terrorist event with something like 8 to 11 MILLION people protesting/demonstratind (roughly 1/4 to 1/3 of the entire population!) was pure and total class.

Millions of people getting together to collectively give Bin Laden (or whoever?) the  Middle Finger Salute - well done Spain!

This too is a bit off topic, but back in the late 80s when the communists running El-salvador were silly enough to actually hold semi-fair elections I remember seeing a documentary film.  You had hundreds of poor peasants waiting hours in line to vote while the communists were LITERALLY shelling the polling station with mortars - Turn out in that election was over 95%+

Here, despite every effort to make it as easy as possible to vote, we barely get 50% - Half our politicians think this is some kind of case for the FBI and not a war, and way too few seem to be willing to say that there is some sacrifice and price to be paid for our freedom.

Do we really have the stomach to win this war? -
Sometimes I am afraid we do not..



I agree on the Spain thing. That was very impressive indeed. The picures in the papers this morning of it made you pause and think.

And a good point on turnout as well. I remember the long lines ov voters in the Zimbabwe election as well, where the government closed down polling stations in opposition areas.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 05:13:34 PM
Firstly I am not a Democrat, and I am not crying over the Republican numbers. Less than 50% is not something to be sad about. Many polls predict a loss for Bush, some for Kerry. Though your confidence, and capitalization is impressive, it isn't over until the fat lady sings.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 05:40:15 PM
Protests are nice, but it wont stop terrorists attacks. You stop force with force.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 05:43:08 PM
Protests are nice, but it wont stop terrorists attacks. You stop force with force.

Nonsense. A psycological war is primarily won by psychology, not force. And is essentially a war of minds and hearts. Look at Vietnam.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 05:50:39 PM
Ok, so you think we can beat Osama and his dogs by protesting them and just arresting a few of them? When they come and kill us we need to go to them and kill three times more of them. We need to obliterate the killers hideouts, hate temples, caves, any other place they hide. The problem w/the military today is they want to "pussyfoot" around and not show some muscle. The U.S. showed muscle in Europe and Asia and we subdued them sure enough.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 06:02:40 PM
Protests are nice, but it wont stop terrorists attacks. You stop force with force.

Nonsense. A psycological war is primarily won by psychology, not force. And is essentially a war of minds and hearts. Look at Vietnam.

Psychology is greatly influenced by, say, blowing up the enemy's grandmother while she sleeps at night - this was the rational behind firebombing Dresden and Tokyo, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Americans had the right attitude during that war.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:04:23 PM
Ok, so you think we can beat Osama and his dogs by protesting them and just arresting a few of them? When they come and kill us we need to go to them and kill three times more of them. We need to obliterate the killers hideouts, hate temples, caves, any other place they hide. The problem w/the military today is they want to "pussyfoot" around and not show some muscle. The U.S. showed muscle in Europe and Asia and we subdued them sure enough.

I don't know what you're talking about in that last sentence. If you're talking about the World Wars, it's not the same thing. And I don't think you won wars by killing a certain amount of people. That's what you did in Vietnam and guess what? Doesn't work. You need to win the psycholgical war, that's the only way you can lose, in all certainity.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 06:08:36 PM
America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:09:12 PM
America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:10:34 PM
America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true


It's not you who'll be doing that 'allowing' of Wstern influences, though. :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:11:36 PM
Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:12:47 PM
America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true


It's not you who'll be doing that 'allowing' of Wstern influences, though. :(

??



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 06:14:08 PM
We need to care for both Pakistan and India, and control what people think there. That will become the most dangerous place on Earth.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:14:29 PM
Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.

The Koran is about as violent as the Bible, i think. It's all a mtter of interpretation. Look at the inqustion.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:14:59 PM
America needs to focus more effort on reshaping the education system in the middle east, and allowing Westernization there. Without that I'd say terrorists and suicide bombers would exist in that region for another 20-50 years.

true


It's not you who'll be doing that 'allowing' of Wstern influences, though. :(

??



The governments of those countries are so far preventing Western influences.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:15:38 PM
We need to care for both Pakistan and India, and control what people think there. That will become the most dangerous place on Earth.

Yeah, you can use the mind control machine that I built. It works like a clock... ???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:16:05 PM
We need to care for both Pakistan and India, and control what people think there. That will become the most dangerous place on Earth.

Yeah, you can use the mind control machine that I built. It works like a clock... ???

lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 06:16:11 PM
Interpreting religion as a plan of action is never a good idea. If you can reduce religion to only the 10 commandments, you would have a better world. The idea of religious perfection is saddening to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:25:28 PM
Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.

The Koran is about as violent as the Bible, i think. It's all a mtter of interpretation. Look at the inqustion.

Do I need to put up all the links about the Islamic beleif system again?\

Christianity is no where near as violent as Islam.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:26:43 PM
Change will need to start in the Mosques as well. They have to try to get away from the parts of their Koran that are violent. Anyone who says that Islam is the religion of "peace" are flat out lying to themselves.

The Koran is about as violent as the Bible, i think. It's all a mtter of interpretation. Look at the inqustion.

Do I need to put up all the links about the Islamic beleif system again?\

Christianity is no where near as violent as Islam.

That's mostly due to how we choose to interpret it. Look at the OT, it's pretty violent. The Koran mostly consists of the Bible anyway.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:28:42 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont believe. The Koran is not "like the bible anyway". Their are many many differences. Jesus is just a prophet and not the son of God in the Koran. Many differences.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:29:08 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:29:47 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:31:35 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:33:15 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...

statesrights put it here couple of times
check the thread


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:34:39 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...

statesrights put it here couple of times
check the thread


I can't find it in the last 5 pages or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:36:19 PM
Violent in the sense of Caine and Abel and stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. But the bible, especially the NT does not encourage violence against those who dont beleive.

And the Koran does?

Yes
very much so

I'd like at least a quote to back that up...

statesrights put it here couple of times
check the thread


I can't find it in the last 5 pages or so.

statesrights please help Gus


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:37:16 PM
OK I will repost some of them again :

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 13, 2004, 06:37:49 PM
OK I will repost some of them again :

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm)
thank you


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:42:05 PM
Their is so so much to that website I can't begin to post it all, lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:45:59 PM
OK I will repost some of them again :

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-myth-of-toleration.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-pact-of-umar.htm)

http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm (http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-kills-not-peaceful.htm)
thank you

I read the first one. Not to be offenseive, but the site seems a little weird...I now that the Koran can be interpreted to be violent. Now, to point at a few facts:

1. Throughout mediaeval times, most Muslim countries were relatively tolerant, espeically Turkey, a country long renowned for religious tolerance.

2. European Christians throughout most of this time was extremely intolerant, especially in Spain, and persecuted, not only non-Christians, but all who believed in the wrong brand of Christianity relentlessly.

I am not defending Muslim fundamentalism. I am fully aware of the fact that mainstream Islam today preaches violence, etc. But I don't think this is a necessary part of their religion, it's a stage that they will leave when they become more secular, just like we've done in the Western world.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 06:52:32 PM
Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 06:56:05 PM
Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)

Sounds like Jmfcst's church...I'd rather to go someone unbiased for opinion on a religious document though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 07:05:13 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 07:08:35 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Of course they can, they're Americans... :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 07:14:49 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 07:22:15 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

It depends on your definiton of winning. I maintain that the nuke strategy I proposed in another thread is the best way to win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 07:23:13 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

While I love the implied talk of Genocide, what does this have to do with the 2004 election?

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 07:25:42 PM
I cannot believe what I'm hearing! You can't calously talk about changing a religion. You can't merely go, "Ya, well I don't like this or that, so let's chang it." This is the faith a people, you can't rewrite the religion. Mohammad was, from what I understand, a warrior. Therefore there will likely always be a strain of violence. The goal is to elminate the extremists, not the religion. That's my opinion, I don't know, I just figure if someone came in and wanted to root out a branch of Christianity a lot of people would have something to say. This will only spread hatred not peace.

Siege40

Well, if they insist on being 'warriors', then the only option is to fight them.  I think we can win easily.

While I love the implied talk of Genocide, what does this have to do with the 2004 election?

Siege40

Everything. A nuclear sweep by Bush could seal the election for him. He could declare the war on terrorism over.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 07:29:21 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 07:32:29 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 07:34:44 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 07:39:37 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 07:50:06 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 07:57:21 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.

We slaughtered a lot of people on purpose - Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 08:03:53 PM
What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 08:05:25 PM
What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.

Too cold.  How about Cuba?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 08:09:33 PM
Thats fine or guam.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 08:26:13 PM
Genocide to win an election what a concept! What happens when you run out of groups of people?

Siege40

Actually ruthlessness in war IS a very popular quality.  People really hate to think of their own soldiers getting killed because the president was too squeemish and held something back.

Exactly. And when you run out of foreigners tou can turn to domestic criminals and then move on to the disabled and ethnic minorities. Or poeple living on welfare and illegal immigrants. Nobody likes them and they don't contribute much to society. I guess you could blow off planets or something jsut for the fun of it once you rún ot of untermenschen.

I get it - fascism.  But think about it Gustaf - how was the behavior of the Allies any different in terms of strategy or tactics (I forget which is is) than the Fascists?  Just because we're Liberals doesn't mean we don't have to kill people who would kill us.

In the sense that they didn't slaughter people on purpose. But I didn't say that the allies didn't committ atrocities. But fighting Hitler is not a very good example, it doesn't ahppen very often. And being Liberal shouldn't prevent killng people, I agree, we have the same right to fun as anyone else. I am beginning to like the internal killing more and more, actually. We could put people in Alaska and nuke them, on regular intervals. It could ensure that the population remained alert and did their best not to piss us off.

We slaughtered a lot of people on purpose - Hiroshima, Dresden, etc.


Yeah, but they had the object of breaking the enemy's morale. But the only real difference between us and fascists are that they want people to cooperate and stuff.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 13, 2004, 08:26:49 PM
What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.

Prisons are usless. Death pnealty on every crime, that oughta teach them.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 08:33:31 PM
I say a penal colony for murderers, and other death/life penalty convicts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 13, 2004, 08:36:01 PM
What do you guys think of organizing a single national prison, in a penal colony in lets say Alaska? It would cetainly be affordable now, and the millitary can guard from prison breaks.

Prisons are usless. Death pnealty on every crime, that oughta teach them.

The death penalty does show that you have the courage of your convictions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 08:41:17 PM
The Death Penalty is always a tough issue for me to think about, so an unmonitored Penal Colony in the Pacific is the answer. I don't care if it ends up like Lord of the Flies, it would make for an interesting social experiment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 13, 2004, 09:11:48 PM
We're on our 100th page of this thread!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 09:18:57 PM
The Death Penalty is always a tough issue for me to think about, so an unmonitored Penal Colony in the Pacific is the answer. I don't care if it ends up like Lord of the Flies, it would make for an interesting social experiment.

Escape from New York? I loved that movie. That IS a good use for NYC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 13, 2004, 09:24:18 PM
I haven't seen it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 13, 2004, 09:28:34 PM
It was made in 1981. They seal off downtown NYC and use it as one huge prison.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082340/)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CTguy on March 14, 2004, 06:45:45 AM
Republicans wouldn't support that because it would change apportionment.  Right now most prison populations are in congressional districts that are held by republicans and they count as part of the  total a district needs to be valid.  I think some in upstate New York are so large they are almost half the district.  These people can't vote but Republicans who run in the districts there like to keep them because they make their real district size small and easy to run in.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 14, 2004, 07:03:10 AM
It's not quite that bad. But yeah, one giant prison like that would have prisoner representatives.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CTguy on March 14, 2004, 07:08:21 AM
it's not bad bad in terms of the sheer number of prisoners.  No, I'll give you that.  It's not like districts are dominated by prison populations.  But I think it's bad in the sense that it benefits one party almost unilaterally: Republicans.  Because most prisons are in rural areas that are represented by Republican Congresmen.  In a big state like New York if you took out all the prison populations, Republicans would probably lose an entire district.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 10:07:18 AM
Penal colonies are largely ineffective, the cost to outfit the area with food, for example Guam, would be tremendous, unless you plan not to feed them and let them being whole new meaning to "fresh meat" (term used to describe new arrivals to a prison). In reality the best idea would be to establish a gulag like system, but only one. See in Canada the idea works, we could build a prison-city in Northern Alberta and let them fend for themselves, but in the U.S. it's possible to survive long enough to escape to somewhere if you know where you're going. Best bet is probably New Mexico or Arizona. Merge all the federal penitentiaries into one prison city in the middle of the desert. Have food drop offs and water supplied, but not much else.

Though I object whole-heartedly with this idea, if you're going to talk about doing it, do it right.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 10:10:15 AM
Penal colonies are largely ineffective, the cost to outfit the area with food, for example Guam, would be tremendous, unless you plan not to feed them and let them being whole new meaning to "fresh meat" (term used to describe new arrivals to a prison). In reality the best idea would be to establish a gulag like system, but only one. See in Canada the idea works, we could build a prison-city in Northern Alberta and let them fend for themselves, but in the U.S. it's possible to survive long enough to escape to somewhere if you know where you're going. Best bet is probably New Mexico or Arizona. Merge all the federal penitentiaries into one prison city in the middle of the desert. Have food drop offs and water supplied, but not much else.

Though I object whole-heartedly with this idea, if you're going to talk about doing it, do it right.

Siege40

Killing them remain superior, I'd say. :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 14, 2004, 10:14:15 AM
you guys are going crazy


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 14, 2004, 10:25:13 AM
Reply #1500!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 10:35:40 AM
Dunn, this discussion slipped far below sane a LONG time ago. Reply 1501.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 10:45:43 AM
Reply 1502... :P

I was just in a bad mood and was joking. But Opebo was probably serious.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 14, 2004, 11:02:57 AM
Dunn, this discussion slipped far below sane a LONG time ago. Reply 1501.

Siege40


lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 11:06:42 AM
Sanity is a relative term.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 14, 2004, 12:14:40 PM

:D :D

Anyway, updated prediction today:

()

Bush/Cheney 282
Kerry/Edwards 256


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 01:00:38 PM
The Republicans will win Pennsylvania and Louisiana? I don't know... I don't know much but that sounds a little crazy to me. And Kerry wins California but not the election? Madness is rife in this discussion.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 14, 2004, 01:01:57 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 14, 2004, 01:03:14 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 14, 2004, 01:11:03 PM
Pennsylvania hasn't been hard hit by jobs?

We're out of the recession belt AND anti-Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 14, 2004, 01:12:28 PM
Pennsylvania hasn't been hard hit by jobs?

We're out of the recession belt AND anti-Bush.

Rural Central-Western PA yes, which is heavily GOP for the most part.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:05:57 PM
Miami, it sounds like you almost hope Bush will win. But I agree with you Dean would have been a better candidate. I hope Bush wins but I don't think over the next 8 months Kerry will be much of a challenge. I dont know the job situation in Ohio, but in the Presidents speech the other day things sounded pretty good or recovering at least. If Bush is only a 1 termer he will be the most successful 1 termer in U.S. History. Everything about the U.S. Economy is growing but the job growth is slow. Consumer Confidence is higher now then when Clinton ran for re-election, unemployment is lower then when Clinton ran. Clintons unemployment rate was 6.4% compared to Bushs' 5.5%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:10:38 PM
Miami, it sounds like you almost hope Bush will win. But I agree with you Dean would have been a better candidate. I hope Bush wins but I don't think over the next 8 months Kerry will be much of a challenge. I dont know the job situation in Ohio, but in the Presidents speech the other day things sounded pretty good or recovering at least. If Bush is only a 1 termer he will be the most successful 1 termer in U.S. History. Everything about the U.S. Economy is growing but the job growth is slow. Consumer Confidence is higher now then when Clinton ran for re-election, unemployment is lower then when Clinton ran. Clintons unemployment rate was 6.4% compared to Bushs' 5.5%.

Clinton ran with an economy that had been improving constantly wince he took office, Bush is doing the opposite. And that Bush says things are going great in his speech doesn't really say too much, he isn't the most objective person in the world, you know... :P

And the economy should be doing good, considering how badly it's been going before and the constant technological progress.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:13:36 PM
I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:14:00 PM
The Republicans will win Pennsylvania and Louisiana? I don't know... I don't know much but that sounds a little crazy to me. And Kerry wins California but not the election? Madness is rife in this discussion.

Siege40

Siege40,

The Republicans should win Lousiana without too much problem, it went for Bush by a margin of almost 6%. While not out of reach, it's definitely lean GOP. Pennsylvania was very close in 2000 and recent polls confirm that it's a tossup. And Gore won CA without winning the election...in fact CA is almost certain to go Dem, but not at all enough to win them the election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:15:42 PM
I had a "dream" last night that Bush wins in a landslide. Though a few come true, I think that dream was biased lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:20:03 PM
I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.

It doesn't matter what you 'see' but how things actually are. I don't what you mean by 'Clinton inherited', but the economy was not actually going down when he left office. And 9/11 has little or nothing to do with the problems that the US and the rest of the Western world are expereinceing in economy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:20:22 PM
I had a "dream" last night that Bush wins in a landslide. Though a few come true, I think that dream was biased lol.

Man, you should try and improve your dreams... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 14, 2004, 02:22:21 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2004, 02:23:10 PM
Gustaf... what you have to remember about Louisiana is that Gore did very badly in the Cajun area (which even Micheal Dukakis did well in).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:23:38 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.

W-A-R-N-E-R ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:24:50 PM
I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.


Actually I think most voters look at how THEY are doing when they go to the polls and not what some economist says. And the Dot.coms blew up after Clinton left. All the scandals that happened under the Clinton admin with big business were revealed. Enron, etc. And 9/11 having no effect on the economy? Hooey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:27:10 PM
I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.

Actually I think most voters look at how THEY are doing when they go to the polls and not what some economist says. And the Dot.coms blew up after Clinton left. All the scandals that happened under the Clinton admin with big business were revealed. Enron, etc. And 9/11 having no effect on the economy? Hooey.


Yeah, well, my point was that even though YOUR personal situation might look good, if the overall economy is doing badly people somewhere will be doing badly.

Tell me how 9/11 caused the recession.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:31:01 PM
The thing is are those people who are affected going to vote? And are they a large enough majority to kick Bush out? And after 9/11 a LOT of people were scared to death. A lot of people stayed home instead of coming to Florida to Disney or wherever. That caused these companies to lose a lot of business.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:32:17 PM
The thing is are those people who are affected going to vote? And are they a large enough majority to kick Bush out? And after 9/11 a LOT of people were scared to death. A lot of people stayed home instead of coming to Florida to Disney or wherever. That caused these companies to lose a lot of business.

From what I recall there was some worry about that, but it didn't materialize. Consumption remained high, the Christmas sales were record high, I believe.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 02:32:34 PM
I had a "dream" last night that Bush wins in a landslide. Though a few come true, I think that dream was biased lol.

That sounds like a nightmare to me...

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 02:33:35 PM
I said Bush not Kerry lol. I heard Kerrys running mate is going to be Jane Fonda! Any truth? lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 02:41:39 PM
Doesn't matter to me, I don't like Kerry, Bush or Nader very much. Any of them winning in a landslide is a bad idea. Minority Governments in Canada tend to work best, I don't know the equivalent in the U.S. though.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 14, 2004, 02:50:17 PM
Doesn't matter to me, I don't like Kerry, Bush or Nader very much. Any of them winning in a landslide is a bad idea. Minority Governments in Canada tend to work best, I don't know the equivalent in the U.S. though.

Siege40

There is no equivalent. Without PP there will never be.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 14, 2004, 03:02:09 PM
Miami, it sounds like you almost hope Bush will win. But I agree with you Dean would have been a better candidate. I hope Bush wins but I don't think over the next 8 months Kerry will be much of a challenge. I dont know the job situation in Ohio, but in the Presidents speech the other day things sounded pretty good or recovering at least. If Bush is only a 1 termer he will be the most successful 1 termer in U.S. History. Everything about the U.S. Economy is growing but the job growth is slow. Consumer Confidence is higher now then when Clinton ran for re-election, unemployment is lower then when Clinton ran. Clintons unemployment rate was 6.4% compared to Bushs' 5.5%.

A few things.

-I do not hope Bush will win, rather, I am a pessimist.
-Dean is a weaker candidate in the general election than Kerry.
-Clinton's unEmp rate was very good considering it constantly decreased from the point he took office.  It approached nearly 8% during the Bush41 presidency.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 14, 2004, 03:11:57 PM
If Bush wins I will have faith in fewer people, and I will develop more stereotypes.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 05:47:21 PM
Yes, having someone in office who destroys our enemies and gets reelected should lessen your faith in the people who re-elect him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 14, 2004, 06:22:23 PM
Kerry will destroy our enemies and he understands honesty and responsibility more than Bush.

Bush is unconcerned of our future past this election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 07:09:16 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer. Do you think it was Clinton that made Qadafi change his mind about his WMDs? Those countries are scared of us now that we take action.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 14, 2004, 10:30:02 PM
MiamiU is neither hoping for a Bush win nor pessimistic, he's just outrageously superstitious.
He doens't want to jinx Kerry, so he'll always predict a Bush win. If you want his real prediction, just turn Pennsylvania, which btw makes that map much more internally consistent: NO way in HELL does Kerry lose PA but take Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 14, 2004, 10:30:45 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.

W-A-R-N-E-R ;)

N-E-V-E-R  H-A-P-P-E-N


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 14, 2004, 11:04:34 PM
MiamiU is neither hoping for a Bush win nor pessimistic, he's just outrageously superstitious.
He doens't want to jinx Kerry, so he'll always predict a Bush win. If you want his real prediction, just turn Pennsylvania, which btw makes that map much more internally consistent: NO way in HELL does Kerry lose PA but take Ohio.


I just have a funny feeling something is going to be very very odd in this election. I don't know what it is but I just have a strong feeling. We have 8 more long long months to wait and see. My wife hates election years because thats what she always hears out of me is political stuff ;).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 15, 2004, 08:25:51 AM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 15, 2004, 09:48:58 AM
I do not see a bad economy right now. Every since mid-2002 tourism is back up and they are flocking our state. The U.S. has taken a while to get over the 9/11 shock and the Clinton inherited recession.

It doesn't matter what you 'see' but how things actually are. I don't what you mean by 'Clinton inherited', but the economy was not actually going down when he left office. And 9/11 has little or nothing to do with the problems that the US and the rest of the Western world are expereinceing in economy.
Parts of the economy were already in decline by Jan 2001. In the tech sector, new starts and job projects for small firms and freelancers were diminishing starting as early as Jan 2000. The stock market reflected the loss of new contracts with its decline beginning in Mar 2000.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 10:32:03 AM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 11:34:18 AM
Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)

Sounds like Jmfcst's church...

I've had about 15 minutes to browse the site, and honestly, I see little in common aside from the broad based belief that the bible is *the* standard.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 12:33:19 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 15, 2004, 12:57:18 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

I was just curious is all.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 01:05:40 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 01:16:22 PM
Sunday did replace the Sabbath. Jesus said the old law was nailed to the cross. Thats in the bible.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 01:17:44 PM
Sunday did replace the Sabbath. Jesus said the old law was nailed to the cross. Thats in the bible.

I agree that Christians are not required to meet on the Sabbath, but where in the NT does it command Christians to meet on Sunday?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 01:19:44 PM
The first day of the week. In Jewish tradition the first day of the week is Sunday. Jesus rose on a Sunday. The whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 01:23:12 PM
The first day of the week. In Jewish tradition the first day of the week is Sunday.

Agreed, but that is not the issue.

---

Jesus rose on a Sunday. The whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection.

1) Where does the NT say "whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection"?
1) Where does the NT command Christians to meet on Sunday?
2) If the NT doesn't command it, how can a church justify making an issue out of it?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 15, 2004, 01:26:36 PM
Shabath IS suterday, that the meanning of the word. it is redicouls what christians (sunday) and muslims (friday) did to copy judaism but to turn away from it


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 01:28:01 PM
I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm (http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 01:41:18 PM
I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm (http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm)

From your link:  "Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7."

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Just because the NT records the church meeting on Sunday does NOT mean that we are "required" to meet on Sunday.  

A further example:  The NT records the church meeting in people's homes.  So, does that mean the Christians are "required" to meet only in homes simply because that is what the early church did?  Absolutely not.  



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 01:43:48 PM
I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm (http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm)



I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.


Where was that at?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 01:47:25 PM

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.




Where was that at?

It's in the first paragraph following the 10 listed points.  Here is the paragraph:

<<The record of history, from the Resurrection of Christ, Christians have always worshipped on the first day of the week (Sunday) and never on the Sabbath (7th day). Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7. Christians do not keep the ten commandment law of Moses. This is not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder and commit adultery, just because the 10 commandments have been abolished. No! Christians are under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal 6:2) a better covenant (Heb 8:6-7).>>



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 03:29:51 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Ohio is far more socially conservative on the whole though.  Ohio even has major cities that are conservative.  ie Culumbus and Cinncinati

Pittsburgh is fairly liberal and Philadelphia is very liberal.  Not to mention the Hienz family connections in Pittsburgh.  It you look at my prediction map you will see that I grudgingly gave my homestate to Kerry.  I think he will win here.  On the other hand, I don't think that Kerry has much of a chance of taking West Virginia unless he puts a Pennsylvainian, Ohioan, West Virginian, Virginian or Kentuckyan on the ticket, which isn't likely.

W-A-R-N-E-R ;)

N-E-V-E-R  H-A-P-P-E-N

W-H-Y N-O-T-? H-O-W C-A-N Y-O-U B-E S-O S-U-R-E-?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 03:31:04 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

I disagree. Even though I have little confidence in Bush, I don't think he is that stupid. Attacking Iran would be so stupid that I am lost for words at the mere suggestion of it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 03:33:35 PM
That's my "wish list".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 03:34:31 PM

Why not toss in China while we're at it? Hell, why not take out the whole world in a BIG war, now that would be some leadership... :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 03:40:43 PM
We are taking the world, one step at a time ;) You can not beat the dark side lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 03:41:44 PM
We are taking the world, one step at a time ;) You can not beat the dark side lol.

May the force be with us...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 15, 2004, 05:08:20 PM
Kerry will destroy our enemies and he understands honesty and responsibility more than Bush.

Bush is unconcerned of our future past this election.

Kerry is a defeatist.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 15, 2004, 05:09:41 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

All of those except for Egypt are excellent candidates, particularly Saudi Arabia.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 05:10:56 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40

All of those except for Egypt are excellent candidates, particularly Saudi Arabia.


No, they're not, especially not Iran.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 15, 2004, 05:12:38 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Actually Ohio's been hovering around 6% unemployment - marginally worse than Missouri at 4.7%, but not nearly as bad as the West Coast or NY.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 06:25:53 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 06:27:52 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism


Man, you're picky... :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 15, 2004, 06:28:39 PM
Ohio will go for Kerry, only if Pennsylvania does.

JOBS

Ohio don't got em

Actually Ohio's been hovering around 6% unemployment - marginally worse than Missouri at 4.7%, but not nearly as bad as the West Coast or NY.

6% is high, and Ohio, outside of Cleveland is rural dominated.  you always have higher unEmp in urban areas, and CA has many and NY's takes up 40% of the state's population.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 06:32:48 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism


Man, you're picky... :P

Well, they did bring the topics up.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 15, 2004, 06:43:35 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism


Man, you're picky... :P

Well, they did bring the topics up.

Lol, I know. But this is supposed to be for user predictions...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 15, 2004, 08:55:45 PM
I know this is off topic (and is probably posted somewhere), but can somebody please explain to me how to post a 50 state electoral map here?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 08:57:42 PM
All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism


The bible clearly talks about the gifts disappearing and "rapture" is never mentioned in the bible.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 15, 2004, 09:16:19 PM
I know this is off topic (and is probably posted somewhere), but can somebody please explain to me how to post a 50 state electoral map here?

In the prediction section, create a prediction, right click on the maps, select properties, copy the http://www.us... (it should take up many lines in the property window click before the "h" and drag the cursor down), paste it inside of an [img ] [/ img] without the spaces in the tags, and post.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 15, 2004, 09:26:51 PM
I keeps coming up a blank map--what am I doing wrong?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on March 15, 2004, 09:38:33 PM

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more... :(

He stopped updating the redistricting scorecard after he moved to GMU. He has some interesting work at elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm (http://elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm).


Thanks for the link! There was a LOT of useful information there. He certainly has a talent for uncovering how things really work (or how they don't work) - case in point: why the Arizona approach to redistricting is better than the Iowa approach...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 15, 2004, 09:45:09 PM

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more... :(

He stopped updating the redistricting scorecard after he moved to GMU. He has some interesting work at elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm (http://elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm).


Thanks for the link! There was a LOT of useful information there. He certainly has a talent for uncovering how things really work (or how they don't work) - case in point: why the Arizona approach to redistricting is better than the Iowa approach...

The interesting thing about the Arizona redistricting is that there was no intent to place the incumbents in 6 different districts--it just turned out that way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 15, 2004, 09:53:18 PM
I know this is off topic (and is probably posted somewhere), but can somebody please explain to me how to post a 50 state electoral map here?

In the prediction section, create a prediction, right click on the maps, select properties, copy the http://www.us... (it should take up many lines in the property window click before the "h" and drag the cursor down), paste it inside of an [img ] [/ img] without the spaces in the tags, and post.

It keeps coming up a blank map--what am I doing wrong?

I've been right-clicking inside the window but outside the map. Then I go to properties and the address is something simple like http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/genusmap.php?

Does anybody know how to approach this issue?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 10:03:30 PM
I got your map but it had no numbers and was tan colored. Did you click on top of the map?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 15, 2004, 10:09:09 PM
I clicked on the white space between the 50 states and the window. Then I tried clicking on a state and the same thing happened.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 10:21:14 PM
The bible clearly talks about the gifts disappearing

Yes, and it also talks about prophesy and KNOWLEDGE passing away during SAME time frame.  Here is the passage:

1Cor 12:8-12 Love never fails. But where there are PROPHECIES, they will cease; where there are TONGUES, they will be stilled; where there is KNOWLEDGE, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

So the question is:  What time frame is in question in the statement "when perfection comes, the imperfect (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) disappears"?  Answer: when we shall see Jesus face to face; and instead of having imperfect knowledge of Jesus, we will know him fully, even as we are fully known. Therefore, the bible does NOT teach that spiritual gifts will disappear before the 2nd Coming, rather it teaches they will disappear when we meet Jesus.

So what was Paul's point?  There is a perfect gift from God which can perfect you today, it is called "love".  And although it is healthy to seek imperfect gifts such as knowledge, prophecy, tongues, etc..., your ultimate focus should be on love.

1Cor 14:1,39 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy...be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

Col 3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in PERFECT unity.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But PERFECT love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made PERFECT in love.

---

and "rapture" is never mentioned in the bible.

Gee dude, there are a lot of terms Christians use that are not in the bible ("Rapture","Trinity", "Second Coming", etc).  But, for the sake of argument, I'll use the phrase "Caught up together" (NIV translation) in place of "Rapture".

Obviously, the question is not if the exact term is presented in scripture; rather it is whether the CONCEPT of the "Rapture" is presented in the bible.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 10:31:17 PM
"That which is perfect" is in reference to Gods word in writing. aka The Bible. All these gifts and acts that the apostles were using on non-believers was to help convey the message of Jesus better because their was no written word. We are currently living in the end times. When Jesus died that was the start of the end times. The prophecy of Jesus has been fulfilled.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 10:35:13 PM
"That which is perfect" is in reference to Gods word in writing. aka The Bible. All these gifts and acts that the apostles were using on non-believers was to help convey the message of Jesus better because their was no written word. We are currently living in the end times. When Jesus died that was the start of the end times. The prophecy of Jesus has been fulfilled.

1Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

So, you're saying that the NT:
1) allows us to know Jesus fully, just as fully as he knows us?
2) allows us to see Jesus face to face?




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 15, 2004, 10:51:52 PM
What he's saying is before the canon (96 AD). We dont fully understand Jesus. For we are like a child and we do childish things (the gifts). After the bible we understand fully. We understand Jesus fully as if we are face to face.
The three great gifts : faith, hope and love. The greatest is love. We live in faith and hope and love is for eternity.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 15, 2004, 11:07:16 PM
I know this is off topic (and is probably posted somewhere), but can somebody please explain to me how to post a 50 state electoral map here?

In the prediction section, create a prediction, right click on the maps, select properties, copy the http://www.us... (it should take up many lines in the property window click before the "h" and drag the cursor down), paste it inside of an [img ] [/ img] without the spaces in the tags, and post.

It keeps coming up a blank map--what am I doing wrong?

I've been right-clicking inside the window but outside the map. Then I go to properties and the address is something simple like http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/genusmap.php?

Does anybody know how to approach this issue?

same thing was happening to me. When you highlight the link, keep highlighting, ie, keep moving the mouse down and to the left; there is a whole bunch of letters and numbers after the genus bit :)

Took me a fortnight to work out at least :rolleyes:


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on March 15, 2004, 11:28:49 PM

I've followed some of the work of Dr. McDonald since he was located in IL until recently. He has studied both redistricting as well as voter turnout. If I recall the trend to lower turnout was due to both immigration and incarceration.

You're right - he does talk about all of that. And he had, by far, the most interesting site on the 2000 (well, 2001-3) redistricting...pretty accurate, too. A pity it doesn't appear to exist any more... :(

He stopped updating the redistricting scorecard after he moved to GMU. He has some interesting work at elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm (http://elections.gmu.edu/enhancing.htm).


Thanks for the link! There was a LOT of useful information there. He certainly has a talent for uncovering how things really work (or how they don't work) - case in point: why the Arizona approach to redistricting is better than the Iowa approach...

The interesting thing about the Arizona redistricting is that there was no intent to place the incumbents in 6 different districts--it just turned out that way.
Now that is interesting...what are the odds of that? In NM, you have to really work at it to put the incumbents in the same district, but in certain states I bet it would be quite easy to set up 'incumbent deathmatches'. Go Arizona Redistricting Commission! Defeat the vile attempt by the Arizona Dems to sue you in court and strip you of funding! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 15, 2004, 11:42:59 PM
What he's saying is before the canon (96 AD). We dont fully understand Jesus. For we are like a child and we do childish things (the gifts). After the bible we understand fully. We understand Jesus fully as if we are face to face.
The three great gifts : faith, hope and love. The greatest is love. We live in faith and hope and love is for eternity.

First, you can NOT honestly say that the NT gives believers a view of Jesus face to face and allows them to know him as much as he knows them, for CLEARLY the bible says that is yet to come:

1Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

1John 3:2 But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Rev 22:4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

---

Second, by your definition of "perfection" through the canon of the NT, today's believers know more about the Gospel than the tongue-speaking apostles Paul, Peter, and John.  Obviously that is not correct since we are supposed to be FOLLOWING their teachings.  

---

Third, if tongues has passed away, then where is the gift of knowledge (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of teaching (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift to work miracles (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of healing (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of helping others (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of administration (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of wisdom (1Cor 12:8)?

If tongues have passed away, then so have these other gifts....certainly that is not the case.

---

Forth, if these gifts have passed away by the advent of the NT canon, then three whole chapters of spiritual instruction (1Cor ch. 12-14), along with many others within that VERY SAME NT, are nullified.  How can the canon of the NT nullify the NT itself?!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 16, 2004, 12:03:35 AM
This is what I'd predict in a Bush-Kerry race. Subject to VP choice.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: nclib on March 16, 2004, 12:06:42 AM
I know this is off topic (and is probably posted somewhere), but can somebody please explain to me how to post a 50 state electoral map here?

In the prediction section, create a prediction, right click on the maps, select properties, copy the http://www.us... (it should take up many lines in the property window click before the "h" and drag the cursor down), paste it inside of an [img ] [/ img] without the spaces in the tags, and post.

It keeps coming up a blank map--what am I doing wrong?

I've been right-clicking inside the window but outside the map. Then I go to properties and the address is something simple like http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/genusmap.php?

Does anybody know how to approach this issue?

same thing was happening to me. When you highlight the link, keep highlighting, ie, keep moving the mouse down and to the left; there is a whole bunch of letters and numbers after the genus bit :)

Took me a fortnight to work out at least :rolleyes:

Thanks a lot for your help! BTW, do you know how to make a map without having the code elongate the posting window? When I "preview", this happens, and then I can't find a way to post or preview from there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 16, 2004, 12:20:57 AM
Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 16, 2004, 12:24:09 AM
Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.

You're dreaming in both cases.  All the above mentioned states will go GOP, even in a Bush loss.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 16, 2004, 12:26:19 AM
What he's saying is before the canon (96 AD). We dont fully understand Jesus. For we are like a child and we do childish things (the gifts). After the bible we understand fully. We understand Jesus fully as if we are face to face.
The three great gifts : faith, hope and love. The greatest is love. We live in faith and hope and love is for eternity.

First, you can NOT honestly say that the NT gives believers a view of Jesus face to face and allows them to know him as much as he knows them, for CLEARLY the bible says that is yet to come:

1Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

1John 3:2 But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Rev 22:4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

---

Second, by your definition of "perfection" through the canon of the NT, today's believers know more about the Gospel than the tongue-speaking apostles Paul, Peter, and John.  Obviously that is not correct since we are supposed to be FOLLOWING their teachings.  

---

Third, if tongues has passed away, then where is the gift of knowledge (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of teaching (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift to work miracles (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of healing (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of helping others (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of administration (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of wisdom (1Cor 12:8)?

If tongues have passed away, then so have these other gifts....certainly that is not the case.

---

Forth, if these gifts have passed away by the advent of the NT canon, then three whole chapters of spiritual instruction (1Cor ch. 12-14), along with many others within that VERY SAME NT, are nullified.  How can the canon of the NT nullify the NT itself?!


Well, we just have different points of view. Lets get back to politics.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 16, 2004, 02:01:53 AM
Well, we just have different points of view. Lets get back to politics.

OK, but I would hope you would be able to answer those questions if you believe spiritual gifts have already passed away.

---

On a final note...

from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God’s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 16, 2004, 04:29:07 AM
Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.
Kerry winning without Ohio? It's you is the dreamer, my friend...
You're dreaming in both cases.  All the above mentioned states will go GOP, even in a Bush loss.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 16, 2004, 09:10:04 AM
Well, we just have different points of view. Lets get back to politics.

OK, but I would hope you would be able to answer those questions if you believe spiritual gifts have already passed away.

---

On a final note...

from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God’s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?




When they talk about the early church they talk about some of the false doctrines, like the pope. 33 AD was when Jesus died.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 16, 2004, 09:26:59 AM
Well, we just have different points of view. Lets get back to politics.

OK, but I would hope you would be able to answer those questions if you believe spiritual gifts have already passed away.

---

On a final note...

from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God&#8217;s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?




When they talk about the early church they talk about some of the false doctrines, like the pope. 33 AD was when Jesus died.

true
and still there was no church


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 16, 2004, 10:39:49 AM
from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm (http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm)...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God’s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?


When they talk about the early church they talk about some of the false doctrines, like the pope. 33 AD was when Jesus died.

No, you're not following me.  The authors of the web page claim that they represent the church as it was doctrinally during the first generation of Christians: "Information about who we are! Worship With Us! Visitors Warmly Welcomed THE CHURCH YOU CAN READ ABOUT IN THE BIBLE!"

My point was that they claim to follow the doctrine of the early church led by the original Apostles yet they argue against following the NT's instructions regarding spiritual gifts by stating that the canonization of the NT made whole sections of the NT obsolete.

This canonization-nullification theory is certainly strange given the fact that God instructed Moses to canonize the Law, the first scripture, for the sole purpose of making sure the people obeyed it thus protecting them from false doctrine.

But this web site claims that the canonization of the NT nullified large sections of the very same NT!!!  Not only does that logic defeat the human purpose of canonization, it also flies in the face of the biblical precedent of the first canonization which God himself commanded.    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 03:17:57 PM
Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.
Kerry winning without Ohio? It's you is the dreamer, my friend...
You're dreaming in both cases.  All the above mentioned states will go GOP, even in a Bush loss.

I think Opebo must ahve misread something...but this is a not too unlikely scenario in which the above happens:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 03:18:04 PM
My new prediction:

()

My prediction is heretical in parts. This is intentional.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 03:22:44 PM
My new prediction:

()

My prediction is heretical in parts. This is intentional.

It's certainly weird, I'll give you that...Gore won DE by a margin of 13 points, and now it's s tossup? And when did LA become lean Dem? Etc, etc. But it does appear very favourable to Kerry, I would certainly say that...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 03:29:49 PM
I know nothing about Delaware ;)

I don't think that my map is favourable to either candidate... just less polarised and allowing for upsets.

I like thinking for myself...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 03:38:14 PM
I know nothing about Delaware ;)

I don't think that my map is favourable to either candidate... just less polarised and allowing for upsets.

I like thinking for myself...

Of the Gore states, you made 6 states for 41 EVs tossups and 1 for 5 EVs lean Rep. Of the Bush states you made 9 for 112 EVs tossups and 2 for 11 EVs lean Dem. That gives Kerry a base of 225 EVs, Bush a base of 153 EVs and the rest up for grabs. that looks favourable to kerry...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 03:41:53 PM
The 2000 election is in the past... and besides not all leaners or tossups are equal.
Louisiana is a weaker lean than Georgia.
New Hampshire is more of a tossup than Maine.
And so on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 16, 2004, 03:44:43 PM
Realpolitik,

We aren't winning VA this time.  Hold off until 2008.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 03:45:00 PM
The 2000 election is in the past... and besides not all leaners or tossups are equal.
Louisiana is a weaker lean than Georgia.
New Hampshire is more of a tossup than Maine.
And so on.

OK... ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 03:46:57 PM
Realpolitik,

We aren't winning VA this time.  Hold off until 2008.

Depends who Kerry chooses as VP.
I've put it as a tossup anyhow.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 16, 2004, 03:47:30 PM
Realpolitik,

We aren't winning VA this time.  Hold off until 2008.

Depends who Kerry chooses as VP.
I've put it as a tossup anyhow.

We lost it by 8% last time, it's a stretch.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 03:51:20 PM
Gore underperformed in Southern VA ("Southside")... a mix of his apparent stances on coal and tobacco.
If Kerry chooses a running mate who can appeal to these people he has a chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 16, 2004, 03:57:18 PM
Gore underperformed in Southern VA ("Southside")... a mix of his apparent stances on coal and tobacco.
If Kerry chooses a running mate who can appeal to these people he has a chance.

()

Gore lost the Panhandle, which is basically an extension of the coal mining part of WV.  But that area will not swing that state to Kerry.  Almost *all* of WV is 'that area', so Kerry will win there in all likelyhood.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 16, 2004, 04:04:08 PM
Gore underperformed in Southern VA ("Southside")... a mix of his apparent stances on coal and tobacco.
If Kerry chooses a running mate who can appeal to these people he has a chance.

I don't understand why VA and LA are at issue in this thread since, regardless of who wins them, they are NOT going to decide this election barring a Kerry VP nominee from either state.

The states that will decide the election are those states in 2000 that were decided by 6 or fewer points (FL, OR, NM, MO, IA, WI, OH, NH, WV, PA, MN).  And I excluded TENN and ARK from this list since they were the home states of Gore and Clinton.
 
I would think OH, PA, and FL are the keys.  Whoever wins 2 of the 3 will be extremely hard to beat.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 04:04:58 PM
Gore underperformed in Southern VA ("Southside")... a mix of his apparent stances on coal and tobacco.
If Kerry chooses a running mate who can appeal to these people he has a chance.

I don't understand why VA and LA are at issue in this thread since, regardless of who wins them, they are NOT going to decide this election barring a Kerry VP nominee from either state.

The states that will decide the election are those states in 2000 that were decided by 6 or fewer points (FL, OR, NM, MO, IA, WI, OH, NH, WV, PA, MN).  And I excluded TENN and ARK from this list since they were the home states of Gore and Clinton.
 
I would think OH, PA, and FL are the keys.  Whoever wins 2 of the 3 will be extremely hard to beat.

Yep. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 16, 2004, 04:06:02 PM
He also underperformed in CD's 4 and 5 (mind you so did Clinton).

VA is swinging towards the Dems anyway (thanks the expansion of the liberal suburbs)... and picking up more votes in the rest of the state can't hurt.

Still a tossup mind.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 16, 2004, 04:14:10 PM
He also underperformed in CD's 4 and 5 (mind you so did Clinton).

VA is swinging towards the Dems anyway (thanks the expansion of the liberal suburbs)... and picking up more votes in the rest of the state can't hurt.

Still a tossup mind.

What's the defintion of underperforming here? Doing worse than FDR or what? ???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 16, 2004, 05:23:42 PM
I think Virginia will be much more closer than some of the 5% and under states, like Missouri for Bush or Kerry in Washington and Maine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 16, 2004, 05:49:46 PM
I think Virginia will be much more closer than some of the 5% and under states, like Missouri for Bush or Kerry in Washington and Maine.

If Kerry wins VA, then he have at least 350 electoral votes.  The state is simply not an issue.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 16, 2004, 05:51:34 PM
Its worth the effort over Misssouri.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 16, 2004, 10:19:53 PM
Kerry will win VA before he wins MO, AR, or TN.  The political climate is shifting drastically.  I expect to see massive Democratic gains in the DC, Hampton, and Richmond suburbs, which have been getting increasingly liberal as time passes.  Farifax, Henrico, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Prince William Counties will all go for the Dems this time, maybe Isle of Wight, Clarke, Warren, Albemarle, Nelson, Dinwiddie, and Loudon Counties too but probably not till '08.  That will probably shift the state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 17, 2004, 12:08:40 AM
Gov. Richardson might give the Dems AZ and CO.  But that's a slim chance of happening.  Sen. Edwards might help the Dems in OH, IN, IA, TN, and MO.  Maybe VA and WV too.
Kerry winning without Ohio? It's you is the dreamer, my friend...
You're dreaming in both cases.  All the above mentioned states will go GOP, even in a Bush loss.

I think Opebo must ahve misread something...but this is a not too unlikely scenario in which the above happens:

()
The Dems might even keep Minnesota and gain New Hampshire. So yeah, I admit it's possible. I probably believed Florida was also mentioned or something...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 17, 2004, 02:07:36 AM
Kerry will win VA before he wins MO, AR, or TN.  The political climate is shifting drastically.  I expect to see massive Democratic gains in the DC, Hampton, and Richmond suburbs, which have been getting increasingly liberal as time passes.  Farifax, Henrico, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, and Prince William Counties will all go for the Dems this time, maybe Isle of Wight, Clarke, Warren, Albemarle, Nelson, Dinwiddie, and Loudon Counties too but probably not till '08.  That will probably shift the state.

The state is largely military. You think the large military populations of the state are going to go Democrat?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 17, 2004, 08:05:19 AM
I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 17, 2004, 09:11:45 AM
What's the defintion of underperforming here? Doing worse than FDR or what? ???

He didn't do as well as he should have done


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: DrumBucket on March 17, 2004, 10:11:59 AM
Neither Florida nor Virginia are or will be in play.  Rack up both for Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CTguy on March 17, 2004, 10:21:18 AM
Florida will definitely be in play.  And I think it is more likely Kerry will win it for 2 reasons:

1.) The cuban vote, which Bush won in 2000 by an 8-1 margin, is not nearly as energized because of some refugee policies.  

2.) The new voters in the state since 2000 seem more likely to vote for Kerry since 3 groups that have increased their ratio of the population are blacks, non-cuban hispanics, and jewish americans.  

Why else would Bush be spending so much money there 8 months before the election?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 17, 2004, 04:06:12 PM
In the last 15 years, Florida has accelerated to become far more democratic. It is not a traditional Southern state, and the high migration rates to there will keep benefiting the Democrats. Ohio and Pennsylvania seem to have opposite trends, and will start becoming harder for the Democrats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 17, 2004, 05:05:14 PM
Updated:

()

Bush 319
Kerry 219


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 05:06:04 PM
You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden? So have I, but I haven't got around to changing my map yet...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 17, 2004, 05:08:25 PM
You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden?

Yes.  He is a god damned joke.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 05:08:50 PM
I was wrong, I had alraedy changed my map...

()

Bush wins 302-236


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 05:10:14 PM
You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden?

Yes.  He is a god damned joke.

Not a funny one though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 17, 2004, 05:14:32 PM
I think John "Unnamed foreign leaders want me to win" Kerry will win WV pretty easily...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 17, 2004, 05:17:04 PM
You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden?

Yes.  He is a god damned joke.

You and Gustaf need to clue me in to your problems with Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 17, 2004, 05:18:09 PM

I think it has been quite obvious for months now that I dislike Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 05:21:19 PM
You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden?

Yes.  He is a god damned joke.

You and Gustaf need to clue me in to your problems with Kerry.

He makes gaffes, he has no back-bone (not necessarily a bad thing though), lacks charisma and is a rich senator from Massachusetts with a very liberal record. I am not willing to call the race yet, but Bush reelection chances are going up again. Even though the Libya-man-woman incident was kind of embarrasing to Bush. Says a lot of the Republican view of women, lol. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 17, 2004, 05:30:18 PM
How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 17, 2004, 05:32:45 PM
How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

BOTOX coupled with a suicidal Dean


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on March 17, 2004, 06:05:30 PM
here's my current map:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 06:05:52 PM
How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

BOTOX coupled with a suicidal Dean

Lol...somehow he managed to win the Iowa caucus, why I have no idea. The rest was just momentum and his percieved electability, originating in his winning primaries.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 17, 2004, 06:11:03 PM
That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 17, 2004, 06:15:54 PM
That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 17, 2004, 06:53:35 PM
I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.

Well, theoretically or demographically, yes, but not practically.  Because 2008 is going to be an easy win for whichever party has the presidency from 2004-2008.  Economic reasons - 2008 will be the 'sweet spot' of the current/incipient boom, and unemployment will be very low.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 17, 2004, 10:38:15 PM
Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 17, 2004, 10:39:48 PM
That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.

He won Iowa because his campaingn organization was able to accomodate the unforseen magnitude of the turn-out at the Caucuses.  Plus, Dean and Gephart toppled each-other.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 17, 2004, 10:41:20 PM
Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with this space-age analysis.  Sure productivity will be growing faster for a long while - as it has been since the late nineties - but the business cycle will reduce the unemployment rate a lot in '05-'07.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 17, 2004, 10:41:40 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

Saudi Arabi is currently working on a number of human rights reforms, but I think that that's only because they could read the writing on the wall.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 17, 2004, 10:46:44 PM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

Saudi Arabi is currently working on a number of human rights reforms, but I think that that's only because they could read the writing on the wall.

We need to relieve them of that oil - after all we (England and the US) found it all, and it was stolen ('nationalized') I believe in the late sixties.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on March 17, 2004, 11:03:42 PM
Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with this space-age analysis.  Sure productivity will be growing faster for a long while - as it has been since the late nineties - but the business cycle will reduce the unemployment rate a lot in '05-'07.

Not in the US.  It will reduce unemployment in Mexico, South Korea, India, and China.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 17, 2004, 11:09:12 PM
Unemployment actually won't. But ppl will make more money and things will cost less.  Most of the numbers will look good: markets, currency, inflation, interest rates, GDP, productivity, etc.  However, the job numbers won't bounce back until 2020 or 2024 when the Indians and Chinese Unionize and the environmental lobbies are established in those countries.  And even so, by then the next wave of mechanization will be ready to hit.

Just by nature of the changing face of the economy, jobs as we know them will become a thing of the past.  Sure Jobs that require though on a case-by-case basis will still be around, but the regular, non-degree requiring jobs will fade away.

I think you're getting ahead of yourself with this space-age analysis.  Sure productivity will be growing faster for a long while - as it has been since the late nineties - but the business cycle will reduce the unemployment rate a lot in '05-'07.

Not in the US.  It will reduce unemployment in Mexico, South Korea, India, and China.

We'll all be working in non-transportable jobs - mostly real estate related.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 17, 2004, 11:15:38 PM
That's my point Kerry won... because he won... you can understand my massive sense of confusion. :S

Siege40

Well, he came from nowhere for no obvious reason. The key is why he won Iowa. From then on it was pure momentum and perfectly explainable, even though it doesn't make sense, of course.

We all agree that the primary schedule was designed to create a speedy nominee. That explains the momentum factor. I think that Kerry understood the schedule effect and made two critical moves late in 2003. His campaign was flat, so he replaced his campaign head and then bet 6 million dollars with a mortgage that a win in Iowa would sweep the table.

His bet paid off for two reasons. He was right about the schedule effect. He was lucky that Gephardt and Dean went at each other so hard. The result was that he was in the right place to take advantage of the situation. Had there been another week before the caucus, I suspect that Edwards would have been on top, and he'd now be the nominee.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 18, 2004, 02:10:12 AM
Kerry better define himself and quit all the "Bush is bad for this and bad for that and yada yada yada". I understand you are supposed to talk a little "smack" about your opponent but when it's ALL you hear out of a candidate it's going to get old real real quick. Of course the liberal media will bury most of the negative stuff about Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 18, 2004, 08:08:39 AM
I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.

Well, theoretically or demographically, yes, but not practically.  Because 2008 is going to be an easy win for whichever party has the presidency from 2004-2008.  Economic reasons - 2008 will be the 'sweet spot' of the current/incipient boom, and unemployment will be very low.

It's very silly to day that 4 1/2 years from the election.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 18, 2004, 10:46:12 AM
Yes going after the terrorists using a police method really works. I forgot, Clinton defeated Terrorism. lol Kerry is a Dove he may launch a few missles if we get attacked but he will use no force to destroy our enemies. Bush is making our future safer.

It sounds like your saying if Americans re-elect Bush they can expect more Middle East Campaigning. Where do the Republicans want to turn next? Iran? Syria? Egypt? Dare I hope Saudi Arabia?

I was reading a piece about Bush's 2000 campaign from what I read on his perspectives he wanted to run on a policy of essentially isolationism. I don't know, that's what I got out of the message.

Siege40


I would say Iran or Syria would be the next ones. I agree Saudi Arabia should be on the list, but it's never going to happen. Bushs' 2000 campaign issues on National Security are irrelevant now. That was before 9/11. The nations of the Middle East need to be enlightened.

Saudi Arabi is currently working on a number of human rights reforms, but I think that that's only because they could read the writing on the wall.

We need to relieve them of that oil - after all we (England and the US) found it all, and it was stolen ('nationalized') I believe in the late sixties.

Ya, the Saudi's introduced 'Democratic Reform' in the 70s. We can all see what wonders it has done. They were going to introduce a system of reform starting with municiple democratic elections in '74. It never even got that far. I would not expect any better this time around.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 18, 2004, 07:44:45 PM
I agree, Virginia is not in play.
In 2008, it will be.

Well, theoretically or demographically, yes, but not practically.  Because 2008 is going to be an easy win for whichever party has the presidency from 2004-2008.  Economic reasons - 2008 will be the 'sweet spot' of the current/incipient boom, and unemployment will be very low.

It's very silly to day that 4 1/2 years from the election.

Not at all - economic expansions usually last at least 5-7 years, and more recently have tended to last longer.  Also unemployment gets low at the very end of expansions.  There's nothing risky about the prediction I made for 4.5 years from now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 18, 2004, 08:01:06 PM
I think that if Bush is re-elected, there will be an anti-GOP "movement" if you will, and after huge losses in 2006 (compatable to 1994 for the Dems), they will be forced to go moderate for '08 (Giuliani, McCain.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 19, 2004, 09:47:50 AM
I think that if Bush is re-elected, there will be an anti-GOP "movement" if you will, and after huge losses in 2006 (compatable to 1994 for the Dems), they will be forced to go moderate for '08 (Giuliani, McCain.)

Giuliani has a lot of skeletons in his closet, I'm not sure something like the Federal ticket is the place for him, a Senator or Congressman sure. McCain is a moderate right? If so I like the guy. I've seen him in interviews, he seems personable unlike some Presidents and Presidential nominees.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 19, 2004, 10:03:40 AM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CTguy on March 19, 2004, 03:08:11 PM
That's bull.  

If it looks like a duck and quacks a duck then it's a freaking duck.

His voting record is clearly republican on a wide range of issues.  He is less moderate than many Republican senators.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 19, 2004, 04:10:38 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

LOL!  Name one Democrat in the senate with a 60% ecnomic and social conservative rating.  You can't do it!  McCain is to the right of every democrat in the senate ecnomically and socially.  He is also to the right of every senate Dem in foreign affairs except Zell Miller.

I don't go around saying Zell Miller is a Republican, because that is not true.  And saying McCain is a Democrat is just as absurd.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 19, 2004, 04:13:09 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

McCain isn't a Democrat.  As Republican Senators go, he is probably in the middle when it comes to ideology.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 19, 2004, 04:18:01 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

No, McCain should have an (E) by his name...for ego.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 19, 2004, 04:18:16 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

McCain isn't a Democrat.  As Republican Senators go, he is probably in the middle when it comes to ideology.

Well, he is liberal for a Republican.  Lets see:

Chaffee, Snowe, collins, Specter, the guy from Oregon, and then McCaim?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 19, 2004, 04:18:31 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

No, McCain should have an (E) by his name...for ego.

lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 19, 2004, 06:53:19 PM
McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

No, McCain should have an (E) by his name...for ego.

McCain probably does have one of the biggest egos in the Seante, but he is far from the most liberal Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 20, 2004, 02:39:55 AM
Then why do you see him hanging with so many democrats? just curious.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 20, 2004, 02:57:22 AM
Then why do you see him hanging with so many democrats? just curious.

I don't think that's because he's liberal - its because he's self serving and not very loyal to his party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 20, 2004, 06:09:16 AM
The only moderate Republican who won't be either spoiled goods (McCain) or too lightweight (Giuliani) who has a shot at the GOP nomination is probably George Pataki...he's been governor of New York since 1994, could be in trouble if Spitzer runs in 06 (at this very early stage Spitzer leads amongst republicans!) so if Pataki doesn’t run in 06 and if Bush has been re-elected goes into the Administration that would place him in a powerful position to go for the GOP nomination....he'd probably be joined by Bill Owens, Bill Frist and Rick Santorum....though Santorum wouldn’t have a prayer outside of the GOP grassroots...if he where nominated which I doubt...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 20, 2004, 10:01:35 AM
Pataki is a joke at the national level.  Against Edwards in 2008 he would lose NEW YORK by 20%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 20, 2004, 10:03:33 AM
Pataki v. Edwards is a runaway.

()

Edwards 426
Pataki 112


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 20, 2004, 10:12:03 AM
How about Colin Powell? I know its been said, but I believe that would be a good chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 20, 2004, 10:13:36 AM
How about Colin Powell? I know its been said, but I believe that would be a good chance.

He would be a good choice (and he would be a president I could live with), but from what I hear, his wife has full control over him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 20, 2004, 10:14:18 AM
Powell would get trounced in the southern primaries though, which might make it hard for him to win the nomination.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CTguy on March 22, 2004, 06:08:19 AM
Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok... and they tend to be older and they tend to vote more than anyone else, especially in primaries.  

But I don't mind not having Colin Powell as President, he is pathetic.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 22, 2004, 11:38:07 AM
Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok...  

I don't want to burst your bubble by informing you that the black community (which votes heavily Democratic) is against interracial marriage more than whites...so I won't.  Please pardon the interruption.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 22, 2004, 03:17:50 PM
Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok... and they tend to be older and they tend to vote more than anyone else, especially in primaries.  

But I don't mind not having Colin Powell as President, he is pathetic.  

If any Southerners would be against Powell it would have nothing to do with his race, it would be because of his insufficient Conservatism.  Though they might be suspicious of his ideologicaly purity *because* of his race, I don't think they'd mind his race in and of itself.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 23, 2004, 02:52:58 AM
Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok...  

I don't want to burst your bubble by informing you that the black community (which votes heavily Democratic) is against interracial marriage more than whites...so I won't.  Please pardon the interruption.

That is very true, I know a LOT of blacks who are against  interracial marriage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on March 23, 2004, 10:30:07 PM
Quote

That is very true, I know a LOT of blacks who are against  interracial marriage.
Quote

By that do you mean people who while they support the legal right for races to intermarry, they themselves have no plans to do so, and maybe go as far to not want their friends to do so, or do you mean people that want it illegal, again?

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 24, 2004, 02:24:53 AM
They would definately oppose their family members marrying outside their race. I dont think they really care if its legal or not. It's just not going to happen for them.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 24, 2004, 03:21:59 AM
According to the Tampa Tribune these are the tossups for 2004 :

()


Ignore the shadings thats from my prediction map. They say the red are solid democrat and the blue are solid republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 24, 2004, 03:23:14 AM
can't see it


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 24, 2004, 03:37:03 AM
I couldn't ten minutes ago, but now I can.
WV is the only really strange assessment there. There are some more where I'd consider something possible (6 of them, in fact: Pennsylvania, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Colorado) but none of those is very probable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 24, 2004, 03:40:40 AM
It's so early on its very likely to change. If you notice the polls are swinging back to Bush. Kerry is being torn up and I don't think hes ready for the big leagues. The best is yet to come for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 24, 2004, 08:05:05 AM
NH and ME will trend into solidly Democratic states.
The midwest will trend GOP but will still be in play.
Virginia will trend Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 24, 2004, 08:13:48 AM
NH and ME will trend into solidly Democratic states.
The midwest will trend GOP but will still be in play.
Virginia will trend Dem.

Agree's... Basically East v West IS replacing North v South


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 24, 2004, 08:19:44 AM
NH and ME will trend into solidly Democratic states.
The midwest will trend GOP but will still be in play.
Virginia will trend Dem.

Agree's... Basically East v West IS replacing North v South


I would have thought it will be the center vs the coasts?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 24, 2004, 08:23:22 AM
I used to think that... but Oregon seems to be heading rightward... as is (to a lesser extent) California (which will remain a Democrat state). Washington is politically more like BC than any US state...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 24, 2004, 08:23:39 AM
Bit a both...It's the Coasts and part of the center-east vs. the rest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on March 24, 2004, 05:12:49 PM
I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 24, 2004, 05:16:22 PM
I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest

A Kerry-Richardson ticket probably won't be though. Your map is possible though, but I don't think WV will go for Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 24, 2004, 05:22:22 PM
()

That map looks highly off.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 24, 2004, 05:25:05 PM

Yes, it's unlikely, since a lot of tossups we'd expect to go Dem goes Rep and vice versa. It isn't insane or impossible though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 24, 2004, 05:25:31 PM
The map isn't terrible, but Missouri is definitely trending Republican.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 24, 2004, 05:25:58 PM
I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest

A Kerry-Richardson ticket probably won't be though. Your map is possible though, but I don't think WV will go for Kerry.

While I reckon a Kerry/Richardson ticket could gain NM and make AZ very competitive beyond that I doubt it would help the Dems… it would probably do little in MO and in the Midwest it would have no effect and it wouldn’t help the Dems in OH, PA or WV… don’t get me wrong… Richardson would have been GREAT! With Edwards at the top of the ticket (a DNC version of what Cheney was for Bush in 2000)… with Kerry he brings little and to all intents and purposes is just another moderately liberal, Washington insider Dem…    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 24, 2004, 05:28:16 PM
I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest

A Kerry-Richardson ticket probably won't be though. Your map is possible though, but I don't think WV will go for Kerry.

While I reckon a Kerry/Richardson ticket could gain NM and make AZ very competitive beyond that I doubt it would help the Dems… it would probably do little in MO and in the Midwest it would have no effect and it wouldn’t help the Dems in OH, PA or WV… don’t get me wrong… Richardson would have been GREAT! With Edwards at the top of the ticket (a DNC version of what Cheney was for Bush in 2000)… with Kerry he brings little and to all intents and purposes is just another moderately liberal, Washington insider Dem…    

I thought Richardson was governor of NM, that doesn't sound too Washington to me?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on March 24, 2004, 06:03:39 PM
I just wanted to put out a model for an even 269. Though your right a lot of the states will be flipped from what I indicated.  I just wonder what will the really effect of the Hispanic vote be and not just in this election but in future elections since both parties are still trying to capture that vote right now.  Richardson's speech after the State of the Union was great - if he did run I think he could really animate the urban vote.  http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/RHOriginPD-1990.html  Hey it might even make Texas a competive vote.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 24, 2004, 06:05:42 PM
I just wanted to put out a model for an even 269. Though your right a lot of the states will be flipped from what I indicated.  I just wonder what will the really effect of the Hispanic vote be and not just in this election but in future elections since both parties are still trying to capture that vote right now.  Richardson's speech after the State of the Union was great - if he did run I think he could really animate the urban vote.  http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/RHOriginPD-1990.html  Hey it might even make Texas a competive vote.

One of these days Texas WILL be competitive, I think...the question is just whether it's in 10 years or, say, 30.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on March 24, 2004, 06:40:36 PM
I just wanted to put out a model for an even 269. Though your right a lot of the states will be flipped from what I indicated.  I just wonder what will the really effect of the Hispanic vote be and not just in this election but in future elections since both parties are still trying to capture that vote right now.  Richardson's speech after the State of the Union was great - if he did run I think he could really animate the urban vote.  http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/RHOriginPD-1990.html  Hey it might even make Texas a competive vote.

One of these days Texas WILL be competitive, I think...the question is just whether it's in 10 years or, say, 30.

In the past 2 election cycles the District Of Columbia has become .6% more Republican.  

The district will thus be "in play" in the year 2408.... if not sooner....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 24, 2004, 06:44:38 PM
I was thinking of how a Kerry-Richardson ticket might do.  If it was supported by McCain it would easily get the south west Arizona and New Mexico.  It would put Colorado back into play and may be able to keep Florida and Missouri interesting.  It may have no effect in Minnesota or Wisconsin.  Here is a possible 269 split.
Kerry-Richardson: Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, California, New Mexico, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Illinois, Michigan, West Virginia, Maryland, Deleware, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Conn, RI, Mass and DC Bush-Cheney: the rest

A Kerry-Richardson ticket probably won't be though. Your map is possible though, but I don't think WV will go for Kerry.

While I reckon a Kerry/Richardson ticket could gain NM and make AZ very competitive beyond that I doubt it would help the Dems… it would probably do little in MO and in the Midwest it would have no effect and it wouldn’t help the Dems in OH, PA or WV… don’t get me wrong… Richardson would have been GREAT! With Edwards at the top of the ticket (a DNC version of what Cheney was for Bush in 2000)… with Kerry he brings little and to all intents and purposes is just another moderately liberal, Washington insider Dem…    

I thought Richardson was governor of NM, that doesn't sound too Washington to me?

Yes... but he was energy sec under Clinton and he has a lot experiance working in Washington... added to that he is of a similar age and he is not the most inspiring of Dems... two middle aged, male, carear pols wouldnt be a great idea... you need a moderate with some non-political experaince who would play well with the moderates and independets... Warner, Nelson and Edwards all seem like good choices to me...      


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on March 24, 2004, 06:55:03 PM
So if their is that 269-269 tie the house will get to choose the president instead of the supreme court.

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/printer_8453.shtml.html



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: timroman on March 24, 2004, 08:16:47 PM
That would suck if it was 269-269


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: timroman on March 24, 2004, 08:43:54 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
what the heck


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 25, 2004, 04:36:01 PM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
what the heck

Lol, how did you dig that up? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 26, 2004, 04:06:30 AM
If the Electoral College deadlocks the House would almost certainly re-elect Bush. Currently 30 states' delegations have Republican majorities with two states evenly split and one (South Dakota) vacant. Since each state gets one vote it would seem unlikely the Democrats could pull it off even if they retake the House as a result of the 2004 elections.

Welcome NewFederalist, and your right if the election is thrown to the house Bush will probably win... though the republican majority in the House and the senate could well narrow... however it will be tough for Dems to retake either...but they can do it 4/1 as opposed to 3/1 for the GOP retaining control and 2/1 for no majority... but hey I not really a gambling man...  
   


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 26, 2004, 07:59:30 AM
I see a few are having quick conversations to boost their numbers.  Kind of sad, at least most of mine have been actual policy oriented.  Not all but most.

Hey, DarthKosh, you're a YabbGod all of a sudden. Just b/c of all the pyramids... I have been tricked into participating in your power game and unwittingly contributed to your success. :) But not anymore...
Who was that comment directed at?
At DarthKosh, but I could sy the same of you, I see now! :) Actually, I benefited from the pyramid games myself, so I will sneak into a god position when you least expect it... :) *insane evil laughter*
what the heck

Lol, how did you dig that up? :)

Remember when we used to build pyramids?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MasterJedi on March 26, 2004, 01:00:20 PM
Well I'll be too young to vote when the election comes around (17) but I'll get most of my family and neighbors to vote for Bush!

He has to win for the country to continue down the right course and to win the war on terrorism.

We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 26, 2004, 01:23:01 PM
Well I'll be too young to vote when the election comes around (17) but I'll get most of my family and neighbors to vote for Bush!

He has to win for the country to continue down the right course and to win the war on terrorism.

We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

Hey, welcome.  Feel free to checkout the other folders and treads.  The more posters the better.  :)  Take a look at our fantasy election, as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TheWildCard on March 26, 2004, 01:27:17 PM
Well I'll be too young to vote when the election comes around (17) but I'll get most of my family and neighbors to vote for Bush!

He has to win for the country to continue down the right course and to win the war on terrorism.

We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

Welcome to the Forums MasterJedi!(I always knew the Jedis were Republicans! )

Make sure to check out the fantasy election forum as well!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 26, 2004, 01:54:39 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 26, 2004, 04:40:48 PM
Who cares about who he wants to win the election.

Either way, I think he'd prefer someone with little previous military experience who goes off on unrelated wars that cause more terrorism then a decorated war hero who will get straight to the point and kill him rather then invade a country with the end result of making the world a more dangerous place :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 26, 2004, 06:07:42 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...

It depends if he wants us to roll over now, or if he wants to fight it out.  Kerry would roll over Spanish style, Bush would fight.  Which does UBL want?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 26, 2004, 06:11:16 PM
He wants to set up an Islamic Caliphate. And kill everyone else.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 26, 2004, 06:24:07 PM
He wants to set up an Islamic Caliphate. And kill everyone else.

So Kerry would be preferred over Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 26, 2004, 06:30:44 PM
Bush would be preffered, because he isn't actually fighting a war on terror. I think that Kerry would be more active in getting rid of OBL then Saddam-both are truly evil, but OBL is worse, imho.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 26, 2004, 06:32:52 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...

It depends if he wants us to roll over now, or if he wants to fight it out.  Kerry would roll over Spanish style, Bush would fight.  Which does UBL want?


Kerry would not roll over, it'd both be stupid and undoable in the current political climate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 26, 2004, 07:12:07 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...

It depends if he wants us to roll over now, or if he wants to fight it out.  Kerry would roll over Spanish style, Bush would fight.  Which does UBL want?


Kerry would not roll over, it'd both be stupid and undoable in the current political climate.

Relative to Bush, he would roll over - its what his supporters want.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 26, 2004, 07:30:08 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...

It depends if he wants us to roll over now, or if he wants to fight it out.  Kerry would roll over Spanish style, Bush would fight.  Which does UBL want?


Kerry would not roll over, it'd both be stupid and undoable in the current political climate.

Relative to Bush, he would roll over - its what his supporters want.

Relative to Bush, lol...and he won't care that much about his 'supporters', it's the swing voters who matter. The guy is not an idiot, I think he'll do what needs to be done. And anyway I don't think there'll be much need of invading countries again, for the purpose of terrorism, for some time to come.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 26, 2004, 07:38:53 PM
We all need to ask the question, who does UBL want to win the election?

He doesn't care. In his f***** up mind ALL Americans are "The Enemy"...

It depends if he wants us to roll over now, or if he wants to fight it out.  Kerry would roll over Spanish style, Bush would fight.  Which does UBL want?


Kerry would not roll over, it'd both be stupid and undoable in the current political climate.

Relative to Bush, he would roll over - its what his supporters want.

Relative to Bush, lol...and he won't care that much about his 'supporters', it's the swing voters who matter. The guy is not an idiot, I think he'll do what needs to be done. And anyway I don't think there'll be much need of invading countries again, for the purpose of terrorism, for some time to come.

No, he'll just do some very minimalist 'criminal justice' type efforts, which of course will do nothing at all.  

As for invasions, they're one of many tools that will have to be employed in the future - this is all out war.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 27, 2004, 01:42:32 PM
Read most of the latter part of the thread, and here are my predictions:

()

Dem - 275
Rep  - 263

Close ones being:

()

Dem- 231
Rep - 189
Tos  - 118

I think there will be a couple surprises,  so I made them CO and LA.  I'm expecting trends to continue, and unless Bush can bring up his dismal right-track and economics numbers, he's in for a close race.

I view a least one upset as a certainty, so I'm trying to guess where they will occur.

Anyway:

West

I can assure you all that California is in no danger of going Republican.  If anything, it's been getting more Democratic.   People don't necessarily credit any of Arnold's successes with a Republican success.

I have kept Oregon and Washington Democratic.  The population centers such as around Seattle are Democratic strongholds and I think that'll outweigh the rural vote.

Southwest

I think Bush will be dumping his campaign war chest in the Southwest, making it very difficult for Kerry to progress.  However, I think Colorado will be slightly ignored and Kerry will push hard with the Hispanic vote here.  We'll have to see.  I know most people can't see Colorado switching with New Mexico staying blue, but I suspect a surprise.

Midwest

I have Iowa switching to the GOP, but maybe I'll be wrong since it had a lot of attention from the Dems in the primaries.  I think Bush will focus here and make it swing over.

Minnesota stays Democratic, I don't see it switching in this election.

Ohio goes Republican.  I can't see Kerry winning this state for some reason.  Another one that will simply be overwhelmed by money, combined with an edge to the GOP over social issues.

Northeast

Both Maine and New Hampshire will go Kerry.  He's from the area and Bush's popularity in New England has been dropping.

Pennsylvania goes Democratic.  I think this will be one of the main focuses of the Dems and from reading other posts in the thread, Philidelphia is strongly Democratic and it's unlikely for the rural areas to overcome this.  I don't think social issues are as big of a deal here.

South

West Virginia goes Democratic.  A large number of lower-class and unionized voters will turn this state back to its old owners.  

I suspect Missouri and Arkansas will stay GOP.   Too much for the Dems to overcome.

Florida will stay Republican simply because of the huge amount of attention it's getting.  There is a large grass-roots movement for the GOP forming as well.

I chose Louisiana as my second upset.  With some Democratic trends in local elections (for Southerners, not Kerry-types I'll admit), and with a large Catholic population, I can see this switching by November.  




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 27, 2004, 01:46:25 PM
I don't think Colorado will go democrat.

welcome to the board Lunar!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 27, 2004, 02:01:07 PM
I don't think Colorado will go democrat.

welcome to the board Lunar!
Only if the VP is Richarson.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 27, 2004, 02:08:56 PM
Not a bad prediction, Lunar. I disagree about Colorado, but you give a good reason for why.
Welcome to the forum! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 27, 2004, 02:14:13 PM
With Richardson:()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:21:45 PM
I can see Ohio easliy falling into the Kerry column.  I am on the Kentucky side of the river in Cincinnati, and although Cincinnati is definately "Bush Country",  I do not believe the rest of Ohio will vote that way.  I hope Bush gives Ohio the attention it deserves.  As of last night, Kerry had a 48-46 lead over Bush in Ohio.  A marginal lead at best, and only time will tell.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 27, 2004, 02:24:50 PM


Kerry will not lose all of the steel states added to that i really doubt that Kerry will lose WI and i think he will be very strong in NH...what would you prediction be with Edwards on the ticket?... furthermore I don’t see AZ and NV going to the Dems just because Richardson is on the ticket... also ultimately i doubt FL will go to Kerry (though it will be close) we will probably be spared a repeat of the "recount debacle"... the results you suggest would really require Kerry to effectively abandon the steel states i doubt that Bush will sweep them the political terrain in all three (OH, PA and WV) favours Kerry and Bush is in for a tough fight in each of them...but Kerry will win PA and OH before he wins WV IMHO...        


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 27, 2004, 02:29:12 PM
edwards on the ticket?  Maybe take away NM, AZ, FL, and NV, and add OH, WI, and IA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:29:26 PM
Kerry might be able to "steal" a couple of Southern states with Edwards on the ticket.  I could see South Carolina putting Kerry over the top with this scenario, even though Kerry has minimal chances in the South.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 27, 2004, 02:30:37 PM
I can see Ohio easliy falling into the Kerry column.  I am on the Kentucky side of the river in Cincinnati, and although Cincinnati is definately "Bush Country",  I do not believe the rest of Ohio will vote that way.  I hope Bush gives Ohio the attention it deserves.  As of last night, Kerry had a 48-46 lead over Bush in Ohio.  A marginal lead at best, and only time will tell.


welcome to the forums klrbzzz!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:33:42 PM
Thanks JohnFKennedy!!!!!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 27, 2004, 02:34:53 PM

I bet you thought I was dead till you came here, lol ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 27, 2004, 02:36:14 PM
Edwards' message speaks best about free trade which makes him stongest in the midwest. He would put Tennessee, Virginia and Louisiana well into play though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:37:10 PM
I guess those history classes i took were a waste of  time :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 27, 2004, 02:39:42 PM
I guess those history classes i took were a waste of  time :)

He who does not learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

So they weren't a waste of time!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Kghadial on March 27, 2004, 02:43:21 PM
Southwest

I think Bush will be dumping his campaign war chest in the Southwest, making it very difficult for Kerry to progress.  However, I think Colorado will be slightly ignored and Kerry will push hard with the Hispanic vote here.  We'll have to see.  I know most people can't see Colorado switching with New Mexico staying blue, but I suspect a surprise.



I think Kerry was born in Colorado. If I had to pick a state that almost everyone thinks is safe, and put it in the other column, I would pick Colorado too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:48:48 PM
Just joking about that history thing, even though I have repeated past mistakes, as minor as they were.  Being that I am in a heavy GOP area, some of my acquaintances actually think Bush will win CA.  To set the record straight, Bush will win CA the day that Kerry wins TX.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 27, 2004, 02:49:40 PM
I can see Ohio easliy falling into the Kerry column.  I am on the Kentucky side of the river in Cincinnati, and although Cincinnati is definately "Bush Country",  I do not believe the rest of Ohio will vote that way.  I hope Bush gives Ohio the attention it deserves.  As of last night, Kerry had a 48-46 lead over Bush in Ohio.  A marginal lead at best, and only time will tell.


welcome to the forums klrbzzz!

Where are my manners!.... yeah welcome to the forum... where politics comes alive!... or so I'm told...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 27, 2004, 02:50:37 PM
I can see Ohio easliy falling into the Kerry column.  I am on the Kentucky side of the river in Cincinnati, and although Cincinnati is definately "Bush Country",  I do not believe the rest of Ohio will vote that way.  I hope Bush gives Ohio the attention it deserves.  As of last night, Kerry had a 48-46 lead over Bush in Ohio.  A marginal lead at best, and only time will tell.


welcome to the forums klrbzzz!

Where are my manners!.... yeah welcome to the forum... where politics comes alive!... or so I'm told...

and all those you thought were dead do too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 27, 2004, 02:54:10 PM
Thank you all :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 04:26:59 PM
See the Democrats are nice ;)

welcome :)

Back to predicting-Richardson would win NM, maybe NV, maybe FL and maybe AZ. Edwards wouldn't help in any specific states, but would nationally. I think if I had to give states he would help in, it would be here in IA, WI, MN, WV and maybe even FL.

I'll post my updates prediction in a moment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 04:32:49 PM
Kerry/Richardson
()

Kerry 267-Bush 271.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 27, 2004, 04:34:12 PM
Kerry might be able to "steal" a couple of Southern states with Edwards on the ticket.  I could see South Carolina putting Kerry over the top with this scenario, even though Kerry has minimal chances in the South.

I doubt South Carolina would put the Democrats over the top with Edwards on the top of the ticket, let alone the bottom.  I'd be surprised if Kerry chose him, mostly because everything Edwards has going for him (populist, charisma, Southern) mostly does nothing if he's only a VP.  

Kerry would do best by choosing a VP from either the Southwest or Midwest, as those regions are most likely to switch over with a small boost from a VP from the region.

This dicussion of likely VP candidates seems pretty cool:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_veep2.htm
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/pres_veep2-table.htm

I disagree with them about Wes Clark and Max Cleland (opposite views on both), but still interesting.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 04:35:18 PM
Keryy/Edwards
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 04:39:10 PM
Kerry/Vilsack (I can Dream)
()
Kerry 254-284 Bush

BTW, Kerry/Edwards has Kerry winning 284-254)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 04:41:15 PM
Last one, Kerry/Warner
()

Kerry 270-268 Bush


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 27, 2004, 05:15:25 PM
The Carolina's are possible upsets... both will depend on jobs.
Now if Kerry picks Edwards, he could make him spend all his time in the South Atlantic


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 27, 2004, 05:16:29 PM
It seems all Kerry has to do is pick a VP and he wins. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 05:21:23 PM
sssh :D

If he chooses Howard Dean he loses, if that helps.

He also loses with Richardson and Vilsack on my maps, I think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 27, 2004, 05:33:05 PM
Richardson would certainly help Kerry. I'm against Vilsack, Bayh, or Gephardt. I really don't like the old Democrats and I don't want two on the ticket.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 27, 2004, 05:36:38 PM
Last one, Kerry/Warner
()

Kerry 270-268 Bush

I really need to learn how to use pictuers...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on March 27, 2004, 05:39:11 PM
Last one, Kerry/Warner
()

Kerry 270-268 Bush

I really need to learn how to use pictuers...

It's easy. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 27, 2004, 05:39:48 PM
Warner is popular among rural voter, right? Put Iowa in the Kerry column. I'd like to hear Warner speak, I still haven't, but he looks and sounds like a strong VP pick.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 27, 2004, 05:41:52 PM
I don't think Warner would help in IA because we don't like southerners here at all. Edwards is an exception because he spent SO much time here, and got to know us.

We are very isolationist here-Virginia isn't our concern, and Illinois is only slightly on the radar :p


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 27, 2004, 07:18:19 PM


I think Kerry was born in Colorado. If I had to pick a state that almost everyone thinks is safe, and put it in the other column, I would pick Colorado too.

Just checked and that's correct.  Not quite Bush's situation in his birthplace (Connecticut) so he might be able to push that in Colorado if he does it right.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 27, 2004, 07:22:41 PM
Birth place or former residence doesn't matter. The Bush's are no longer popular in Connecticut, and Gore couldn't win Tennessee in 2000.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 27, 2004, 07:30:38 PM
His father, Richard, served in CO and he happen to be born there. Few weeks after Kerry's birth, his family returned to Massachusetts.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 27, 2004, 07:37:09 PM
I know, I know.  But I think it will give him a few votes if he can appear to be more regional than Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on March 28, 2004, 01:43:46 AM
I know, I know.  But I think it will give him a few votes if he can appear to be more regional than Bush.

i think your predictions are dead on for now...except Louisana, which would give us the same result as 2000 (I hope)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on March 28, 2004, 01:50:11 AM
I know, I know.  But I think it will give him a few votes if he can appear to be more regional than Bush.

i think your predictions are dead on for now...except Louisana, which would give us the same result as 2000 (I hope)

sorry, it would be 272 not 271, but still a win


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 28, 2004, 01:53:34 AM
Yeah I'm not sure about LA either, but I think there is a reasonable chance and I want to take a gamble, heh.  All depends on how Kerry plays the cards he has at the moment.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 28, 2004, 03:35:54 AM
I still can't see Kerry winning both CO and LA but losing IA-very unlikely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 04:10:44 AM
Last one, Kerry/Warner
()

Kerry 270-268 Bush

I really need to learn how to use pictuers...

It's easy. :)


How?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 28, 2004, 04:47:38 AM
put [ img ]urlforpicturehere[ / img ]

except without the spaces between the ['s and the writing and between the / and the writing and stuff.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 10:22:45 AM
This is my updated map :

()

This is my confidence map :

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 28, 2004, 10:43:02 AM
ev numbers please


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 10:46:39 AM
Prediction :

Republican : 336

Democrat : 202

Confidence:

Republican : 201

Democrat :173

Tossup : 164


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 28, 2004, 11:31:15 AM
Not bad... Bush won't get 60% in Arkansas... other than that...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 11:48:23 AM
I'm gonna update mine now.  I lose faith in Kerry every day.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 11:51:32 AM
()

Bush/Cheney 350
Kerry/Edwards 188


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 12:10:15 PM
You may call me a dreamer..lol

Miami though I would like that to be the final result I just dont see it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 12:11:37 PM
Can a Republican ever win Hawaii?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 12:17:06 PM
You may call me a dreamer..lol

Miami though I would like that to be the final result I just dont see it.

Why not?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 28, 2004, 12:31:25 PM
Probably because you have Bush winning every swing state and then some (except West Virginia).  The election is going to be closer than that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 12:49:49 PM
   

I find it very unlikely that Bush would enjoy such a sweeping victory...it will all come down to Ohio some are worried about PA... last year polls in PA where similar to where they are now...in fact back then Bush was beating us by 3-4 points!...it (as last time) will take a lot of foot work and plenty of adds but we should hold PA by a similar margin to last time...Michigan and Oregon will not go to Bush either... MN, IA and NM could really go either way (a week ago i would have said Bush will win IA and NM but now I'm not so sure same with MN)... in WI the polls are very good for Kerry considering Gore won in it by just 0.07% last time round... the last poll out from the American Research Group shows Kerry-46%, Bush-43%, Nader-4% in WI... i doubt Nader will have that kinda presence (he just doesn’t have the money or the activist support).... but your being way to generous to Bush he will not effectively sweep all the swing states just wont happen... the one really good thing about Kerry is he is pretty close to what most people see as "generic democrat" and in every poll given a choice better Bush and "generic democrat", generic democrat wins...some dems on this board are way too depressed about the Kerry candidacy...  
 


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: mooster on March 28, 2004, 12:57:11 PM
Right now, the national polling numbers are 45% to 45%.  Obviously, it all comes down to a few battleground states, and how the vote divides there.  Amongst LIKELY voters (the only kind that count), its 48-44 in Michigan, 45-41 in Ohio, 45-44 in Penn, 48-45 in Florida, 47-44 in Minn, and 51-41 in Iowa,  ALL IN FAVOUR OF KERRY!  (I know, its a bit shocking).  If the election were held today, Kerry would actually win the electoral vote.  Now, naturally, the margins are within the polling error in many states, but the trend can't be denied.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on March 28, 2004, 01:30:55 PM
I know, I know.  But I think it will give him a few votes if he can appear to be more regional than Bush.

Actually, again, i looked  at your map and I dont see Kerry winning Colorado, and I think Bush winning Iowa is just as unlikely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 28, 2004, 01:42:24 PM
I'm predicting some things will change between now and November, including some trends.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 02:48:19 PM
Kerry is not a "generic democrat". Kerry is a far to the left liberal Democrat, and even old Blonde Killer has shot him down on more then a few occassions.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 28, 2004, 02:51:24 PM
Kerry is to a "generic democrat" what Limbaugh is to a "generic republican".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 05:11:57 PM
Kerry is to a "generic democrat" what Limbaugh is to a "generic republican".

Which Dem pol would you see as a "generic democrat"... you should read the article in this weeks econamist is very good... i really dont see however how you can say that Kerry is as extreem as democrat as Limbaugh is a republican....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 05:17:06 PM
Gephardt is a generic Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 05:20:13 PM

But he's way to the left of Kerry? why him?.... i would say if you want a generic dem your looking at Harkin or an older version of Edwards however in alot of voters minds i'd say Kerry is pretty much as they imagine a "generic dem" IMHO...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 05:20:43 PM
Gephardt is to the right of KErry


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 05:55:28 PM

No he isn’t on trade, on government spending, on taxation, he is very much to Kerry's left (however he is a friend of Kerry's and now a big supporter)...  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 28, 2004, 05:58:01 PM
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on March 28, 2004, 06:01:14 PM
On my personal chart, a 'generic Democrat' is frightfully far to the left.  I only find people like Zell Miller, Breux, Leiberman, and a few others at all comparable with the political center of the country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 07:43:42 PM

No he isn’t on trade, on government spending, on taxation, he is very much to Kerry's left (however he is a friend of Kerry's and now a big supporter)...  


Kerry is the most liberal senate member.
Gephardt is in the center-left among house members.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on March 28, 2004, 07:46:21 PM
I don't like the moderates, although I suppose I like Lieberman. As long as fiscal responsibility, gun control, support for gay marriage, and a lack of compassion for the Bible Belters or the elderly I will lean towards that candidate (Dean fits this pretty well).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 07:48:44 PM
Clinton won two times being considered a "moderate". Whens the last time a person who spent any time in office as a senator became President?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 07:49:38 PM
Clinton won two times being considered a "moderate". Whens the last time a person who spent any time in office as a senator became President?

Kennedy I think


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 28, 2004, 07:50:36 PM
Clinton won two times being considered a "moderate". Whens the last time a person who spent any time in office as a senator became President?

Kennedy I think

Yes Kennedy
LBJ and Ford were congressmen


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 07:50:53 PM
He was a Senator. But he was out a lot of that tenure for illness and did not vote very much on bills. Dukakis Jr. has a long record. Democrats wanted a Clinton and have ended up with a Dukakis.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 28, 2004, 07:51:57 PM
He was a Senator. But he was out a lot of that tenure for illness and did not vote very much on bills. Dukakis Jr. has a long record. Democrats wanted a Clinton and have ended up with a Dukakis.


yep :(

Where's Edwards when you need him?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 07:53:48 PM
Edwards, though possibly a excellent candidate in the future, is a political creampuff when put up against Bush right now. Joe Liberman or Dean would have been a better choice.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on March 28, 2004, 07:55:42 PM
I know, I know.  But I think it will give him a few votes if he can appear to be more regional than Bush.

i think your predictions are dead on for now...except Louisana, which would give us the same result as 2000 (I hope)

Kerry will never win in Colorado.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 28, 2004, 07:56:59 PM
Super flip flop Mi and Wi to Republican and put Minn as Democrat and thats where I about stand right now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 28, 2004, 08:03:35 PM

I think it has a chance to be up for grabs depending on how the next 8 months go, you don't.  We differ!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 28, 2004, 08:12:16 PM

Kerry is the 11th most liberal senator... last year he was the most liberal because he wasnt there a whole lot...but as Ive said before Kerry's liberalism is over played... get  this weeks' econamist it got great picece on Kerry...  
No he isn’t on trade, on government spending, on taxation, he is very much to Kerry's left (however he is a friend of Kerry's and now a big supporter)...  


Kerry is the most liberal senate member.
Gephardt is in the center-left among house members.

Economically Gephardt is well to the left of Kerry, Kerry is a senator who supported socail secuirty refrom under Clinton and has on a number of occasions picked fights with organised labour... the only issue where Gephardt is to the right of Kerry is possibly the war in iraq but on foreign policy more generally they are pretty similar...  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 29, 2004, 05:58:50 AM
LBJ was Senate Majority leader in the '50's.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 29, 2004, 07:21:28 AM
Kerry is from Colorado.
But seriously: He might win Colorado, but in that case he'd probably tick off a number of Blue states from that map first. It's unlikely, but possible.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 29, 2004, 07:37:07 AM
Kerry is from Colorado.
But seriously: He might win Colorado, but in that case he'd probably tick off a number of Blue states from that map first. It's unlikely, but possible.
He is not 'from' Colorado
He was merely born there and spent there the first few weeks of his life.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 29, 2004, 07:41:49 AM
I didn't know how long exactly he lived there, but as I'd never seen the fact he's born in Denver mentioned in any articles I assumed it was probably pretty short. Kinda like Eisenhower bein a "Texan".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on March 29, 2004, 07:46:00 AM
From Kerry's site:

John Kerry was born on December 11, 1943 at Fitzsimons Military Hospital in Denver, Colorado, where his father, Richard, who had volunteered to fly DC-3's in the Army Air Corps in World War II, was recovering from a bout with tuberculosis. Not long after Sen. Kerry's birth, his family returned home to Massachusetts


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 29, 2004, 09:12:26 AM
I think in geneology I think if you are born on a military base you are considered to still be from the state your family was from but I'm not sure I'll have to check.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on March 29, 2004, 12:03:28 PM
Bush escapes with Colorado, and Kerry narrowly grabs Pennsylvania.  The "T" in Penn might be strong-Bush, but I do not see Pittsburgh and Philly showing Bush any support.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 29, 2004, 12:54:09 PM
Bush escapes with Colorado, and Kerry narrowly grabs Pennsylvania.  The "T" in Penn might be strong-Bush, but I do not see Pittsburgh and Philly showing Bush any support.

lol on PA... but with Owens and the broad support he enjoys in CO Bush will win there very solidly there, however Salazar will probably win the open senate seat IMHO...  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 30, 2004, 12:11:06 AM
I see striking similarities to the 1916 election and this current election. Any thoughts?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 30, 2004, 06:58:32 AM
You mean Bush won with 40 percent of the vote because the Dems had split into two equal camps and will be reelected because he kept the US out of the War on Terrorism? Or what? Sorry, I can't follow you...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 30, 2004, 09:30:41 AM
Sorry I mean 1864.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on March 30, 2004, 11:56:17 AM
LBJ was Senate Majority leader in the '50's.

yes he was, he ran against Kennedy for the nomination but lost out, him and a few others ran huge smear campaigns against Kennedy and told of how he was too young and inexperience and would be terrible as President.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on March 30, 2004, 12:03:54 PM
Hmmm.  1864.  I might be getting too political but I don't actually think that Bush and Lincoln fall in the same category.  I think that Lincoln would not have won in the south but considering they were at the time waging a war against the North they opted not to vote at all.  Despite the civil war it was a surprisingly close election.  Thank God Lincoln won.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 30, 2004, 12:44:24 PM
I would have voted for McClellan.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on March 30, 2004, 05:55:58 PM

Good strategy "States rights"... i think i read in that civil war history by Shelby Foote that McClellan and many northern governors and southern governors favoured a cease fire and a convention of states' governors to negotiate peace... now that could have been interesting...

If my state had seceded I would have backed it all the way back then I reckon not to support slavery… but in that time and in that context I would have fought for the rights of my state not to be dictated to by the federal government… probably reflecting how I think MA can be as liberal as it likes (within reason) and MS or UT as conservative as they like (again within reason) and that generally the federal government should offer a basis for welfare, education healthcare ect… that can be built upon or not and with social issues its up to the voters in those states (generally) IMHO…    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on March 30, 2004, 06:05:30 PM
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USACWmcclellan.htm

George McClellan, the son of a surgeon, he was born in Philadelphia on 3rd December, 1826. He was educated at the University of Pennsylvania and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, where in 1846 he graduated second in his class.

****

Although McClellan was a member of the Democratic Party he offered his services to President Abraham Lincoln on the outbreak of the American Civil War. He was placed in command of the Department of the Ohio with responsibility for holding the western area of Virginia. He did this successfully and after the Union Army was defeated by the Confederate Army at Bull Run, Lincoln appointed McClellan as commander of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan insisted that his army should undertake any new offensives until his new troops were fully trained.

In November, 1861 McClellan, who was only 34 years old, was made commander in chief of the Union Army. He developed a strategy to defeat the Confederate Army that included an army of 273,000 men. His plan was to invade Virginia from the sea and to seize Richmond and the other major cities in the South. McClellan believed that to keep resistance to a minimum, it should be made clear that the Union forces would not interfere with slavery and would help put down any slave insurrections.

McClellan appointed Allan Pinkerton to employ his agents to spy on the Confederate Army. His reports exaggerated the size of the enemy and McClellan was unwilling to launch an attack until he had more soldiers available. Under pressure from Radical Republicans in Congress, Abraham Lincoln decided in January, 1862, to appoint Edwin M. Stanton as his new Secretary of War.

Soon after this appointment Abraham Lincoln ordered McClellan to appear before a committee investigating the way the war was being fought. On 15th January, 1862, McClellan had to face the hostile questioning of Benjamin Wade and Zachariah Chandler. Wade asked McClellan why he was refusing to attack the Confederate Army. He replied that he had to prepare the proper routes of retreat. Chandler then said: "General McClellan, if I understand you correctly, before you strike at the rebels you want to be sure of plenty of room so that you can run in case they strike back." Wade added "Or in case you get scared". After McClellan left the room, Wade and Chandler came to the conclusion that McClellan was guilty of "infernal, unmitigated cowardice".

As a result of this meeting Abraham Lincoln decided he must find a way to force McClellan into action. On 31st January he issued General War Order Number One. This ordered McClellan to begin the offensive against the enemy before the 22nd February. Lincoln also insisted on being consulted about McClellan's military plans. Lincoln disagreed with McClellan's desire to attack Richmond from the east. Lincoln only gave in when the division commanders voted 8 to 4 in favour of McClellan's strategy. However, Lincoln no longer had confidence in McClellan and removed him from supreme command of the Union Army. He also insisted that McClellan left 30,000 men behind to defend Washington.

During the summer of 1862, McClellan and the Army of the Potomac, took part in what became known as the Peninsular Campaign. The main objective was to capture Richmond, the base of the Confederate government. McClellan and his 115,000 troops encountered the Confederate Army at Williamsburg on 5th May. After a brief battle the Confederate forces retreated South.

McClellan moved his troops into the Shenandoah Valley and along with John C. Fremont, Irvin McDowell and Nathaniel Banks surrounded Thomas Stonewall Jackson and his 17,000 man army. First Jackson attacked John C. Fremont at Cross Keys before turning on Irvin McDowell at Port Republic. Jackson then rushed his troops east to join up with Joseph E. Johnston and the Confederate forces fighting McClellan in the suburbs the city.

General Joseph E. Johnston with some 41,800 men counter-attacked McClellan's slightly larger army at Fair Oaks. The Union Army lost 5,031 men and the Confederate Army 6,134. Johnson was badly wounded during the battle and General Robert E. Lee now took command of the Confederate forces.

Major General John Pope, the commander of the new Army of Virginia, was instructed to move east to Blue Ridge Mountains towards Charlottesville. It was hoped that this move would help McClellan by drawing Robert E. Lee away from defending Richmond. Lee's 80,000 troops were now faced with the prospect of fighting two large armies: McClellan (90,000) and Pope (50,000)

Joined by Thomas Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate troops constantly attacked McClellan and on 27th June they broke through at Gaines Mill. Convinced he was outnumbered, McClellan retreated to James River. Abraham Lincoln, frustrated by McClellan's lack of success, sent in Major General John Pope, but he was easily beaten back by Jackson.

McClellan wrote to Abraham Lincoln complaining that a lack of resources was making it impossible to defeat the Confederate forces. He also made it clear that he was unwilling to employ tactics that would result in heavy casualties. He claimed that "ever poor fellow that is killed or wounded almost haunts me!" On 1st July, 1862, McClellan and Lincoln met at Harrison Landing. McClellan once again insisted that the war should be waged against the Confederate Army and not slavery.

Salmon Chase (Secretary of the Treasury), Edwin M. Stanton (Secretary of War) and vice president Hannibal Hamlin, who were all strong opponents of slavery, led the campaign to have McClellan sacked. Unwilling to do this, Abraham Lincoln decided to put McClellan in charge of all forces in the Washington area.

After the second battle of Bull Run, General Robert E. Lee decided to invade Maryland and Pennsylvania. On 10th September, 1862, he sent Thomas Stonewall Jackson to capture the Union Army garrison at Harper's Ferry and moved the rest of his troops to Antietam Creek. When McClellan heard that the Confederate Army had been divided, he decided to attack Lee. However, the Harper's Ferry garrison surrendered on 15th September and some of the men were able to rejoin Lee.

On the morning of 17th September, 1862, McClellan and Major General Ambrose Burnside attacked Robert E. Lee at Antietam. The Union Army had over 75,300 troops against 37,330 Confederate soldiers. Lee held out until Ambrose Hill and reinforcements arrived from Harper's Ferry. The following day Lee and his army crossed the Potomac into Virginia unhindered.

It was the most costly day of the war with the Union Army having 2,108 killed, 9,549 wounded and 753 missing. The Confederate Army had 2,700 killed, 9,024 wounded and 2,000 missing. As a result of being unable to achieve a decisive victory at Antietam, Abraham Lincoln postponed the attempt to capture Richmond. Lincoln was also angry that McClellan with his superior forces had not pursued Robert E. Lee across the Potomac

Abraham Lincoln now wanted McClellan to go on the offensive against the Confederate Army. However, McClellan refused to move, complaining that he needed fresh horses. Radical Republicans now began to openly question McClellan's loyalty. "Could the commander be loyal who had opposed all previous forward movements, and only made this advance after the enemy had been evacuated" wrote George W. Julian. Whereas William P. Fessenden came to the conclusion that McClellan was "utterly unfit for his position".

Frustrated by McClellan unwillingness to attack, Abraham Lincoln recalled him to to Washington with the words: "My dear McClellan: If you don't want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while." On 7th November Lincoln removed McClellan from all commands and replaced him with Ambrose Burnside.

In 1864 stories began to circulate that McClellan was seeking the presidential nomination of the Democratic Party. Worried by the prospect of competing with the former head of the Union Army, it is claimed that Lincoln offered McClellan a new command in Virginia. McClellan refused and accepted the nomination. In an attempt to obtain unity, Lincoln named a Southern Democrat, Andrew Johnson of Tennessee, as his running mate.

During the campaign McClellan declared the war a "failure" and urged "immediate efforts for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States". However, McClellan added that this could happen when "our adversaries are willing to negotiate upon the basis of reunion." McClellan made it clear that he disliked slavery because it weakened the country but he opposed "forcible abolition as an object of the war or a necessary condition of peace and reunion."

The victories of Ulysses S. Grant, William Sherman, George Meade, Philip Sheridan and George H. Thomas in the summer of 1864 reinforced the idea that the Union Army was close to bringing the war to an end. This helped Lincoln's presidential campaign and with 2,216,067 votes, comfortably beat McClellan (1,808,725) in the election. McClellan carried only Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on March 30, 2004, 10:57:05 PM
Updated my prediction to include New Mexico under Kerry.  I think he'll manage to keep hold of it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 30, 2004, 11:10:48 PM
During the campaign McClellan declared the war a "failure" and urged "immediate efforts for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate convention of the states, or other peaceable means, to the end that peace may be restored on the basis of the federal Union of the States". However, McClellan added that this could happen when "our adversaries are willing to negotiate upon the basis of reunion." McClellan made it clear that he disliked slavery because it weakened the country but he opposed "forcible abolition as an object of the war or a necessary condition of peace and reunion."
The important point is that McClellan accepted the Dem nomination but repudiated the Dem party's election platform, which called for an immediate ceasefire and thus effectively for accepting the secession - at a point when the war was as good as won...No wonder the Dems got thrashed.

Again, Lincoln just like Wilson was elected over a hopelessly divided opposition and then drastically increased his appeal during his presidency. Which appears to be just so not true for Bush. Call it wishful thinking on your part...
1864 is slightly more appropriate as a comparison than 1916 but still further off than most elections. You want a Bush-flattering parallel that isn't too absurd? You might look for 1972 or how about 1936? (Of course the aftermath of 1972 is less flattering, but I don't mean that.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on March 31, 2004, 01:24:02 AM
I see striking similarities to the 1916 election and this current election. Any thoughts?

I'd make a comparison with either 1900 or 1948. Both had incumbents running after a war-time presidency. Both incumbent administrations made foreign policy and security a more important feature than domestic economy. The Spanish-American war had a pretext that was often questioned and was essentially a unilateral action. The reorganization of Homeland Security in the Federal Government is the most sweeping since Truman's reorganization after WWII. Neither had a sweeping majority of the popular vote: McKinley 51.7%, Truman 49.5%.

In the EC: 1900 McKinley 292-155, 1948 Truman 303-189-39.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 31, 2004, 01:26:35 AM
Good point about the Spanish-American.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 31, 2004, 02:08:12 AM
I heard someone say, "If Bush is only a one term president, he will be the most successful one term president in U.S. History."


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 31, 2004, 03:07:40 AM
I heard someone say, "If Bush is only a one term president, he will be the most successful one term president in U.S. History."

Let's have a look...
John Adams
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln (though not strictly one term)
William McKinley (dito)
Calvin Coolidge (dito)
John F Kennedy

Though not all of them are clearly greater than Bush (and how is presidential success defined anyways?) I don't believe any sane, sober person will say he's greater than all of these and mean it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on March 31, 2004, 03:49:33 AM
is father was better.

Short memories, elephants... :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on March 31, 2004, 03:56:50 AM
Oh, yes, I should have added his father to that list.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on March 31, 2004, 08:12:07 AM
Quote
Let's have a look...
John Adams
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln (though not strictly one term)
William McKinley (dito)
Calvin Coolidge (dito)
John F Kennedy

John Adams - What did he do great during his presidency?
Martive Van Buren - Who? lol
John Tyler - ?
James K Polk - Mexican war, maybe
Lincoln - 2 termer
McKinley - killed
Coolidge- Great Depression?
Kennedy- killed


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on March 31, 2004, 10:52:10 AM
Quote
Let's have a look...
John Adams
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln (though not strictly one term)
William McKinley (dito)
Calvin Coolidge (dito)
John F Kennedy

John Adams - What did he do great during his presidency?
Martive Van Buren - Who? lol
John Tyler - ?
James K Polk - Mexican war, maybe
Lincoln - 2 termer
McKinley - killed
Coolidge- Great Depression?
Kennedy- killed

Calvin Coolidge was a great president and would have been greater had his son not died.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Reaganfan on March 31, 2004, 11:01:07 AM
Was he called President Buren or President Van Buren?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on March 31, 2004, 12:10:27 PM

Let's have a look...
John Adams
Martin Van Buren
John Tyler
James K Polk
Abraham Lincoln (though not strictly one term)
William McKinley (dito)
Calvin Coolidge (dito)
John F Kennedy


You left several one term Presidents off your list.  You include John Tyler, who was not elected but served most of a term, but you did not include Andrew Johnson, for whom the same is also true.

Here is a COMPLETE list of Presidents who have served one FULL term (did not die in office, or succeed into the office):

John Adams
John Quincy Adams
Martin Van Buren
James Polk
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Rutherford Hayes
Benjamin Harrison
William Taft
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
George HW Bush

If the question is who was the most successful one-term President, from the above list I would choose James Polk.

Presidents who died in office before completing a term:
William Henry Harrison
Zachary Taylor
James Garfield
Warren Harding
John Kennedy

Lincoln and McKinley did complete a full term, and were shot early in their second terms.

Presidents who succeeded the office from the Vice Presidency and were NEVER elected President in their own right:
John Tyler
Millard Fillmore
Andrew Johnson
Chester Arthur
Gerald Ford

Coolidge was elected President after serving the last 1.5 years of Harding's term.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on March 31, 2004, 07:00:16 PM
Bellwether Research & Consulting Indiana Poll (N=600)
Registered voters (87% of which are very likely to vote)

Bush: 55% favorable, 37% unfavorable
Kerry: 35% favorable, 40% unfavorable

52-37, Bush over Kerry
43% definite for Bush
29% definite for Kerry

(self-identification)
38% GOP
26% Dem
21% Independent



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on March 31, 2004, 07:02:33 PM
Indiana Poll (N=600)
Registered voters (87% of which are very likely to vote)

Bush: 55% favorable, 37% unfavorable
Kerry: 35% favorable, 40% unfavorable

52-37, Bush over Kerry
43% definite for Bush
29% definite for Kerry

(self-identification)
38% GOP
26% Dem
21% Independent



Who did the poll?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on March 31, 2004, 07:26:19 PM
Indiana Poll (N=600)
Registered voters (87% of which are very likely to vote)

Bush: 55% favorable, 37% unfavorable
Kerry: 35% favorable, 40% unfavorable

52-37, Bush over Kerry
43% definite for Bush
29% definite for Kerry

(self-identification)
38% GOP
26% Dem
21% Independent



Who did the poll?

Sorry, now check it out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 01, 2004, 05:12:16 PM
Ok, thanks.

Never heard of 'bellwether research'


Title: More Richardson Information
Post by: khirkhib on April 01, 2004, 06:02:25 PM
Kerry/Richardson Ticket




http://www.alternet.org/story.htmlStoryID=18294 (http://www.alternet.org/story.htmlStoryID=18294)

a book to get attention and help America get to know him.  To bad it doesn't come out till 2005.  Some say why settle for VP when he can get the top job in 2008

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040329/nym177_1.html  (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040329/nym177_1.html)

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/8303907.htm (http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/8303907.htm)

Even Rush likes him

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site__031904/content/on_the_rushwire.guest.html (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site__031904/content/on_the_rushwire.guest.html)

But the T-shirt isn't selling

http://www.krqe.com/politics/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BPolitics%5D=ID&ID%5BPolitics%5D=4627 (http://www.krqe.com/politics/expanded.asp?RECORD_KEY%5BPolitics%5D=ID&ID%5BPolitics%5D=4627)

If in the next 4 years he can get Puerto Rico to become a state he could get even more electoral votes.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004 (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004)

He helped lower gas prices in 2000. Do you think people will forget that whole thing of nuclear-secrets getting stolen though. His time as Energy Sec might hurt or help.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040401/1053976.asp (http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20040401/1053976.asp)

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004 (http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=140-03082004)

()

Kerry/Richardson 329
Bush and Co  209


And speaking of Bush and Co I have read that Powell and Armitage won't be in the next adminstration but they won't tell anyone that until after the election
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040401/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_iraq_vulcans_040401081733 (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040401/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_iraq_vulcans_040401081733)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 01, 2004, 06:35:09 PM
That is one map of wishful thinking khirkhib.  Richardson is not going to bring along CO, AZ, and NV - only NM.  And LA is solid Bush.  FL could go either way but I'm guessing GOP and I don't think Richardson makes a difference there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 01, 2004, 06:43:59 PM
()

Bush/Cheney 287
Kerry/Richardson 251


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 01, 2004, 06:48:29 PM
That's much better Miami1027 but I still don't see the much hoped for Southwestern shift in the polls - CO and AZ look strong GOP, and NV leans that way.
Also we'll be lucky to get Michigan.  Oregon is more likely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on April 01, 2004, 06:59:52 PM
I'd say Michigan is more likely to vote Bush than Oregon. Michigan is made up of economic democrats. Those are the types that are going to start deserting from the democrats. The people of Oregon are social democrats. That is the gaining faction of the Democratic party.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 01, 2004, 07:40:23 PM
I don't necessarily see Bush being stronger areas like Michigan just because Richardson is on the ticket.  You make it seem like there would be a backlash or something.  If Kerry by himself can take a state then I think he's still probably safe with Richardson.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 01, 2004, 07:44:47 PM
FL could go either way but I'm guessing GOP and I don't think Richardson makes a difference there.

I don't know why you can say that Richardson would make a difference with Hispanics in the Southwest but not in Florida.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Apostle on April 01, 2004, 08:08:28 PM
Bush is going to win by a landslide, and their is nother you democrates can do about it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on April 01, 2004, 08:09:10 PM



Jesus type troll


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 01, 2004, 08:10:09 PM
Bush is going to win by a landslide, and their is nother you democrates can do about it.


Nothing like good, rational arguments!  Even the GOP is preparing for a close race.  Unless some miracle happens, like discovering Kerry has some skeletons in his closet, or war starting with China, that's very unlikely based on all of the polling trends.  I've heard that Bush's polls are the lowest of any incumbant who's been reelected in history at that point in time (a month ago).

Believing that Bush's sweat is holy and that Kerry is a cross between Stalin and Satan, which is perfectly ok, doesn't force you to somehow believe that it'll be 70-30 in the end results.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 02, 2004, 01:43:29 AM
or Albania for that matter...

*starts whistling good 'ole shoe...*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 02, 2004, 11:46:19 AM
or Albania for that matter...

*starts whistling good 'ole shoe...*

'We guard America's borders...'



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 02, 2004, 12:05:34 PM
Bush is going to win by a landslide, and their is nother you democrates can do about it.



No...we've been given our marching orders... if only we realised that Bush was this really great guy like the rest of the nation... sure most of them voted against him in 2000... but now they are penitent... for low the blue states now bleed red with a hundred million dollars of ads... ahhhhh..... we can't do a thing... we just suck so bad....


Clearly you see i might have been expecting a little bit of a better reasoned argument here....



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on April 02, 2004, 12:13:08 PM
It will be another close election, with only a handful of "swing states".  Please, this time, no recounts!!! If you do not know how to vote, PLEASE ask for help or stay home.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 02, 2004, 01:08:29 PM
Bush is going to win by a landslide, and their is nother you democrates can do about it.



No...we've been given our marching orders... if only we realised that Bush was this really great guy like the rest of the nation... sure most of them voted against him in 2000... but now they are penitent... for low the blue states now bleed red with a hundred million dollars of ads... ahhhhh..... we can't do a thing... we just suck so bad....


Clearly you see i might have been expecting a little bit of a better reasoned argument here....



Sorry didn’t get much sleep... trying and failing to get these festival tickets... lower toleration level for that kinda thing... sorry might have gone off the handle... but I stick by saying "that one of the least concise arguments concerning this election I’ve ever heard"... right I’m done now...  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 02, 2004, 04:41:00 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush 361
Kerry 177


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on April 02, 2004, 05:04:48 PM
ouch


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 02, 2004, 05:05:27 PM

ouch yourself


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 02, 2004, 05:42:45 PM
FL could go either way but I'm guessing GOP and I don't think Richardson makes a difference there.

I don't know why you can say that Richardson would make a difference with Hispanics in the Southwest but not in Florida.

Because I think he would make much less difference to Hispanics in Florida than in the Southwest.  These are two very different groups of hispanics.  Besides, as I said above he wouldn't swing AZ, NV, or CO anyway, just NM.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on April 02, 2004, 06:59:54 PM
Can't really say why I guess but I really just want to see the Kerry/Richardson ticket. Though I think their are a couple competative combos.

Just thinking about a debate between Cheney and Richardson would be interesting.  
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040402/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_pelosi (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040402/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_pelosi)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on April 02, 2004, 07:39:36 PM
Has Democrat strength in California peaked?

Between 2001 and 2004, Republican registration increased in 21 of 40 state senate districts and 39 of 80 assembly districts. Democrats lost registration in every state senate district and in 78 assembly districts. Republicans are watching Democrat Mike Machado's Stockton-area 5th Senate District where GOP registration grew 2 percent. The 5th is in the same neighborhood as the state's 12th S.D. where Republican Jeff Denham's 2002 victory stunned Democrats who had considered the seat safely in their column.

GOP strategists are also watching the southern San Joaquin Valley's 30th and 31st assembly districts where their Party's registration share jumped 2 and 3.2 percent respectively. Both districts have been trending Republican for several years.

The state's partisan registration gap shrank. A post-Primary analysis of California political trends shows the Democrat advantage in statewide voter registration has diminished to its smallest margin since the early 1930s, 7.65 percent.

Republican registration has leveled off at slightly more than 35 percent while the Democrat share has dipped to 43.2 percent. Decline-to-state registration stands at 16.43 percent, with minor parties accounting for 4.82 percent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 03, 2004, 05:22:55 AM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush 361
Kerry 177

Michigan and Washington are not going to go to Bush other than that its pretty much a best case for Bush (well in a best case as well as adding WA and MI to Kerry I'd add WV to Bush)... but i really don’t see such a wipe out... i think you are underrating Kerry, but then again what the ?$Ł"&* has he been doing lately he should be on TV all the time when he can't get ads and he should have surrogates on too... but despite all that i think you underrate him..  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on April 05, 2004, 11:52:45 AM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president)

Any extremely different and realistic  maps with these different VP possibilities.  
Especially Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, William Cohen, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

aslo
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack
Rep. Dick Gephardt
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards
Bob Kerrey


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 01:48:47 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=4&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_vice_president)

Any extremely different and realistic  maps with these different VP possibilities.  
Especially Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, William Cohen, Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson

aslo
Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack
Rep. Dick Gephardt
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards
Bob Kerrey

I don't see any maps at the link you just posted.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 01:49:26 PM
I am deliberating whether to send California, Illinois, and WV over to Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 05, 2004, 02:05:35 PM
California?  California has been getting MORE liberal, not less.  Arnold isn't even campaigning for Bush (because Bush refuses to give us any money, or at least the same amount as  before, I think).  The hands-off approach of the federal government towards Enron, both while they were butchering our economy and the relaxed approach towards the prosecution doesn't help.

You sure you don't want to give Vermont and DC to him as well as Illinois and California?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 02:07:53 PM
California?  California has been getting MORE liberal, not less.  Arnold isn't even campaigning for Bush (because Bush refuses to give us any money, or at least the same amount as  before, I think).  The hands-off approach of the federal government towards Enron, both while they were butchering our economy and the relaxed approach towards the prosecution doesn't help.

You sure you don't want to give Vermont and DC to him as well as Illinois and California?



Maybe Vermont, not DC.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 05, 2004, 02:13:37 PM
So, maybe something like this, if Kerry's LUCKY?!

()

I think you're out of touch.  You automatically (and falsely) assume everyone will adopt your view of Kerry (even though your view is probably right).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 02:18:16 PM
So, maybe something like this, if Kerry's LUCKY?!

()

I think you're out of touch.  You automatically (and falsely) assume everyone will adopt your view of Kerry (even though your view is probably right).

I could see that heppening, just as HI to Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 05, 2004, 02:32:41 PM
So, maybe something like this, if Kerry's LUCKY?!

()

I think you're out of touch.  You automatically (and falsely) assume everyone will adopt your view of Kerry (even though your view is probably right).

I could see that heppening, just as HI to Kerry.

I would be drunk for the next week if Bush won by that much. lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 05, 2004, 02:34:10 PM

Won't happen


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 05, 2004, 02:36:29 PM
If their is a God in heaven he will! lol ;)

"Keep hope alive"


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 05, 2004, 02:41:00 PM
If their is a God in heaven he will! lol ;)

"Keep hope alive"

How about all red except for Utah, Nebraska, Wyoming and Idaho? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 05, 2004, 02:42:28 PM
If thats the case I am going to start checking the cost of living in England. And I am going to start singing "God Save the Queen".


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 04:11:45 PM

Bush getting 500+ EV's is more likely than Kerry getting 500+.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 05, 2004, 05:39:47 PM

Bush getting 500+ EV's is more likely than Kerry getting 500+.

That doesn't make that or a 400+ scenario LIKELY.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 05, 2004, 06:44:17 PM


Wow man you must be getting really depressed about Kerry… it will never happen a solid Bush win (4-6%) is possible, but more likely is a Bush win of say 2-3% and that’s what would happen if the election where tomorrow… but it isn’t… so buck up man!... try and be positive hell I’m not thrilled about Kerry but he will never do that badly…    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 05, 2004, 09:47:20 PM
Looking at the recent ones:

****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2736

Kerry with 80+ in Oklahoma and North Dakota, and picks up Kentucky, but loses California, Maryland, and Vermont.  Among other things..

****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2737

Kerry picks up ALL of the Deep South, but loses Oregon.  Picks up Ohio, but loses Pensylvania and Wisconsin.

****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2732

Hey, another serious person having the Dems pick up Louisiana, and CO as a toss woohah.  But he has Oklahoma, Indiana, and Montana as toss-ups, err...

****

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2730

A Frenchman posted this, saying he'd like this scenario and referring to Americans as "a band of morons" and has Kerry picking up the ENTIRE Deep South.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 05, 2004, 09:49:51 PM
That French guy in one of his comments said "It isn't a super map?"

LOL


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 05, 2004, 09:54:53 PM
Tell him to go lick more toads.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: NHPolitico on April 06, 2004, 07:33:22 AM
I posted this in the governor topic, but thought it useful here, too. If Kerry chooses Richardson, he'll lose Louisiana, in my opinion, because of this sentiment.

New study suggests bias, ex-Duke voters key to Blanco's 2003 win

The Associated Press

April 3, 2004

BATON ROUGE (AP) -- A new study by two political scientists suggests that racial bias was likely a key factor in the defeat of Indian-American Bobby Jindal in the 2003 Louisiana governor's race.

Unexpected support from the so-called "David Duke vote" was decisive in Democratic Gov. Kathleen Blanco's victory, the detailed statistical analysis by two government professors at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., suggests.

White voters who had backed former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke in 1991, and who normally vote Republican, instead turned away from Jindal in the 2003 race, according to the analysis by Richard Skinner and Philip A. Klinkner. "Duke voters," particularly in north Louisiana, were enough to provide the new governor her margin, Skinner and Klinkner suggest.

The unusual Louisiana election provided the political scientists with a laboratory for studying an irreducible racial element in Louisiana politics.

In two other recent governor's races, for example, pitting a conservative white Republican -- Mike Foster -- against liberal black Democrats Cleo Fields and William Jefferson, the white's big win could arguably have been attributed to the political conservatism of the Louisiana voter.

But in 2003 Jindal himself ran as a conservative Republican, removing that element from the calculation. Or, as the authors put it: "It seems that the racial divisions in Louisiana are really about race, and not merely a surrogate for the ideological differences that often separate blacks and whites."

Their paper, "Black, White, Brown and Cajun: The Racial Dynamics of the 2003 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election," published by the Berkeley Electronic Press, founded by professors at the University of California at Berkeley, uses a technique favored by political scientists called regression analysis. This allowed the authors to track voting patterns based on ideology.

They demonstrate that Blanco's support came "from a different set of voters than other recent Democratic candidates," the two authors write, including Mary Landrieu in her successful U.S. Senate race in 2002.

In fact, the ex-lieutenant governor's vote "correlates strongly with the support won by Duke in 1991."

Several Louisiana political analysts praised the new study, saying its thoroughness furnishes strong evidence that Jindal's origins and skin color figured decisively against him in the Louisiana vote.

The authors themselves wrote that their numbers "provide important evidence that a significant number of northern Louisiana white voters defected from the Republican party because of race."

Throughout the campaign last fall, Jindal, a second-generation son of Indian immigrants who settled in Baton Rouge, strenuously downplayed the importance of his origins. The youthful former Bush administration official insisted that race was no longer important to Louisiana voters.

Some top Republicans in the state, however, were wary of his candidacy for that reason and backed others in the contest, who also wound up losing.

The new study appears to confirm the fears of the Republicans who turned away from Jindal.

"This analysis provides a solid case that Jindal's ethnicity was the reason a substantial number of voters who normally vote Republican, voted against Jindal," said LSU political scientist Wayne Parent. He called it the "last word" on the role Jindal's ethnic origins played in the 2003 vote.

"They applied sound political science methods to the election results and uncovered some voting patterns that should give us pause," said Lance Hill, executive director of the Southern Institute for Education and Research at Tulane University.

Most notably, the authors demonstrate that where Duke did well in 1991, so did Blanco in 2003 -- far better, in fact, than Landrieu in 2002.

The openly racist ex-Klansman gained a majority of the vote in 26 Louisiana parishes; Blanco averaged 10 percentage points better than Landrieu in these parishes. And in nine parishes where Duke got more than 55 percent of the vote, Blanco averaged 17 percentage points better than the U.S. Senator.

Most conclusive, according to Parent, is the two political scientists' examination of results from a far smaller unit than the parish -- the precinct. And here again, in the north Louisiana precincts examined by the authors, where Duke had gotten more than 60 percent of the vote in 1991, Blanco averaged 13 percentage points better than Landrieu.

©The Lafayette Daily Advertiser April 3, 2004


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 06, 2004, 11:19:48 AM
Interesting article... although it could also be claimed that as Duke's voters in Norther LA were mostly...er... rednecks (no offense intended)... and not exactly affluent, they might have been swayed by Blanco's negative ads, attack Jindal on healthcare.

BTW turnout was sharply down from 1999. It's also possible that the "Dukeists" didn't bother to vote (a Woman against an Asian).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 06, 2004, 12:31:30 PM
Interesting.  I think a Rustbelt guy is more likely for the VP, since a Democratic Ohio would be the most direct way for victory.  However, Richardson is still a likely possibility.

I question how many of those guys were going to default on the Democratic party if it's a  White vs White race though.  Also, since Richardson is only half-Mexican, will hopefully never visit the state if he's chosen, and will only be at the bottom of the ticket, this effect in the article might not exist.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 06, 2004, 09:26:42 PM
UPDATED:

()

Same EV total that is in my signature, but I adjusted some leans into solids and solids into leans.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 06, 2004, 11:39:18 PM
I can't see Kerry picking up West Virginia if Bush stomps him in Washington, New Hampshire, the entire Midwest, and two other battleground steel states (Ohio and Pen).  And do you have Maryland at 40%?  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 07, 2004, 12:31:55 AM
Only one new recent of note:

****

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2768

Not even sure what the hell this is.  Kerry wins from Texas to Maryland, sweeping the South, and Bush getting everything else?  On top of that, every state except 8 are tossups (those 8 including New Hampshire, Ohio, and West Virginia).

****


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 07, 2004, 12:53:24 AM
Lunar, that is Super Soultys map. I think he was discussing what would happen if Guiliani ran in '08. He's been on this Guiliani kick lately.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 07, 2004, 01:02:52 AM
But every state a Toss?  Ok.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 07, 2004, 01:12:36 AM
I have a question about your map. How the heck do you give Colorado and LA to Kerry? The Solid south will remain solid this year. Their's very very little chance they will want a Yankee. Colorado is fairly conservative and Bush has been very very kind to outdoorsman.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 07, 2004, 01:37:29 AM
I wanted an unusual scenario and it's easier to find reasons why Kerry would have a chance with them than some of the other predicted "solid" states.  It all depends on how Kerry plays his cards.

I don't actually view this as the most "likely" of scenarios, but I believe it could be one.

Analysis of Colorado:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0,1299,DRMN_36_2783338,00.html

I don't view the South as solid as many people do.  While Gore lost the entire thing, Clinton picked up from Louisiana up through Missouri and Kentucky both times.  While Kerry isn't a Southerner, he is Catholic and Catholic Louisiana might be Democratic enough to toss him a bit over the top.  


Of course, you can find a reason in any state why George Bush or Kerry will surely pick it up, but I think there is a possibility here this far back (will change as we get closer).  Everything is as solid as apple sauce at this point and it's more fun than a scenario that has Kerry picking up New Hampshire but losing Iowa, heh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 07, 2004, 09:33:03 AM
I can't see Kerry picking up West Virginia if Bush stomps him in Washington, New Hampshire, the entire Midwest, and two other battleground steel states (Ohio and Pen).  And do you have Maryland at 40%?  

No that's at lean Kerry.  It is a confidence map.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on April 07, 2004, 12:33:03 PM
The statement about CO is interesting. If you were living on Mars for the last three years, and only had the stats from 2000 to go on, you could reasonably guess thta CO was more in play than WV. Bush had 52% in WV, but only 51% in CO, so Bush must a greater fraction of his 2000 voters in WV to lose it, than to lose CO. Of course the thrid party vote was much higher in CO, and I didn't consider it. But the point is that a naive look puts CO in the battleground.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 07, 2004, 06:51:14 PM
****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2794

Interesting, Bush gets New Jersey, Pensylvania, & California but Kerry gets Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Version 3 of his map is the coolest:

()

269 - 269, hah.  Version 4 has Kerry losing New York and chunks of New England but gaining the South and the Heartland.


****


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Kghadial on April 07, 2004, 08:35:15 PM
If I was doing a North vs. South map, I would put what he had but give Hawaii and Nevada to the Blue, and give Colorado to the Red ...

Although i guess that this proves that power in this country is trending southward. He had to put Nevada and Hawaii, states that would be considered southern, in the North to balance it out ...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 07, 2004, 08:43:08 PM
****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2794

Interesting, Bush gets New Jersey, Pensylvania, & California but Kerry gets Colorado, Ohio, Louisiana and Tennessee.

Version 3 of his map is the coolest:

()

269 - 269, hah.  Version 4 has Kerry losing New York and chunks of New England but gaining the South and the Heartland.


****

Noooooo!  You took my one-that-shall-yield-a-laugh person :P ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 07, 2004, 08:54:51 PM
Okies.  Here's mine:

()

()

Heh :)  My page is http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2798 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2798).  Ignore the ilikeverin (G-MN).  I have no clue what I was thinking back when I created it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 08, 2004, 01:48:57 AM
The Democrats could only dream of this!!

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2800 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2800)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2004, 10:11:11 AM
The Democrats could only dream of this!!

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2800 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2800)

That's Kevinstat's predicition.  It's not really his prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 08, 2004, 10:16:12 AM
"Just trying to see if I could affect any of the median results with my one entry."
:D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2004, 10:17:36 AM
"Just trying to see if I could affect any of the median results with my one entry."
:D


I doubt it worked, we have 1100+ entries now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 08, 2004, 12:05:42 PM
A West-East map, dividing the country electorally, would look something like this:

()

Red wins 276-262

And for a North-South:

()

Blue wins 270-268


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Blerpiez on April 08, 2004, 04:41:33 PM
Why isn't mississippi in the red states on the first map?  That would make it closer, and it is sticking out from the other blue states


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 08, 2004, 04:55:53 PM
Why isn't mississippi in the red states on the first map?  That would make it closer, and it is sticking out from the other blue states

It wouldn't make it closer, that's the problem. Otherwise I would've agreed. I had to strike a balance os some sorts, and this is what I choose.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Blerpiez on April 08, 2004, 04:59:24 PM
sorry. Iscrewed up and thought the blue were ahead


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 08, 2004, 05:01:14 PM
sorry. Iscrewed up and thought the blue were ahead

It's no problem, it's easy to mix these things up...what about this one then?

()

Reds win 271-267


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Blerpiez on April 08, 2004, 05:02:32 PM
that's good, and the original map was good as well


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on April 08, 2004, 06:17:17 PM
that's good, and the original map was good as well
On the north-south map, shouldn't Alaska go with the north?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2004, 08:03:19 PM
that's good, and the original map was good as well
On the north-south map, shouldn't Alaska go with the north?

Good point.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 08, 2004, 08:10:10 PM
Boss Tweed, I still question why WV is Democratic on your map.  It seems if Bush can take Pennsylvania and hold onto New Hampshire and Ohio and then surge enough to take Michigan and the Midwest, he'd be high enough to hold onto West Virginia.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 08, 2004, 08:16:01 PM
Boss Tweed, I still question why WV is Democratic on your map.  It seems if Bush can take Pennsylvania and hold onto New Hampshire and Ohio and then surge enough to take Michigan and the Midwest, he'd be high enough to hold onto West Virginia.

Map is gone for now...gotta support the Devils.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on April 08, 2004, 09:49:43 PM
Sigh, I better get this out of the way now, as a resident of the GTA is it my responsibility to say this at least once. The Devil Rays suck, they will lose. Go Leafs Go.

(I know it should be "Leaves" but try chanting that, it doesn't work)

Please god let this be the year... we've waited so long. I believe 1967 was the last time we won. Perhaps the fates are smiling on Toronto this year.

Siege40


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 09, 2004, 05:58:14 AM
that's good, and the original map was good as well
On the north-south map, shouldn't Alaska go with the north?

Good point.

Alaska and Hawaii can be tossed into whatever column works best, imo. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 04:18:37 PM
This is my latest confidence map, which I think definitively shows the current state of the election:

()

Solid Bush: 176 (21 states)
Lean Bush: 46 (5 states) (176 + 46 = 222)
Solid Kerry: 172 (12 states and D.C.)
Lean Kerry: 52 (5 states) (172 + 52 = 224)
Tossups: 92 (7 states)

I have consulted several polling sites to make this as accurate as possible.

The 10 states indicated as "lean" for either candidate, I consider highly unlikely to go the other way.  If both candidates can count on their lean states, that gives a best-case scenario for Bush of 314, for Kerry of 316.  Any prediction higher than that (supersoulty's, for example) is wishful thinking on somebody's part.  The seven tossup states on this map are where the election will be won or lost.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 09, 2004, 05:00:39 PM
Out of your seven 'tossup' states, I think all are leaning very narrowly to Bush, and I suspect he'll win them all.  On the other hand I would include Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota as tossups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 05:21:23 PM
Out of your seven 'tossup' states, I think all are leaning very narrowly to Bush, and I suspect he'll win them all.  On the other hand I would include Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota as tossups.

I, of course, think all 7 tossups will go to Kerry, but hey, we're all entitled to a little wishful thinking!  :)  Within reason, of course.

Iowa, Minnesota and Oregon are defintely not tossups.  It's possible they'll switch back to Bush, but not very likely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 09, 2004, 05:26:57 PM
Out of your seven 'tossup' states, I think all are leaning very narrowly to Bush, and I suspect he'll win them all.  On the other hand I would include Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota as tossups.

I, of course, think all 7 tossups will go to Kerry, but hey, we're all entitled to a little wishful thinking!  :)  Within reason, of course.

Iowa, Minnesota and Oregon are defintely not tossups.  It's possible they'll switch back to Bush, but not very likely.

What're you basing this on?  Current polls?

Actually I think if Bush wins he's likely to get IA, MN and OR, and if Kerry wins he's likely to get most of your seven tossups.  In other words the winner will get most of all ten.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 05:46:33 PM
What're you basing this on?  Current polls?

I think this site has the best compilation of polling data: http://www.davidwissing.com/bushkerrystate2004.html

Iowa:  Rasmussen has Kerry ahead by 10 points.
Minnesota:  Rasmussen only has Kerry leading by 3 points, but the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's poll has him up 12.  Trust me, I'm from Minnesota, Bush will not win here.
Oregon:  The only poll I see is from the Oregonian, which has Kerry up by 5 points.

This site essentially shows dead heats in my seven tossups.  This is not the only site I look at, I just mention it because it has the most complete information.

I also think historical data has some relevance.  Iowa and Oregon have not voted Republican for President since 1984, and Minnesota not since 1972.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 09, 2004, 06:01:20 PM
What're you basing this on?  Current polls?

I think this site has the best compilation of polling data: http://www.davidwissing.com/bushkerrystate2004.html

Iowa:  Rasmussen has Kerry ahead by 10 points.
Minnesota:  Rasmussen only has Kerry leading by 3 points, but the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's poll has him up 12.  Trust me, I'm from Minnesota, Bush will not win here.
Oregon:  The only poll I see is from the Oregonian, which has Kerry up by 5 points.

This site essentially shows dead heats in my seven tossups.  This is not the only site I look at, I just mention it because it has the most complete information.

I also think historical data has some relevance.  Iowa and Oregon have not voted Republican for President since 1984, and Minnesota not since 1972.


IA and MN are both trending Rep though. But I essentially agree with your map, you're being a tad too potimistic. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 09, 2004, 06:03:53 PM
What're you basing this on?  Current polls?

I think this site has the best compilation of polling data: http://www.davidwissing.com/bushkerrystate2004.html

Iowa:  Rasmussen has Kerry ahead by 10 points.
Minnesota:  Rasmussen only has Kerry leading by 3 points, but the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's poll has him up 12.  Trust me, I'm from Minnesota, Bush will not win here.
Oregon:  The only poll I see is from the Oregonian, which has Kerry up by 5 points.

This site essentially shows dead heats in my seven tossups.  This is not the only site I look at, I just mention it because it has the most complete information.

I also think historical data has some relevance.  Iowa and Oregon have not voted Republican for President since 1984, and Minnesota not since 1972.


IA and MN are both trending Rep though. But I essentially agree with your map, you're being a tad too potimistic. ;)

Trending centrist.  Centrist I say!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 06:14:03 PM
Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 09, 2004, 07:08:08 PM
Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  :)

Boy, we have a lot of people to convince about Minnesota!

Please help me stop people from writing off Nader support in Minnesota as the "LaDuke factor"! :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 08:51:34 PM
Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not
putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  :)


I just noticed that since I posted this, Vorlon has changed his signature map!  He now has Minnesota and Oregon in the "likely Kerry" color (equates to my "lean Kerry").  Now our maps agree even more.  If Vorlon's "marginal" equals my "tossup", we only disagree on two states- Iowa and Tennessee.

Vorlon, you reading this?  Comment?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 09, 2004, 09:07:48 PM
Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not
putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  :)


I just noticed that since I posted this, Vorlon has changed his signature map!  He now has Minnesota and Oregon in the "likely Kerry" color (equates to my "lean Kerry").  Now our maps agree even more.  If Vorlon's "marginal" equals my "tossup", we only disagree on two states- Iowa and Tennessee.

Vorlon, you reading this?  Comment?

*hopeful look* Perhaps we have convinced him!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on April 09, 2004, 09:53:25 PM
Looking at the map in Vorlon's signature, his "marginal Bush" and "marginal Kerry" states include my 7 tossups, plus the 3 we've been disagreeing about.  Maybe I should ask Vorlon where he gets his information.

Other than that, my map agrees with Vorlon, except that he has Tennessee as solid for Bush.

I might put Tennessee in the solid Bush column, but I'm not
putting Iowa, Oregon, and Minnesota in the tossups!  No way.  Especially not Minnesota.  :)


I just noticed that since I posted this, Vorlon has changed his signature map!  He now has Minnesota and Oregon in the "likely Kerry" color (equates to my "lean Kerry").  Now our maps agree even more.  If Vorlon's "marginal" equals my "tossup", we only disagree on two states- Iowa and Tennessee.

Vorlon, you reading this?  Comment?

*hopeful look* Perhaps we have convinced him!

Re Minnesota - The Minni newspaper poll is, well, total crap.  In 2002 they had Mondale beating Coleman by 6 for the Senate seat.

My cat (who is not that bright, even for a cat) could do a better poll than the Minni nespaper.

Throw it out, or line you bird cage with it.  Check out "Freds 100% all beef super hotdog poll" instead - it is scientifically more valid...

(oh ya.. it was not a well done poll)

If it makes you feel better I have Minnesota about +3 - on the lean/likely line.

"Tossup" is just wimping out.. you have to make a call :D :D :D

Marginal = 0% to 3% point lead
Likely = 3% to 6% point lead
Solid = 6+% lead

so marginal = tossup, or close enough anyway.

Tennessee...

Survey USA, (in a poll that had 7% more democrats in it than it should have) had Bush +11.

It won't be +11, but it's more than 6.

Unless Kerry picks Robert E Lee as his running mate, that state is done.

Iowa.

Both parties are polling the ^&^%^! out of Iowa, there have been 4 full sweeps that I am aware of, and likely a few more..

Both sides are spending very heavily.  Heck, the buzz is even the Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is high up the Kerry VP list.

The war gets won/lost this year in Iowa/Wisconsin/Penn/Ohio/West Virginia (maybe Michigan, but I don't think so)

Iowa will be a war. Kerry is maybe 2 up right now, and I would even bet on that.

But your map is very sane and reasonable over all. :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 09, 2004, 10:06:29 PM
I suppose it depends what poll you read.  As I mentioned earlier, Rasmussen has Kerry ahead in Iowa by 10.  That would make Iowa solid for Kerry, by your logic (if you believe Rasmussen).

The states I've designated tossups have some polls with Kerry leading, some with Bush leading.  Hmmmm, which poll to choose.  At this stage of the game, I think it's more sensible just to call them tossups, they could go either way.

You're probably right about Tennessee.  For some reason Zogby and a few other other pollsters consider the state "in play".

You forgot to mention Florida/New Hampshire/New Mexico :)  Thanks for the feedback


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 09, 2004, 10:23:33 PM
Tennessee is solid Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on April 09, 2004, 10:36:53 PM
I suppose it depends what poll you read.  As I mentioned earlier, Rasmussen has Kerry ahead in Iowa by 10.  That would make Iowa solid for Kerry, by your logic (if you believe Rasmussen).

The states I've designated tossups have some polls with Kerry leading, some with Bush leading.  Hmmmm, which poll to choose.  At this stage of the game, I think it's more sensible just to call them tossups, they could go either way.

You're probably right about Tennessee.  For some reason Zogby and a few other other pollsters consider the state "in play".

You forgot to mention Florida/New Hampshire/New Mexico :)  Thanks for the feedback

Florida is actually tending Bush's way.  It's kinda like Minnesota is for Kerry.. more than a lean, but not quite a likely...

New Hampshire - Bush is up in the current round of polls, hence my map.  My gut is that Kerry takes it in the end.

New Mexico - That state is unpollable for some reason - the polls just don't work right in that state.  (Louisiania is unpollable as well) Flip a coin.  I'll give it to Kerry based on Governor Richardson.

By the way, most state polls are pretty useless, be careful what you look at.

Right now the race is very volitile, and most firms frankly are not good enough to sort it out.

At the national level there are maybe 5 firms I would trust right now..


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 10, 2004, 12:31:25 AM
And if you don't mind my asking, what are the 5 polls I should be looking at?  

OK, I've taken this one step further.  Assuming I'm right, and there are only 7 states in question.  Kerry needs 46 of those 92 votes to pull off a win.  This can be done in one of the following ways:

Florida, either Penn or Ohio
Florida, Wisconsin, 2 of WV/NM/NH
Penn, Ohio, 1 of Wisc/WV/NM (not NH, that produces a tie)

For all you Bush fans out there, he needs 48 of the 92, which can be done by:

Florida, Penn
Florida, Ohio, 1 other
Florida, Wisc, WV, NM, NH (a tie without NH)
Penn, Ohio, Wisc
Penn, Ohio, 2 of WV/NM/NH

For either side- if Florida is lost, both Pennsylvania and Ohio, and at least one other battleground state, are needed to win.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 10, 2004, 03:41:38 AM
Tennessee is always considered in play, because the state is still divided on Civil War lines, making it winnable for either party if they throw enough resources at it.
Whether Kerry (or Bush for that matter) will is another matter.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 10, 2004, 03:44:01 AM
It has a very strong Republican edge.  This means that if Kerry spends here, Bush will counter that and make Kerry's spending almost useless.

 I think at the point where Kerry picks up TN he has the rest of the battleground states already in the bag, so there will be very little reason for him to focus there.  And because he's not focusing there, it goes Bush.  Hah.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 10, 2004, 03:48:36 AM
It has a very strong Republican edge.  This means that if Kerry spends here, Bush will counter that and make Kerry's spending almost useless.

It's probably more likely to go for Bush than Kerry, but it's hard to be certain...
Basically if rural Mid TN can outvote rural East TN Kerry wins. If not Bush wins.
How many swing voters exist in TN?
4? Maybe 5? ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 10, 2004, 03:52:45 AM
You can't compare this to 2000 because TN was Gore's home state.  So, unless Kerry has some kind of new advantage here, the Bush margin will increase.  Increased partisanship isn't enough in this case.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 10, 2004, 06:54:06 AM
It has a very strong Republican edge.  This means that if Kerry spends here, Bush will counter that and make Kerry's spending almost useless.

It's probably more likely to go for Bush than Kerry, but it's hard to be certain...
Basically if rural Mid TN can outvote rural East TN Kerry wins. If not Bush wins.
How many swing voters exist in TN?
4? Maybe 5? ;)

Aside from the fact that I think TN leans heavily Republican in any election, its hard to imagine any Tennesseans, even these rural mid-state ones, being particularly eager to vote for a Northeastern liberal.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on April 10, 2004, 08:30:23 AM
And if you don't mind my asking, what are the 5 polls I should be looking at?  

OK, I've taken this one step further.  Assuming I'm right, and there are only 7 states in question.  Kerry needs 46 of those 92 votes to pull off a win.  This can be done in one of the following ways:

Florida, either Penn or Ohio
Florida, Wisconsin, 2 of WV/NM/NH
Penn, Ohio, 1 of Wisc/WV/NM (not NH, that produces a tie)

For all you Bush fans out there, he needs 48 of the 92, which can be done by:

Florida, Penn
Florida, Ohio, 1 other
Florida, Wisc, WV, NM, NH (a tie without NH)
Penn, Ohio, Wisc
Penn, Ohio, 2 of WV/NM/NH

For either side- if Florida is lost, both Pennsylvania and Ohio, and at least one other battleground state, are needed to win.


That's why Bush will put whatever resources are needed into Florida.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 10, 2004, 08:43:11 AM
Aside from the fact that I think TN leans heavily Republican in any election,

Since when? TN is close at most levels.

Quote
its hard to imagine any Tennesseans, even these rural mid-state ones, being particularly eager to vote for a Northeastern liberal.

But they [people in rural Mid TN] will vote for Kerry anyway... he's got a big "D" next to his name... East TN is the same but GOP...
If either candidate got under 45% I'd be suprised...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on April 11, 2004, 03:01:01 PM
OK so I don't think it will happen but I was reading today about a possible 3 way race between Kerry Bush and McCain (4 way if you count Nader but a McCain independent canadcy would probably obscure any Nader influence.  Any predictions as to what the map would be.  I think McCain could grab Arizona, maybe New Mexico and probably California.  McCain would grab many centrists but I don't think he would split the Republican party in half a lot of toss-ups could change directions and even some solid states could become toss-ups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 11, 2004, 03:07:54 PM
Aside from the fact that I think TN leans heavily Republican in any election,

Since when? TN is close at most levels.

Quote
its hard to imagine any Tennesseans, even these rural mid-state ones, being particularly eager to vote for a Northeastern liberal.

But they [people in rural Mid TN] will vote for Kerry anyway... he's got a big "D" next to his name... East TN is the same but GOP...
If either candidate got under 45% I'd be suprised...

The state has two GOP senators.  Its a lot like Missouri - close, but definitely tips towards conservatism.  It has more Dem Representatives than we do, but votes slightly more GOP presidentially.

Republican presidential candidates usually win from 45-55% of the vote in TN, while Democrats have not broken 50% since Jimmy Carter in 1976.  So the state is clearly a strong GOP lean.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 11, 2004, 03:47:39 PM
The state has two GOP senators.  Its a lot like Missouri - close, but definitely tips towards conservatism.  It has more Dem Representatives than we do, but votes slightly more GOP presidentially.

Republican presidential candidates usually win from 45-55% of the vote in TN, while Democrats have not broken 50% since Jimmy Carter in 1976.  So the state is clearly a strong GOP lean.

You said it was "heavily Republican", a statement that is untrue.
It's not a good idea to generalise about a state as divided as Tennessee... some of it is extremly conservative, some of it is extremly populist...
---
BTW, although it currently has two GOP Senators, Frist is retiring in 2006 and the Dems have a good chance at picking up the seat (hopefully with Harold Ford jr)... and Lamar Alexander is a "wet" (ie: moderate. The phrase is from the UK) Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 11, 2004, 04:02:09 PM
The state has two GOP senators.  Its a lot like Missouri - close, but definitely tips towards conservatism.  It has more Dem Representatives than we do, but votes slightly more GOP presidentially.

Republican presidential candidates usually win from 45-55% of the vote in TN, while Democrats have not broken 50% since Jimmy Carter in 1976.  So the state is clearly a strong GOP lean.

You said it was "heavily Republican", a statement that is untrue.
It's not a good idea to generalise about a state as divided as Tennessee... some of it is extremly conservative, some of it is extremly populist...
---
BTW, although it currently has two GOP Senators, Frist is retiring in 2006 and the Dems have a good chance at picking up the seat (hopefully with Harold Ford jr)... and Lamar Alexander is a "wet" (ie: moderate. The phrase is from the UK) Republican.

Point taken - I overstated the case.  I stand by the strong lean case I made above.  A more interesting question might be - which way is it trending?  I say gradually more GOP.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 11, 2004, 06:51:48 PM
The state has two GOP senators.  Its a lot like Missouri - close, but definitely tips towards conservatism.  It has more Dem Representatives than we do, but votes slightly more GOP presidentially.

Republican presidential candidates usually win from 45-55% of the vote in TN, while Democrats have not broken 50% since Jimmy Carter in 1976.  So the state is clearly a strong GOP lean.

You said it was "heavily Republican", a statement that is untrue.
It's not a good idea to generalise about a state as divided as Tennessee... some of it is extremly conservative, some of it is extremly populist...
---
BTW, although it currently has two GOP Senators, Frist is retiring in 2006 and the Dems have a good chance at picking up the seat (hopefully with Harold Ford jr)... and Lamar Alexander is a "wet" (ie: moderate. The phrase is from the UK) Republican.

Point taken - I overstated the case.  I stand by the strong lean case I made above.  A more interesting question might be - which way is it trending?  I say gradually more GOP.

Opebo I would tend to agree that Tennessee leans solidly to Bush in November… however it is a (very) Probable Bush rather than a solid Bush IMHO… I think that Tennessee is not tending towards either party directly, the growing populations in Nashville, Humboldt and Memphis should help the moderate Dems and more generally there is still a solid base for the Democratic Party but as Al said this is more than countered by the populations in the east of the state and cities such as Tullahoma, Chattanooga and Knoxville, ultimately I think Tennessee will remain a moderately GOP leaning state however this does not mean it is unattainable for the Democrats in the near future, for Kerry I agree it is very much out of reach, but for Harold Ford in 2006 (Please GOD!!!) and perhaps in 2008 (depending on the situation) it will be winnable for the Democrats in a similar way to how PA is winnable for the GOP this November… actually in terms of how both party’s stand TN is a lot like PA reversed, PA has a strong, solid conservative “T” in its centre and GOP victories rest on big turnout here and solid showings in the more moderate suburban areas around Philly and the “blue collar” districts in the west of the state… Likewise Democrat wins in TN depend on a solid turnout in the rural, populist interior of the state, boosted by large turnouts from the minority populations in places such as Memphis and the west of the state and more generally winning in the suburban areas in the north and west of the state… on balance in a match up between generic candidates I’d say both where tossups and will continue to be so imho… however in this election I’d say it would be much easier for the GOP to win PA than for Kerry to take TN…            


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 11, 2004, 08:22:34 PM
Recents:

****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2861

Ah, a serious one that has California, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont all tossups.  Kind of strange that  New Mexico is as well since if Bush has caught up 10+ points in Cali and 20+ in Rhode Island, he should be stomping the Southwest.

Justification is that the Ahnuld will get votes for Bush in California and Kerry's too liberal for New England.

****

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2857

Kerry with Montana, North Dakota, the entire Southwest, Arkansas and Missouri but somehow still losing Maryland (!?) West Virginia and Pennsylvania.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 11, 2004, 08:53:45 PM
Recents:

****
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2861

Ah, a serious one that has California, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont all tossups.  Kind of strange that  New Mexico is as well since if Bush has caught up 10+ points in Cali and 20+ in Rhode Island, he should be stomping the Southwest.

Justification is that the Ahnuld will get votes for Bush in California and Kerry's too liberal for New England.

****

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2857

Kerry with Montana, North Dakota, the entire Southwest, Arkansas and Missouri but somehow still losing Maryland (!?) West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

At least those people left comments to justify their idiacy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 11, 2004, 08:57:49 PM
Yes, both were serious and thought-out which makes it all the more interesting since they are obviously very wrong.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 11, 2004, 10:07:51 PM
Here is a really whacky one! What was this dude thinking?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 11, 2004, 10:12:31 PM
Here is a really whacky one! What was this dude thinking?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571)

LOL!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 11, 2004, 11:10:56 PM
Here is a really whacky one! What was this dude thinking?

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2571)

Youch.  Colorado and Lousiana aren't as off the wall as Montana.  For example, there are plenty with Kerry taking Arizona, but Colorado is the same in the latest polls.  I'm not posting people who just have Kerry winning Missouri, but those who have that and have him picking up Montana but losing Maryland.

And of course, I know mine is a stretch.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 12, 2004, 06:11:19 AM
Opebo I would tend to agree that Tennessee leans solidly to Bush in November&#8230; however it is a (very) Probable Bush rather than a solid Bush IMHO&#8230; I think that Tennessee is not tending towards either party directly, the growing populations in Nashville, Humboldt and Memphis should help the moderate Dems and more generally there is still a solid base for the Democratic Party but as Al said this is more than countered by the populations in the east of the state and cities such as Tullahoma, Chattanooga and Knoxville, ultimately I think Tennessee will remain a moderately GOP leaning state however this does not mean it is unattainable for the Democrats in the near future, for Kerry I agree it is very much out of reach, but for Harold Ford in 2006 (Please GOD!!!) and perhaps in 2008 (depending on the situation) it will be winnable for the Democrats in a similar way to how PA is winnable for the GOP this November&#8230; actually in terms of how both party&#8217;s stand TN is a lot like PA reversed, PA has a strong, solid conservative &#8220;T&#8221; in its centre and GOP victories rest on big turnout here and solid showings in the more moderate suburban areas around Philly and the &#8220;blue collar&#8221; districts in the west of the state&#8230; Likewise Democrat wins in TN depend on a solid turnout in the rural, populist interior of the state, boosted by large turnouts from the minority populations in places such as Memphis and the west of the state and more generally winning in the suburban areas in the north and west of the state&#8230; on balance in a match up between generic candidates I&#8217;d say both where tossups and will continue to be so imho&#8230; however in this election I&#8217;d say it would be much easier for the GOP to win PA than for Kerry to take TN&#8230;            

Bush is *probably* more likely to take PA than for Kerry to take TN, but I have both as "NCF" due to the politics of turnout in both states that make them unpredictable.
(In fact if I didn't have them both as NCF I would be going against my methodology).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 12, 2004, 10:04:26 AM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.

You're right, they don't get any better... :( :(

Those were the days...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 12, 2004, 10:48:16 AM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.

You're right, they don't get any better... :( :(

Those were the days...

Nostalgic?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 12, 2004, 10:54:41 AM



thanks it is a good one, more fun to fill in the states too :)

Yeah grayraven is pretty good.  I like it better than Edwards' but not as much as I like Leip's.  :)

Suck-up! :) Btw, in 5 minutes is 2004! And they say "where America goes the world follows"... :) Not this time! I will be waiting for you to catch up! Happy new year everybody! :) :) :)
It is 2004 in about 5 hours here.  and I genuinely do like Leip's better thanthe other ones.

5 hours and 13 minutes until 2004.
I guess we are both on the east coast.  
that is why I have a blue pennsylvania under my name.
That's true.  I guess I just can't put 2 and 2 together.

The two of you are building another pyramid!
And you are contributing, Gustaf!  thanks!
You're welcome!

No problem.

But I insist.
How big do these pyramids get?
It depends on the number of posts.
I don't think that the pyramids get much better than this...see that solid line.
There is always room for improvement.
Not really.  Look closely.
weee
Every time I do this another quote disappears,t hus the pyramids are not improved.

You're right, they don't get any better... :( :(

Those were the days...

Nostalgic?

Hell yeah!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 12, 2004, 06:14:22 PM
Here is my official prediction right now:

Kerry manages to pick off West Virginia and New Hampshire, and hold on to all Gore 2000 states.  Florida and Ohio are very close, but Bush holds on to them in the end.  This results in an electoral tie.

Bush cruises to an easy win in the ensuing election in the House of Representatives.  In the Senate, however, Democrats have picked up seats in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma, while the Republicans only gain a seat in Georgia.  This results in a 51-48-1 Democratic majority in the Senate.  The new Senate elects John Edwards as Vice-President (ok, assuming Edwards is the nominee).

Winners:
George W Bush, President (R)
John Edwards, Vice-President (D)

IT COULD HAPPEN!


What do you think?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on April 12, 2004, 06:15:32 PM
Here is my official prediction right now:

Kerry manages to pick off West Virginia and New Hampshire, and hold on to all Gore 2000 states.  Florida and Ohio are very close, but Bush holds on to them in the end.  This results in an electoral tie.

Bush cruises to an easy win in the ensuing election in the House of Representatives.  In the Senate, however, Democrats have picked up seats in Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, and Oklahoma, while the Republicans only gain a seat in Georgia.  This results in a 51-48-1 Democratic majority in the Senate.  The new Senate elects John Edwards as Vice-President (ok, assuming Edwards is the nominee).

Winners:
George W Bush, President (R)
John Edwards, Vice-President (D)

IT COULD HAPPEN!


What do you think?
we had a thread or 2 for that somewhere


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 12, 2004, 07:08:25 PM
Fritz, that won't happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 12, 2004, 08:05:37 PM

What won't happen?  There won't be a tie, or the Democrats won't take the Senate?  Or both?  Both things appear very possible.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 12, 2004, 08:06:39 PM

What won't happen?  There won't be a tie, or the Democrats won't take the Senate?  Or both?  Both things appear very possible.

Both.  a tie is probably more likely than Dems winning the senate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 12, 2004, 08:12:50 PM
I haven't really been watching all the Senate races, I'm just going off of RightWingNut's predictions in the Senate prediction thread.  And he's Republican!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 12, 2004, 08:14:06 PM
I haven't really been watching all the Senate races, I'm just going off of RightWingNut's predictions in the Senate prediction thread.  And he's Republican!

Dems will have trouble holding the southern open seats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 12, 2004, 10:22:03 PM
I haven't really been watching all the Senate races, I'm just going off of RightWingNut's predictions in the Senate prediction thread.  And he's Republican!

Supposedly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 12, 2004, 10:23:02 PM
Right Wing Nut is a Democrat. A Troll.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 13, 2004, 07:07:45 AM
Right Wing Nut is a Democrat. A Troll.

And you say that because.....he claims to be Republican, but makes a prediction favoring the Democrats?  Is that your definition of the word "troll"?  Maybe I should accuse Boss Tweed of trolling.

No offense intended Boss, just making a point.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 13, 2004, 07:45:26 AM
It was more of a joke then anything else. Every time I see him post he is preaching Democrat Dogma. I think he may have messed up and meant to put a red avatar up is all.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 13, 2004, 02:25:45 PM
This is my new confidence map. Is Kerry even a candidate anymore? I haven't heard much about him in almost a week.

()

DcPoliticalReport.com has California, Maryland, NY, Wash, Oregon, all within the MOE for Kerry. That's scary you have to admit.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 13, 2004, 02:44:16 PM
DcPoliticalReport.com has California, Maryland, NY, Wash, Oregon, all within the MOE for Kerry. That's scary you have to admit.

But Bush's lead in NC is also within MoE


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 13, 2004, 02:56:27 PM
This is my new confidence map. Is Kerry even a candidate anymore? I haven't heard much about him in almost a week.

()

DcPoliticalReport.com has California, Maryland, NY, Wash, Oregon, all within the MOE for Kerry. That's scary you have to admit.

Nonsense. You have to look at the number of polls. And the actual MoE. Any state where the lead is not at least 6%, in most cases 8% or sometimes 10% will be within MoE. If Kerry is consistently between 8 and 14 points ahead, like in CA he's gonna win it easily. :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 13, 2004, 03:02:51 PM
A poll from Louisiana:

Bush: 51.7%
Kerry: 37.6%

Meaningless... utterly meaningless... most polls from Louisiana are utter bullsh*t (LA is a very hard state to poll).
And when a poll is done by a group called: "Harris Deville and Associates/Southern Media and Opinion"...
---
LA remains NCF


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 13, 2004, 03:09:17 PM
I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 13, 2004, 03:13:50 PM
I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.

That is very far from credible. It's not 1984 by a long-shot. If Bush does well and Kerry doesn't, which could happen, it could be 1988, but with more EVs for Kerry due to reginal polarization.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 13, 2004, 03:50:31 PM
I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.

Nah...Bush is no reagan, the economy is no Reagan...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 13, 2004, 04:44:55 PM
Bush's approval ratings are nowhere near where other incumbants who've been elected have been.  It looks to be a close race and all indicators point to that.

Bush is not going to win in California unless he wins +12 nationally or something.  He can't just gain a million and a half voters for him in such a polarized political climate.  I also doubt that Maryland is a tossup.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 13, 2004, 04:51:43 PM
Here's an interesting map:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2902 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2902)

He has just about every state >70% or >80% for whichever candidate.  Oddly enough, some of those states are leaners (Maine, Washington) and one is a tossup (Oregon).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on April 13, 2004, 05:01:49 PM
I wish there was a 55% category for the predictions because otherwise 90% of the states come in +40 and +50.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 13, 2004, 05:42:31 PM
Here's an interesting map:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2902 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2902)

He has just about every state >70% or >80% for whichever candidate.  Oddly enough, some of those states are leaners (Maine, Washington) and one is a tossup (Oregon).

I don't think he understand what the percentages mean.  He thinks the percentages indicate the % chance one candidate has to win a state, and not the percent of vote the candidate will get.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 13, 2004, 06:40:49 PM
I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.


Dream on....this is not going to be anything like 1984.  It's going to be more like 2000, possibly even with a state needing to be recounted. (Hopefully not Florida this time.)  You are living in a complete Fantasyland if you really think Bush is gonna stomp on Kerry that drastically.  Oh wait, you're from Florida....maybe your address actually is in Fantasyland.    :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 13, 2004, 07:37:46 PM
DcPoliticalReport.com has California, Maryland, NY, Wash, Oregon, all within the MOE for Kerry. That's scary you have to admit.

They have a month-old poll with a margin of error of 5% (!) that only has Kerry up 9 points.  Not something to sweat over considering that it's just as likely that he's actually up 14 as losing.

Washing they have a poll from late last month with a MoE of 4.5% showing Kerry only 6 points up with 4% for "other" which will likely filter back to him anyway.

Maryland Kerry's only 5 up, but I'm a bit skeptical with the firm of "Gonzales Research"

Oregon has Kerry up 5 with 5 for other.  Pollster is "Tim Hibbits."

The New York one isn't even a poll versus Kerry, only a "democratic nominee" taken in January.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 14, 2004, 01:02:27 AM
Ok, updated my map to be more normal.  Predicts a strong Kerry in the Midwest but not strong enough in the Southwest.  I think the national vote will be about 50% in favor of the winner (Kerry), +/- 2%.

From my old prediction:

Kerry:
+Ohio
+Iowa

Bush:
+New Mexico
+Lousiana
+Colorado


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on April 14, 2004, 11:32:11 AM
I think most of the Democrats are upset because they are starting to realize it's like '84 all over again and they don't want to accept the fact of it yet.

Nah...Bush is no reagan, the economy is no Reagan...
I don't expect a 1984, and I agree that Bush is no Reagan, but the economy is not so different than 1984. The early eighties featured a significant recession, especially in the Midwest. Think Farm-Aid concert and "Rain on the Scarecrow" by John Mellencamp. Many other parts of the mdwestern economy were also suffering. The economy was picking up by 1984, but by no means were all doing well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on April 14, 2004, 11:44:48 AM
I think Bush is in a similar position (though not as bad) as Carter in 1980.  I suspect the swing voters will wind up overwhelmingly in Kerry's camp in the end, causing Kerry to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, NH, WV, OR, MN, Iowa, NM and to make it a race in Florida, AZ, CO, LA, VA, AR, MO, maybe a few others...

PV:

Kerry 51%
Bush 45%
Nader 2-3%
Other the rest


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 14, 2004, 02:46:36 PM
UPDATED Kerry vs. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 51.5%, 306 EV's
Kerry/Edwards 48.0%, 232 EV's

---

Kerry could lose the PV by 5% and still win the election; expect Bush to rack up votes in the south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 14, 2004, 04:28:46 PM
UPDATED Kerry vs. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 51.5%, 306 EV's
Kerry/Edwards 48.0%, 232 EV's

---

Kerry could lose the PV by 5% and still win the election; expect Bush to rack up votes in the south.

Oh good.  Your prediction is slightly more optimistic than some Republicans' now! *whew*


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on April 14, 2004, 04:48:17 PM
UPDATED Kerry vs. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 51.5%, 306 EV's
Kerry/Edwards 48.0%, 232 EV's

---

Kerry could lose the PV by 5% and still win the election; expect Bush to rack up votes in the south.

Bush won't win Iowa.  Mark my words.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 14, 2004, 07:29:47 PM
Kerry will win Illinois and that's it in the Mid-west. Democrats are fooling themselves if they think this will be a repeat of 2000. Kerry is getting hammered right now w/very little response. And Kerry winning Florida? I doubt it, he'd actually have to campaign and run ads here. I've seen 4 Kerry ads since the primaries.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 14, 2004, 07:49:42 PM
Kerry is getting hammered right now w/very little response.

...So why isn't he down double digits in the polls?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 14, 2004, 07:52:33 PM
Old 'uns:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=130 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=130)

NC is strong Dem... CA is a lean Dem... NH is a toss going to Bush. ?!?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 14, 2004, 08:15:27 PM
Old 'uns:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=130 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=130)

NC is strong Dem... CA is a lean Dem... NH is a toss going to Bush. ?!?

that's CM!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 14, 2004, 08:24:34 PM
Silly CM :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 14, 2004, 08:28:08 PM

That's back when he thought the ticket would be Clark/Edwards...so it *almost* explaina the prediction.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kelpie on April 15, 2004, 05:30:52 AM
Here's a prediction (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2952) from a Scottish Conservative.

I'm pretty sure both the economy and Iraq will have improved come November, and I'm pretty uninspired by Kerry as a candidate.

Thoughts?

Also, how do I post the image rather than just the link?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 15, 2004, 06:11:13 AM
Here's a prediction (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2952) from a Scottish Conservative.

I'm pretty sure both the economy and Iraq will have improved come November, and I'm pretty uninspired by Kerry as a candidate.

Thoughts?

Also, how do I post the image rather than just the link?


Very reasonable map, and close to what I think is going to happen as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Ben. on April 15, 2004, 06:18:27 AM
UPDATED Kerry vs. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 51.5%, 306 EV's
Kerry/Edwards 48.0%, 232 EV's

---

Kerry could lose the PV by 5% and still win the election; expect Bush to rack up votes in the south.

Pretty much agree, the popular vote I would place closer however, But I think Bush will rack up votes in the south this time, it all comes down to PA and OH really... but imho Kerry will take IA if he takes WI and i expect both states to go for him by slim margins.    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 15, 2004, 07:01:21 AM
Here's a prediction (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2952) from a Scottish Conservative.

I'm pretty sure both the economy and Iraq will have improved come November, and I'm pretty uninspired by Kerry as a candidate.

Thoughts?

Also, how do I post the image rather than just the link?

Pretty good...I think Kerry will win Oregon now that Nader looks to be off the ballot.  Other than that, I can't find fault with it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dg on April 15, 2004, 08:51:11 AM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2958

I think the hope that Iraq will have improved by November is misplaced. I don't see any hope, at least in the medium term. The administration has been claiming that improvement was on the way for quite a while and things just appear to be spiraling out of control. I would very gladly be proved wrong on this, but sadly think that not the case.

As for the election, I think it unfortunate for Bush that the election will be fought on foreign policy. Although a very strong 'defence' president and presiding over a strengthening economy, foreign policy is not his strongest card.

My predictions can be found at the above link. Kerry by a nose...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 15, 2004, 09:25:46 AM
I'd say your being a tad bit optimistic with NM... but other than that it looks sane :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 15, 2004, 11:51:50 AM
Here's a prediction (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2952) from a Scottish Conservative.

I'm pretty sure both the economy and Iraq will have improved come November, and I'm pretty uninspired by Kerry as a candidate.

Thoughts?

Also, how do I post the image rather than just the link?

Pretty good...I think Kerry will win Oregon now that Nader looks to be off the ballot.  Other than that, I can't find fault with it.

It's reasonable, the only thing I really disagree with is giving MN to Kerry and not Iowa. I think he'll win Iowa before he wins MN. And Oregon too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on April 15, 2004, 03:15:57 PM
I just wanted to point this out because I had a startling revelation in History Class today, is it me or does General/President Andrew Jackson and Senetor John Kerry look similar?

They keep pointing out Kerry's likeness to Kennedy, maybe Jackson would be a better idea, lol.

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 15, 2004, 03:44:16 PM
I just wanted to point this out because I had a startling revelation in History Class today, is it me or does General/President Andrew Jackson and Senetor John Kerry look similar?

They keep pointing out Kerry's likeness to Kennedy, maybe Jackson would be a better idea, lol.

Siege

It might help in Tennessee ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 15, 2004, 08:34:17 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Kerry/Freudenthal  288
Bush/Ashcroft 250


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 16, 2004, 12:54:35 AM
it hurts my eyes, mummy....

is Blue democrat or republican in this?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 07:00:18 AM
it hurts my eyes, mummy....

is Blue democrat or republican in this?

Republican


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 16, 2004, 12:10:08 PM
Umm I hate to sound confused here, but where the heck did you get this idea Tweed?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on April 16, 2004, 12:53:26 PM
why are all these people putting Florida for Kerry? They will never vote for that flip-floppy guy.  Also Bush will win by a landslide, just watch


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 16, 2004, 12:59:24 PM
why are all these people putting Florida for Kerry? They will never vote for that flip-floppy guy.  Also Bush will win by a landslide, just watch

Never?

Landslide?



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on April 16, 2004, 01:14:22 PM
Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 16, 2004, 02:00:11 PM
Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!

Where is it stated that Kerry will let Saddam have Iraq back? Where is it stated that Kerry will raise taxes for all?

Are you a troll?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 16, 2004, 02:21:45 PM
Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!

How old are you? I'm guessing about 12. I strongly recommend going to your local library and educating yourself.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 02:24:44 PM
Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!

LOL...looks like we have another Reaganfan on our hands, only worse this time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 02:28:52 PM
Umm I hate to sound confused here, but where the heck did you get this idea Tweed?

Lol, it's a joke.

BTW Freudenthal is Wyoming's Democratic Governor...I never thought I'd live to see the day...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on April 16, 2004, 02:42:48 PM
Josh,

I respect your enthusiasm but you've got to come up with something to back up your prediction!

Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 16, 2004, 07:35:22 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush/Cheney 309
Kerry/Edwards 229


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 16, 2004, 10:50:39 PM
Keep switching back and forth between each side, heh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 17, 2004, 08:55:03 AM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush/Cheney 309
Kerry/Edwards 229

Well, you have MN going for Kerry, at least :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 17, 2004, 09:28:36 AM
Keep switching back and forth between each side, heh.

Lunar, I see you've given up on your Colorado dream.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 17, 2004, 03:15:34 PM
I did, and I made a post about it.  I also gave up Lousiana after a poll showed Bush +14.  Ah well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 17, 2004, 03:16:23 PM
I did, and I made a post about it.

You also gave up on Louisiana.

How do you put your map on a slant like that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 17, 2004, 03:19:40 PM
I did, and I made a post about it.

You also gave up on Louisiana.

How do you put your map on a slant like that?

I edited my post a few seconds afterwards to mention Lousiana, you beat me to it it seems.

The code is here:
<img width=253 height=92>http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041363P4.gif</img>


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 17, 2004, 03:22:56 PM
I did, and I made a post about it.

You also gave up on Louisiana.

How do you put your map on a slant like that?

I edited my post a few seconds afterwards to mention Lousiana, you beat me to it it seems.

The code is here:
<img width=253 height=92>http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/USERMAPS/pe20041363P4.gif</img>

That puts it on a slant?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 17, 2004, 03:27:18 PM
It stretches the image to whatever size you want.  If the width:height ratio is higher than the image starts at, it'll be stretched sideways.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 17, 2004, 03:30:13 PM
It stretches the image to whatever size you want.  If the width:height ratio is higher than the image starts at, it'll be stretched sideways.

Okay, thanks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on April 17, 2004, 09:01:59 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush/Cheney 309
Kerry/Edwards 229

Other than New Hampshire & New Mexico, our maps agree...

Flyers 4 - Forces of Evil 1 :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on April 19, 2004, 12:46:41 AM
I cant really buy this NH going for Kerry argument that many people are using because they will vote for their next door neighboor. If NH goes to Kerry, I doubt that will be the reason.  For instance, if it was Bayh v. Bush, no one in Ohio would vote for Bayh because he was from next door Indiana.  Gore didnt win any next door states in 2000.  I just dont see it.

Kerry may well win NH.  But it wont be because he is from MA.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on April 19, 2004, 12:49:05 AM
Yea landslide why would anybody in their right mind vote for Kerry. Kerry will just let saddam go and give Iraq back to him. Plus he will raise taxes for all!

LOL...looks like we have another Reaganfan on our hands, only worse this time.

Ok, that is just dumb.  I would never vote for Kerry, but he would not let Saddam go and let him be in charge of Iraq again


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 19, 2004, 12:58:44 AM
I cant really buy this NH going for Kerry argument that many people are using because they will vote for their next door neighboor.

I disagree.  I think it helps Kerry here to be next door rather than Texas.  But I think the real reason Kerry will win here if he does will be because of the buzz of the primaries that Bush didn't have this year but Kerry did.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on April 19, 2004, 07:55:15 AM
current prediction, based on polls andpreminition :D

()

Kerry 273-265 Bush.

Before you yell at me, look at Rassmussen-Michigan, Florida, PA, and OH. Whislt not based purely on Rassmussen (LOL), it was the main polling site I used. Alot is gut feeling-the least scientific, but often most accurate-measurement.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 19, 2004, 08:01:47 AM
current prediction, based on polls andpreminition :D

()

Kerry 273-265 Bush.

Before you yell at me, look at Rassmussen-Michigan, Florida, PA, and OH. Whislt not based purely on Rassmussen (LOL), it was the main polling site I used. Alot is gut feeling-the least scientific, but often most accurate-measurement.

Why Michigan for bush?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 19, 2004, 10:06:11 AM
Current prediction:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 19, 2004, 10:09:01 AM
current prediction, based on polls andpreminition :D

()

Kerry 273-265 Bush.

Before you yell at me, look at Rassmussen-Michigan, Florida, PA, and OH. Whislt not based purely on Rassmussen (LOL), it was the main polling site I used. Alot is gut feeling-the least scientific, but often most accurate-measurement.

Why Michigan for bush?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Michigan%20March%2018.htm

In Michigan, Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry leads President George W. Bush 48% to 44% as the election season begins.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on April 19, 2004, 11:22:19 AM
I cant really buy this NH going for Kerry argument that many people are using because they will vote for their next door neighboor.

I disagree.  I think it helps Kerry here to be next door rather than Texas.  But I think the real reason Kerry will win here if he does will be because of the buzz of the primaries that Bush didn't have this year but Kerry did.

If he wins NH the primary will have helped, but we would have been there no matter where he was from.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on April 19, 2004, 11:25:42 AM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on April 19, 2004, 11:25:51 AM
LOVE your new signiture img. Shapy


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 19, 2004, 11:27:32 AM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Just a gut feeling.

Pennsylvania because of NRA

Ohio because of the job situation and poll. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ShapeShifter on April 19, 2004, 11:27:47 AM
LOVE your new signiture img. Shapy

Thanks :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: dunn on April 19, 2004, 12:46:27 PM
:)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 19, 2004, 02:47:06 PM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Not necessarily...depends how the philly latte-drinking liberals vote.  If they vote for Nader Kerry might not win PA.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PeteLI66 on April 22, 2004, 09:05:17 AM
I cant really buy this NH going for Kerry argument that many people are using because they will vote for their next door neighboor. If NH goes to Kerry, I doubt that will be the reason.  For instance, if it was Bayh v. Bush, no one in Ohio would vote for Bayh because he was from next door Indiana.  Gore didnt win any next door states in 2000.  I just dont see it.

Kerry may well win NH.  But it wont be because he is from MA.

I disagree, I think that more than a few people in NH have ties to MA. For example, they work in MA, watch the news out of Boston, etc. These new england states are small, and there is a lot of cross-commuting, travelling and interstate business.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on April 23, 2004, 12:25:40 AM
That is a valid point.  There is alot of travel between the states.  Maybe the people of NH will know Kerry better then, and that is worse for him.  I still think Bush wins NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 23, 2004, 02:15:20 AM
That is a valid point.  There is alot of travel between the states.  Maybe the people of NH will know Kerry better then, and that is worse for him.  I still think Bush wins NH.

Good point.  A lot of people in NH are escapees from Taxachusetts.  They moved to get away from the likes of Kerry and Kennedy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PeteLI66 on April 23, 2004, 08:51:54 AM
Quote
A lot of people in NH are escapees from Taxachusetts.  They moved to get away from the likes of Kerry and Kennedy.
Quote

Federal elected officials do not set state tax rates.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Rococo4 on April 23, 2004, 10:44:48 AM
No, they dont , but they still associate their high taxes with all of their elected officials, fair or not.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PeteLI66 on April 23, 2004, 12:25:30 PM
No, they dont , but they still associate their high taxes with all of their elected officials, fair or not.

This is so untrue.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on April 23, 2004, 10:22:47 PM
No, they dont , but they still associate their high taxes with all of their elected officials, fair or not.

This is so untrue.

People associate high taxes with Democrats and low taxes with Republicans, its that simple.  Its also highly accurate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 23, 2004, 10:32:53 PM
Yes, Republicans are more economically conservative.  This means that they usually prefer to have the government out of our life economically (but in socially).  Democrats are the reverse, preferring to pay for government programs like universal healthcare and whatnot.

However, I question whether or not this is what Bush is doing.  It seems he shifts more of the burden to indirect indicators, like college tuition among other things.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TeePee4Prez on April 24, 2004, 01:03:57 PM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Not necessarily...depends how the philly latte-drinking liberals vote.  If they vote for Nader Kerry might not win PA.

Boss Tweed,
   Hi, Mr. Devils fan it's earth here.  Most Philly Democrats are not latte drinking liberals.  In fact a lot are pro-life and pro-Iraq war.  Ther reason Philly votes Dem is because of Jesse Jackson and the big unions.  The suburbs have a mix of union workers and bleeding hearts though.  I don't think those voters will be going Nader.  Maybe someone livingin Society HIll though.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: solrac on April 24, 2004, 03:48:58 PM
I cant really buy this NH going for Kerry argument that many people are using because they will vote for their next door neighboor.

I disagree.  I think it helps Kerry here to be next door rather than Texas.  But I think the real reason Kerry will win here if he does will be because of the buzz of the primaries that Bush didn't have this year but Kerry did.

The fact of the matter is that every state where Nader was strong, and that state was close between Bush/Gore, will be leaning for a Kerry win this time around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 24, 2004, 04:04:26 PM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Not necessarily...depends how the philly latte-drinking liberals vote.  If they vote for Nader Kerry might not win PA.

Boss Tweed,
   Hi, Mr. Devils fan it's earth here.  Most Philly Democrats are not latte drinking liberals.  In fact a lot are pro-life and pro-Iraq war.  Ther reason Philly votes Dem is because of Jesse Jackson and the big unions.  The suburbs have a mix of union workers and bleeding hearts though.  I don't think those voters will be going Nader.  Maybe someone livingin Society HIll though.  

He didn't say that most were...if one in 10 Gore+Nader votes vote for Nader again, that could be enough.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: solrac on April 24, 2004, 04:32:36 PM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Not necessarily...depends how the philly latte-drinking liberals vote.  If they vote for Nader Kerry might not win PA.

Boss Tweed,
   Hi, Mr. Devils fan it's earth here.  Most Philly Democrats are not latte drinking liberals.  In fact a lot are pro-life and pro-Iraq war.  Ther reason Philly votes Dem is because of Jesse Jackson and the big unions.  The suburbs have a mix of union workers and bleeding hearts though.  I don't think those voters will be going Nader.  Maybe someone livingin Society HIll though.  

He didn't say that most were...if one in 10 Gore+Nader votes vote for Nader again, that could be enough.

The electorate is aware of the very close 2000 election. There will be very-very-very little votes for Nader this time around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 24, 2004, 04:48:45 PM
why have both of you given Kerry Ohio and Bush Pennsylvania? Surely if Bush wins PA he will win OH.

Not necessarily...depends how the philly latte-drinking liberals vote.  If they vote for Nader Kerry might not win PA.

Boss Tweed,
   Hi, Mr. Devils fan it's earth here.  Most Philly Democrats are not latte drinking liberals.  In fact a lot are pro-life and pro-Iraq war.  Ther reason Philly votes Dem is because of Jesse Jackson and the big unions.  The suburbs have a mix of union workers and bleeding hearts though.  I don't think those voters will be going Nader.  Maybe someone livingin Society HIll though.  

He didn't say that most were...if one in 10 Gore+Nader votes vote for Nader again, that could be enough.

The electorate is aware of the very close 2000 election. There will be very-very-very little votes for Nader this time around.


Oh, I agree. Note the 'if' in MiamiU's statement. ;)

Still, if the race is close, like in Florida-2000-close, every single vote could matter. If the margin of victory is around 0.01% like it was then, Nader could still give the race to Bush. In fact, latte-drinking liberals probably make up about 0.01% of the PA electorate... :(

;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 24, 2004, 06:26:33 PM
Most philly democrats are not latte drinking liberals.

Not most, but many.  I think PA will be within 2-3% (no matter who wins) so if they vote for Nader, that could be more than enough to swing it to Bush.

Western PA in Pop-u-list coal mining nation is a waaaaay different world.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: howardpearlman on April 24, 2004, 06:56:47 PM
I Predict that Kerry Wins by 500,000 votes.

Same as Al Gore did.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 24, 2004, 07:05:40 PM
I Predict that Kerry Wins by 500,000 votes.

Same as Al Gore did.

I think Bush will win the PV big by racking up majorities in the south.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: A-Max on April 24, 2004, 11:17:54 PM
Bush will win with about 53-54%.  It will be the first time since Bush 41 won in '88 that a US President gets elected by a majority of the electorate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 12th Doctor on April 24, 2004, 11:33:03 PM

Not most, but many.  I think PA will be within 2-3% (no matter who wins) so if they vote for Nader, that could be more than enough to swing it to Bush.

Western PA in Pop-u-list coal mining nation is a waaaaay different world.

Philly liberal are WAY different from Pittsburgh liberal, your right about that Miami.  Western PA is going to have a hard time swollowing Kerry, I'm not saying that they won't vote Kerry, but the culture clash between the regional personalities and Kerry's could be enough for Bush to prevail in the Pittsburgh area.  If that happens then PA is Bush country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on April 25, 2004, 04:59:06 AM

Not most, but many.  I think PA will be within 2-3% (no matter who wins) so if they vote for Nader, that could be more than enough to swing it to Bush.

Western PA in Pop-u-list coal mining nation is a waaaaay different world.

Philly liberal are WAY different from Pittsburgh liberal, your right about that Miami.  Western PA is going to have a hard time swollowing Kerry, I'm not saying that they won't vote Kerry, but the culture clash between the regional personalities and Kerry's could be enough for Bush to prevail in the Pittsburgh area.  If that happens then PA is Bush country.

Dunno 'bout that actually... Remember: Dukakis did very, very well in SW PA...
I'm worried about outer-suburban Philly though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 25, 2004, 08:02:29 AM

Not most, but many.  I think PA will be within 2-3% (no matter who wins) so if they vote for Nader, that could be more than enough to swing it to Bush.

Western PA in Pop-u-list coal mining nation is a waaaaay different world.

Philly liberal are WAY different from Pittsburgh liberal, your right about that Miami.  Western PA is going to have a hard time swollowing Kerry, I'm not saying that they won't vote Kerry, but the culture clash between the regional personalities and Kerry's could be enough for Bush to prevail in the Pittsburgh area.  If that happens then PA is Bush country.

There is no such thing as a Pittsburgh issue.  They are the coal miners and vote on economics (for the most part.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 25, 2004, 02:58:19 PM
Recents:

()

Err.

***

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3172

Kerry loses New York but Alabama is a tossup.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 25, 2004, 04:43:21 PM
You da masta of finding odd ones, Lunar :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 25, 2004, 04:53:06 PM
Bush has a 32+% lead in Alabama! I see that as a real toss up, lol.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 25, 2004, 04:53:22 PM
I just glance at the recently submitted ones every now and then.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 25, 2004, 05:01:35 PM
I just glance at the recently submitted ones every now and then.

As do I, but I never find any good ones :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 25, 2004, 05:23:03 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1244 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1244)

SC & KS are strong Dem, but OH goes Rep?

Heh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 25, 2004, 05:27:01 PM
Everyone knows that Indiana and Oklahoma are in the bag for Kerry while many of what the so-called "polls" claim are the battlegrounds (NH, FL, OH) are heading Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 25, 2004, 07:01:07 PM
I can't wait to see one that has Mass as a Republican state and like Idaho as Democrat. lol That would be a hoot.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 25, 2004, 07:29:17 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1244 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1244)

SC & KS are strong Dem, but OH goes Rep?

Heh.

Good one

SC and KY solid Dem also.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 25, 2004, 08:14:47 PM
Everyone knows that Indiana and Oklahoma are in the bag for Kerry while many of what the so-called "polls" claim are the battlegrounds (NH, FL, OH) are heading Bush.

Oh, most definatly :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on April 26, 2004, 11:57:46 AM
I hear that Kerry will also steal away Alaska and Utah while Bush pulls in DC and New York.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 26, 2004, 12:13:35 PM
If that happens I fully hope that Gustaf has a room set up for me in Sweden. I hear the Swedish meatballs there are excellent. lol ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on April 26, 2004, 12:16:21 PM
Everyone knows that Indiana and Oklahoma are in the bag for Kerry while many of what the so-called "polls" claim are the battlegrounds (NH, FL, OH) are heading Bush.

Oh, most definatly :)

Keep you eye on Utah and Wyoming... I smell upsets for Kerry in those two states.

DC may be very close, but I still think Kerry will eke out a victory...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on April 27, 2004, 02:41:17 PM
If that happens I fully hope that Gustaf has a room set up for me in Sweden. I hear the Swedish meatballs there are excellent. lol ;)

Sure. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 27, 2004, 05:02:21 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush/Cheney 366
Kerry/Edwards 172


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 27, 2004, 05:03:43 PM


Kerry loses New York but Alabama is a tossup.


Also DC goes Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on April 27, 2004, 05:07:20 PM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 27, 2004, 05:08:48 PM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....

I'm seeing it as blue


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on April 27, 2004, 05:10:04 PM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....

I'm seeing it as blue

oops, n/m we were looking at different maps, there are 2 linked ones.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 27, 2004, 05:11:39 PM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....

I'm seeing it as blue

oops, n/m we were looking at different maps, there are 2 linked ones.

right, okay.  ???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on April 27, 2004, 05:12:47 PM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....

I'm seeing it as blue

oops, n/m we were looking at different maps, there are 2 linked ones.

right, okay.  ???

someone else linked an amusing map where Kerry won Oklahoma, Kansas and South Carolina, I was looking at that.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 27, 2004, 05:14:45 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:

()

Bush/Cheney 366
Kerry/Edwards 172


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 28, 2004, 01:34:28 AM
Boss Tweed, if their is a God above that will be the case!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 28, 2004, 01:35:27 AM
I doubt Kerry will stay down in the polls.  They'll even out and bounce around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on April 28, 2004, 11:13:43 AM


errr, no it doesn't, are you looking at the linked map? DC is Democrat in it.....

I'm seeing it as blue

oops, n/m we were looking at different maps, there are 2 linked ones.

right, okay.  ???

someone else linked an amusing map where Kerry won Oklahoma, Kansas and South Carolina, I was looking at that.

That'd be me :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 30, 2004, 02:31:46 AM
Here is another "yeah right".

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2460 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2460)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on April 30, 2004, 02:40:07 AM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()
Bush - 304
Kerry - 234


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on April 30, 2004, 07:08:47 AM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()
Bush - 304
Kerry - 234

Not bad---

Bush will get 50% in CO and FL...etc...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on April 30, 2004, 10:37:00 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3267

Kerry does well enough to take Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and Arizona but Bush manages to take a slight lead in the EC by taking New York.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 01, 2004, 01:14:26 AM
The only way Bush could possibly have a shot at NY is if it had been 9-11-04 instead of 9-11-01.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on May 01, 2004, 02:06:47 AM
The only way Bush could possibly have a shot at NY is if it had been 9-11-04 instead of 9-11-01.

Well, we'll see.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 01, 2004, 02:11:29 AM
I pray God we have no more attacks. But I fear that July 4th or November 2nd (in two ways) will be bad days.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 01, 2004, 07:35:11 AM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3267

Kerry does well enough to take Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and Arizona but Bush manages to take a slight lead in the EC by taking New York.

The guy is from Alabama.  That might have something to do with it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 01, 2004, 08:46:30 AM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3267

Kerry does well enough to take Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas and Arizona but Bush manages to take a slight lead in the EC by taking New York.

The guy is from Alabama.  That might have something to do with it.

He's a Democrat, but despite having a seriously odd map, he still has Bush winning. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 01, 2004, 01:22:12 PM
Alabama: Strong GOP
New York: Strong Dem

I think he thinks Bush'll drop Cheney & put in Giuliani.


Just realized... he has Alaska strong Dem!

:o


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 04, 2004, 12:03:39 AM
Revised for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()

R - 274
D - 264

If New Mexico goes Kerry we have a tie. That would be interesting.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2004, 07:11:39 AM
Revised for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()

R - 274
D - 264

If New Mexico goes Kerry we have a tie. That would be interesting.

Arkansas?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on May 04, 2004, 11:37:16 AM
Revised for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()

R - 274
D - 264

If New Mexico goes Kerry we have a tie. That would be interesting.
or West Virginia or even Nevada.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2004, 02:44:09 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 394
Kerry/Edwards 144

Switched IL, ME, and DE to Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 04, 2004, 02:45:42 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 394
Kerry/Edwards 144

Switched IL, ME, and DE to Bush.

Wow. And how comes CA is still Dem and IL isn't?

And I think you're going over-baord now. It isn't gonna be THAT bad.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on May 04, 2004, 02:48:07 PM
I THINK BUSH IS GOING TO WIN A CLOSE BUT FAIR ELECTION BY PICK UP 3 STATES
WI
PA
POSSBLE OROGAN


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2004, 02:51:46 PM
Wow. And how comes CA is still Dem and IL isn't?

And I think you're going over-baord now. It isn't gonna be THAT bad.

1. IT would take a 650K vote swing in CA, only a 240K or so swing in IL.

2. It will be that bad


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on May 04, 2004, 03:11:22 PM
Revised for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()

R - 274
D - 264

If New Mexico goes Kerry we have a tie. That would be interesting.

The map is actually well within the realm of possibility


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 04, 2004, 03:19:53 PM
Wow. And how comes CA is still Dem and IL isn't?

And I think you're going over-baord now. It isn't gonna be THAT bad.

1. IT would take a 650K vote swing in CA, only a 240K or so swing in IL.

2. It will be that bad

%-swing is more imprtant than in absolute terms. It would take a 45K vote swing in Wyoming, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 04, 2004, 03:33:51 PM
%-swing is more imprtant than in absolute terms. It would take a 45K vote swing in Wyoming, but that doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

It does for states of equal percentages


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 05, 2004, 12:48:48 AM
I know you all keep dismissing my belief. But I continue to hear rumors of the higher up DNC members being very unsatisfied with Kerry as a candidate. I have heard rumors that Hillary and the DNC Chairman (sorry I can't remember his name at 2am) are not impressed with his campaigning ability. I have heard that it may be a open convention as in 1980 when they tried to dump Carter. I don't know why I catch so much heat for this.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 05, 2004, 09:26:53 AM
Revised again :

()

Bush - 338
Kerry - 199
Abstain - 1 D.C. Elector


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 05, 2004, 10:15:44 AM
Why the DC elector?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 05, 2004, 10:25:40 AM
He/She did last time.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 05, 2004, 04:48:08 PM
Kerry losing Michigan but not Iowa?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 05, 2004, 05:08:23 PM

Tey won't necessarily be the same people.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 06, 2004, 01:27:38 AM
Kerry losing Michigan but not Iowa?

Every election has its weird oddities. I still see a landslide in the making if things go right for Bush. But I wouldn't bet the farm on it yet.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 06, 2004, 01:48:30 AM
Here is a classic :

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3359 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3359)

Montana and Indiana going Democrat? lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 06, 2004, 07:13:20 AM
Here is a classic :

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3359 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3359)

Montana and Indiana going Democrat? lol

That guy gives comments too...there is a method to his madness.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 06, 2004, 10:17:43 AM
Montana, North Dakota, Indiana going Kerry? Sure. If you really believe that. I put as much faith in that as I put in the "fact" that most married women are ditching Bush. Patriotism will prevail in this election. No matter how much the Democrats try and Vietnamize this war and split the nation.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on May 06, 2004, 06:58:19 PM
History of George W. Bush, in average poll ratings

Date        Average    Stdev   Count

01/01/01    46.00    #DIV/0!   1
02/01/01    55.92     3.15    12
03/01/01    56.10     4.07    10
04/01/01    58.11     4.14    9
05/01/01    55.13     2.36    8
06/01/01    53.13     3.09    8
07/01/01    54.80     3.77    10
08/01/01    53.20     2.90    10
09/01/01    79.60     11.82    15
10/01/01    86.62     4.07    13
11/01/01    86.58     1.68    12
12/01/01    83.80     2.35    10
01/01/02    80.29     3.04    17
02/01/02    79.57     2.07    7
03/01/02    77.75     2.80    12
04/01/02    75.06     2.57    16
05/01/02    74.00     2.80    12
06/01/02    72.31     2.57    16
07/01/02    68.05     3.52    19
08/01/02    64.78     2.82    9
09/01/02    66.37     2.19    19
10/01/02    63.29     2.44    17
11/01/02    65.27     2.10    11
12/01/02    62.27     2.94    11
01/01/03    59.70     3.21    20
02/01/03    58.05     3.63    19
03/01/03    63.08     5.99    26
04/01/03    69.68     3.76    22
05/01/03    64.23     2.35    13
06/01/03    61.83     3.83    12
07/01/03    57.80     2.65    15
08/01/03    56.09     2.74    11
09/01/03    52.33     3.25    18
10/01/03    53.13     2.53    15
11/01/03    52.23     3.11    13
12/01/03    55.00     3.87    23
01/01/04    54.86     4.64    22
02/01/04    50.44     2.68    16
03/01/04    49.06     1.77    16
04/01/04    48.80     2.60    15
05/01/04    47.50     2.12    2

Note: All days converted to "01" for purposes of aggregation.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on May 06, 2004, 07:06:56 PM

EV Scenarios, by Bush approval rating

Bush
Approval   Nader EV   Kerry EV   Bush EV
71%   0   0   538
70%   0   3   535
65%   0   3   535
60%   0   19   519
55%   0   168   370
54%   0   168   370
53%   0   189   349
52%   0   221   317
51%   0   231   307
50%   0   248   290
49%   0   264   274
48%   0   300   238
47%   0   319   219
46%   0   359   179
45%   0   359   179
40%   0   454   84
35%   0   486   52
30%   0   526   12
25%   0   538   0
20%   0   538   0
15%   3   535   0
10%   50   488   0
5%   231   307   0
0%   264   274   0



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Vorlon on May 06, 2004, 07:10:04 PM

EV Scenarios, by Bush approval rating

Bush
Approval   Nader EV   Kerry EV   Bush EV
71%   0   0   538
70%   0   3   535
65%   0   3   535
60%   0   19   519
55%   0   168   370
54%   0   168   370
53%   0   189   349
52%   0   221   317
51%   0   231   307
50%   0   248   290
49%   0   264   274
48%   0   300   238
47%   0   319   219
46%   0   359   179
45%   0   359   179
40%   0   454   84
35%   0   486   52
30%   0   526   12
25%   0   538   0
20%   0   538   0
15%   3   535   0
10%   50   488   0
5%   231   307   0
0%   264   274   0



Pretty darn close !


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 06, 2004, 08:44:18 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2857 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2857)

HA!  An older version of his.  MD, PA, WV Bush, MT, ND, Kerry.  Nevada: 'Nevada is a ifx against Bush, the whole thing with Yucca Mountain has made that a guaranteed Dem state for at least a few more elections, maybe more if it gets really bad.'

:D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 06, 2004, 08:54:18 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=970 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=970)

ND & SD Strong Dem...

But OH & PA Tossups for Bush

:P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 06, 2004, 08:58:04 PM
I'd almost think that map was based on local power (who are the senators and governer) but WV isn't Dem there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 07, 2004, 07:13:14 AM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=970 (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=970)

ND & SD Strong Dem...

But OH & PA Tossups for Bush

:P

Maine also.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: JohnFKennedy on May 07, 2004, 11:00:51 AM
Here's a prediction (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=2952) from a Scottish Conservative.

I'm pretty sure both the economy and Iraq will have improved come November, and I'm pretty uninspired by Kerry as a candidate.

Thoughts?

Also, how do I post the image rather than just the link?

OMG, A Scottish Conservative?!?!?!?!?!?!

Impossible! lol

Welcome to the forums, if I haven't already welcomed you somewhere else.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 07, 2004, 01:42:26 PM

EV Scenarios, by Bush approval rating

Bush
Approval   Nader EV   Kerry EV   Bush EV
71%   0   0   538
70%   0   3   535
65%   0   3   535
60%   0   19   519
55%   0   168   370
54%   0   168   370
53%   0   189   349
52%   0   221   317
51%   0   231   307
50%   0   248   290
49%   0   264   274
48%   0   300   238
47%   0   319   219
46%   0   359   179
45%   0   359   179
40%   0   454   84
35%   0   486   52
30%   0   526   12
25%   0   538   0
20%   0   538   0
15%   3   535   0
10%   50   488   0
5%   231   307   0
0%   264   274   0

Good work! :)
Nice to see you back, BTW


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: cskendrick on May 07, 2004, 08:36:00 PM
Thanks!

To be honest, I lost my link to this site!

How embarrassing. :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 08, 2004, 03:02:44 AM
Thanks!

To be honest, I lost my link to this site!

How embarrassing. :(

I've done that sort of thing before...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 08, 2004, 03:16:27 PM
I think that DC is the only place that will break 60%. So, I am using the colors to represent the range within the 60% max range. The colors from lightest to darkest represent: <50%, 50%-53.3%, 53.4%-56.6%, and 56.7%-59.9%.

Here's my election night prediction:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 08, 2004, 04:06:15 PM
I think that DC is the only place that will break 60%. So, I am using the colors to represent the range within the 60% max range. The colors from lightest to darkest represent: <50%, 50%-53.3%, 53.4%-56.6%, and 56.7%-59.9%.

Here's my election night prediction:

()

And then that one CD in NE goes to Kerry, right? :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 08, 2004, 10:19:26 PM
Yep, the NE-02


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 09, 2004, 08:38:22 AM

How?  Gore didn't even win a Nebraska county in 2000, and lost NE-02 by 18.4%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kelpie on May 09, 2004, 04:22:44 PM
Updated prediction - getting tighter.  Bush 314, Kerry 224.  Thoughts?

Also showboating new picture posting capability...

()()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 09, 2004, 04:35:34 PM
Not at all unreasonable Kelpie. :) In fact, pretty likely.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 09, 2004, 05:48:15 PM
If Bush wins then that is a very likely scenario.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 09, 2004, 06:15:53 PM
Updated prediction - getting tighter.  Bush 314, Kerry 224.  Thoughts?

Also showboating new picture posting capability...

()()

I like your Minnesota ;) :) :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TeePee4Prez on May 09, 2004, 09:05:25 PM
Bush' approval is at 47% and I hope the EV totals are accurate.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 10, 2004, 09:21:39 AM

How?  Gore didn't even win a Nebraska county in 2000, and lost NE-02 by 18.4%.

Kerry ain't winning crap in Nebraska give that thought up. Maine might split, maybe.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 10, 2004, 12:19:36 PM
It would be funny if my scenario actually happened.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 10, 2004, 03:07:12 PM
It would be funny if my scenario actually happened.

It would be verry cool.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 10, 2004, 03:08:20 PM
Kerry ain't winning crap in Nebraska give that thought up. Maine might split, maybe.

Maine almost split last time, it took them a couple hours to call Maine's second district.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: millwx on May 11, 2004, 08:21:16 AM
Just randomly chiming in here after seeing lots of folks' predictions.  Just my two cents, but I think a lot of people are "missing" some standard, well known polling issues...

1) Third party candidates poll roughly double what they'll actually get.  The other half migrate to the major candidate most closely matching their's... In this case, about 50% of the polled Nader support will go to Kerry.

2) Undecideds go heavily (about 70-80%) to the challenger.

This means that almost every state polling even or with Bush up by 1-2% is actually, likely, leaning Kerry.  Zogby said some of this (more simply) on his site yesterday, and he's absolutely right.  This is Kerry's race to lose.  Due to these polling "issues" Kerry is likely ahead in all of the Gore states plus NH, OH, FL and AR... maybe more!  Obviously, many states are close; Bush coulde easily win... and by a lot... with only a slight surge.  But right now, Kerry is ahead... significantly... if one interprets the poll numbers properly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on May 11, 2004, 09:06:46 AM
Just randomly chiming in here after seeing lots of folks' predictions.  Just my two cents, but I think a lot of people are "missing" some standard, well known polling issues...

1) Third party candidates poll roughly double what they'll actually get.  The other half migrate to the major candidate most closely matching their's... In this case, about 50% of the polled Nader support will go to Kerry.

2) Undecideds go heavily (about 70-80%) to the challenger.

This means that almost every state polling even or with Bush up by 1-2% is actually, likely, leaning Kerry.  Zogby said some of this (more simply) on his site yesterday, and he's absolutely right.  This is Kerry's race to lose.  Due to these polling "issues" Kerry is likely ahead in all of the Gore states plus NH, OH, FL and AR... maybe more!  Obviously, many states are close; Bush coulde easily win... and by a lot... with only a slight surge.  But right now, Kerry is ahead... significantly... if one interprets the poll numbers properly.

I tend to agree with you, although I'll reserve that opinion until I hear Vorlon's view of it.

QUESTION FOR VORLON:  How can you be so into the numbers, etc. of the election when you literally have no dog in the fight?  I have no problem with your voting liberatarian, but I just would think the whole battle would be more boring to you, given your disdain for both sides.  I'll hang up and listen for my answer.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 11, 2004, 09:58:36 AM
Just randomly chiming in here after seeing lots of folks' predictions.  Just my two cents, but I think a lot of people are "missing" some standard, well known polling issues...

1) Third party candidates poll roughly double what they'll actually get.  The other half migrate to the major candidate most closely matching their's... In this case, about 50% of the polled Nader support will go to Kerry.

2) Undecideds go heavily (about 70-80%) to the challenger.

This means that almost every state polling even or with Bush up by 1-2% is actually, likely, leaning Kerry.  Zogby said some of this (more simply) on his site yesterday, and he's absolutely right.  This is Kerry's race to lose.  Due to these polling "issues" Kerry is likely ahead in all of the Gore states plus NH, OH, FL and AR... maybe more!  Obviously, many states are close; Bush coulde easily win... and by a lot... with only a slight surge.  But right now, Kerry is ahead... significantly... if one interprets the poll numbers properly.

Having any idea who is going to win this thing in May is like sitting back and trying to predict who is going to the World Series. You can make a lot of good guesses but will probably be wrong in the end. We still have conventions and debates yet to go! Thats a lot of stuff still a long time off.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: millwx on May 11, 2004, 10:31:05 AM
Having any idea who is going to win this thing in May is like sitting back and trying to predict who is going to the World Series. You can make a lot of good guesses but will probably be wrong in the end. We still have conventions and debates yet to go! Thats a lot of stuff still a long time off.

While I completely agree with that notion, the fact is, many people ARE trying to make such a prediction.  So, I was just trying to point out that if anyone has any hope at all of doing that, they need to at least understand how to interpret the polls. (That comes off as rather "holier than thou"; sorry, it is not intended to... I'm merely trying to point out, from a lot of poll-parsing I've done, as well as taking advise from the polling experts themselves, that there is more to polling data than the mere straight-up numbers.)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 11, 2004, 10:34:57 AM
I like to look at state polls more then one big national poll. Yes it looks bad for Bush right now but I know that will change as the summer wears on. I really don't put faith in polls as I don't believe the sample enough people. In this modern age we could easily sample 500,000 registered voters. Just my opinion, it may not be feasible I don't know.

BTW, what part of MD are you from? I grew up in N.E. Baltimore City. Franklin Square Hospital is where I was born.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: millwx on May 11, 2004, 12:03:01 PM
I like to look at state polls more then one big national poll. Yes it looks bad for Bush right now but I know that will change as the summer wears on. I really don't put faith in polls as I don't believe the sample enough people. In this modern age we could easily sample 500,000 registered voters. Just my opinion, it may not be feasible I don't know.

BTW, what part of MD are you from? I grew up in N.E. Baltimore City. Franklin Square Hospital is where I was born.
I agree (about state polls).  I think national polls are important in that if someone has a wide lead, then, don't bother parsing the state data... that candidate will win.  But when it's close (like this), the state polls are the key.

As for Bush improving over the summer, I'm not so sure.  News continues to be bad for him (except for some jobs data), and I see no reason why it won't continue.  Meanwhile, Kerry hasn't even really begun his campaign (o.k., well, he JUST has - as he's launched an ad buy).  By the way, I'm not spouting this as just some personal preference.  Frankly, I don't like either candidate.

Anyway, I agree that it's early and much can change.  There are so many tight battleground states that any significant improvement by either candidate could easily result in a landslide.  To my original point, though, to me it doesn't matter whether the election is 6 months or 6 days away... if one uses polling data to make their prediction, they should use it with the best knowledge of the polling biases/errors/tendencies possible.

Incidentally, I'm originally from Massachusetts (I'm a "Northeast Republican"... which makes me more libertarian or independent in the rest of the country :-) ), but now living in SoMD (PG Co.).  I did recently live in Baltimore City, though (north of Canton/Fells Point).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 11, 2004, 12:11:14 PM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure :

()

R - 345
D - 192*



*D.C. Electors Abstains


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 11, 2004, 12:17:09 PM
:P
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on May 11, 2004, 12:25:28 PM
BUSH WILL WIN A CLOSE ONE
327 EC VOTES FOR BUSH CARRYING PA,WI,
211 EC VOTES FOR KERRY


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 02:52:30 PM

Your percentages are messed up


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 11, 2004, 02:53:27 PM
so?
got a point?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 02:55:58 PM

How the hell will Bush get 80% in Texas?  And 60% in the upper south?  And Kerry 60% in WI?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 11, 2004, 02:57:19 PM
since it makes no difference to me what margins they get i didn't even try to guess them.
winning a state by 80% is no different than winning by 1%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 03:06:02 PM
since it makes no difference to me what margins they get i didn't even try to guess them.
winning a state by 80% is no different than winning by 1%.

Bush got 59% in TX in 2000, he would need 21% more to reach 80%.

I don't think he will even reach 60% there.  He runs pretty poorly in the urban areas, which are growing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 11, 2004, 03:08:15 PM
i was pretty much just fooling around with the percentages.
i'm just interested in who wins a state,not by how much.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 03:09:44 PM
i was pretty much just fooling around with the percentages.
i'm just interested in who wins a state,not by how much.


Heh.  I win.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 11, 2004, 03:10:33 PM
i was pretty much just fooling around with the percentages.
i'm just interested in who wins a state,not by how much.


Heh.  I win.
if that makes you feel better.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 03:12:40 PM
TEXAS POLL SHOWS BUSH WITH 54% (http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/TXPoll.htm#pres)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 11, 2004, 03:18:48 PM
texasgurl-

If that electoral scenario comes about, this is a more likely percentage breakdown:
Map Percentage Code:     4          5               6                7            8
Percentage Range:        <50, 50.1-53.3, 53.3-56.6, 56.6-59.9, 60-100.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 11, 2004, 03:27:39 PM
Here's my prediction though:

Map Percentage Code:     4          5               6                7            8
Percentage Range:        <50, 50.1-53.3, 53.3-56.6, 56.6-59.9, 60-100.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 11, 2004, 04:39:06 PM
Didn't I already point out that Kerry can't win a CD in Nebraska?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 11, 2004, 05:15:39 PM
I think that he can.

Bush won NE-02 with 54% in 2000.  Considering that he's lost 10 points in neighboring states (SD, ID, 10 in OK) and that his administration just today announced new regulation on diesel feul for farm vehicles that will raise the price of diesel much more than the current raises in the price of gasoline from which I would say that he stands to loose more I contend that Bush has a good chance of loosing in the farming areas surrounding Omaha.  Plus with an 2% per year average liberalization of the suburbs I think that there's a very good chance that Bush will loose NE-02.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 12, 2004, 09:55:52 AM
StatesRights, though asking 500 000 people is techically feasible, think about the costs...this is all statistical, an MoE of 3% in 95% of the cases is sufficient in most peoples minds.

The state-owned polling firm in Sweden, SCB, make 2 big polls a year, with a sample of about 9 000.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 12, 2004, 10:19:38 AM
StatesRights, though asking 500 000 people is techically feasible, think about the costs...this is all statistical, an MoE of 3% in 95% of the cases is sufficient in most peoples minds.

The state-owned polling firm in Sweden, SCB, make 2 big polls a year, with a sample of about 9 000.

If telemarketers can use automated machines and call thousands of people at a clip then what would stop a rich person from funding such a poll?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 12, 2004, 10:23:29 AM
Ask Soros.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 12, 2004, 10:25:33 AM

I'd tell that liberal weenie to take his money and go to Europe.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 12, 2004, 10:36:34 AM
That "liberal weenie" happens to have a sh**tload of money to spare.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 12, 2004, 10:50:54 AM
That "liberal weenie" happens to have a sh**tload of money to spare.

Very true.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 12, 2004, 11:50:13 AM
StatesRights, though asking 500 000 people is techically feasible, think about the costs...this is all statistical, an MoE of 3% in 95% of the cases is sufficient in most peoples minds.

The state-owned polling firm in Sweden, SCB, make 2 big polls a year, with a sample of about 9 000.

If telemarketers can use automated machines and call thousands of people at a clip then what would stop a rich person from funding such a poll?

It's not worth it. The increase in accuracy becomes less and less cost-effective, simply. So you'd pay a lot of money and get very little for it. You would always have the MoEs anyway.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 13, 2004, 01:24:42 AM
Yes, but I feel if you had a larger sample you could get a clearer picture. I'm sorry but 650 or whatever number they use out of 100 million voters doesn't really tell me to much that I could bet the farm on.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: John on May 13, 2004, 02:52:45 PM
DID YOU PEOPLE LOOK AT THE POLL IN OHIO
BUSH IS TROUBLE THERE IF HE DOSE NOT WHEN THEIR HE IS IN BIG
KERRY: 49%
BUSH: 42%
NADER: 2%
UD: 7%
WITHOUT NADER
KERRY: 50%
BUSH: 43%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 14, 2004, 09:27:06 PM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on May 14, 2004, 09:32:37 PM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.

Nice one.  Poor Pennsylvania is an island in this one.  Scary.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on May 14, 2004, 09:34:35 PM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.

Nice one.  Poor Pennsylvania is an island in this one.  Scary.
That was what NH is known for!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on May 14, 2004, 09:35:48 PM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.

Nice one.  Poor Pennsylvania is an island in this one.  Scary.
That was what NH is known for!

Well at least you guys aren't landlocked.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 14, 2004, 09:44:18 PM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.

How are Michigan and Minnesota tossups but not Iowa or New Hampshire?  Bush has to be +5 for those to be considered "tossups" and at this point, he will be winning in West Virginia, Ohio, and Oregon as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2004, 01:30:31 AM
I follow trends, rather then polls, in this file.

And I see a trend in MI going towards Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 15, 2004, 01:50:12 AM
My new one:

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3536

Bush 275, Kerry 263.

Good but I'd flip WVA over to Bush. Several polls have him leading.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2004, 06:58:45 AM
his margin of lead i decreasing, IIRC-so it is a trend to Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 15, 2004, 11:25:01 AM
Bush Widens lead in Utah to 45%

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595063379,00.html (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595063379,00.html)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 15, 2004, 11:27:11 AM
()

()

I wonder what Bush's post 9-11 approval rating was in Utah.  Probably 96-97%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 15, 2004, 11:41:54 AM
Current map with polls this is how it's looking. ouch

()

R - 270
D - 268


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 15, 2004, 03:19:57 PM
Switch NH.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 15, 2004, 03:28:46 PM

NH is currently looking significantly more Republican than Pennsylvania and Ohio.  Not sure about Kerry winning Pennsylvania and Ohio but not Oregon though..though definately possible.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 15, 2004, 04:28:19 PM
I guess if you're looking at today's situation.  However when the fed funds rate returns to a normal level, the interest payment on the debt eclipses defense as our largest expenditure, and people comprehend the GOP's newfound disregard for maintaining positive or zero cashflow there will be a big shift away from Bush.  Even if Iraq works and the people have work, if fiscal discipline is entirely missing from DC people will be pissed.  I expect to see the GOP loose every close race this year as a result.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 15, 2004, 05:59:28 PM

No. lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on May 15, 2004, 07:25:46 PM
That's a reasonable map, StatesRights, but one problem-Kerry wins OH AND PA, but loses NH AND Oregon?

Seems a bit odd...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 15, 2004, 07:31:13 PM
That's a reasonable map, StatesRights, but one problem-Kerry wins OH AND PA, but loses NH AND Oregon?

Seems a bit odd...

NH is more Republican than either of those, so that's fine.  Like I said, not sure about Oregon though.  I think he is predicting Bush to continue to build up support there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: klrbzzz on May 15, 2004, 07:55:49 PM
Bush Widens lead in Utah to 45%

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595063379,00.html (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595063379,00.html)
I wonder if Kerry is going to make any stops in Utah, to get it down to a respectable 37-40%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 15, 2004, 08:52:49 PM
I wonder if Kerry is going to make any stops in Utah, to get it down to a respectable 37-40%

Maybe he can send his VP choice out there.

Seriously, Bush has an OUTSIDE chance at 80% in Utah.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 15, 2004, 08:53:37 PM
I wonder if Kerry is going to make any stops in Utah, to get it down to a respectable 37-40%

Maybe he can send his VP choice out there.

Seriously, Bush has an OUTSIDE chance at 80% in Utah.

Bush will get 65% in Florida...........lol ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 15, 2004, 08:55:56 PM
Bush will get 65% in Florida...........lol ;)

Nah, maybe 55% though...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on May 16, 2004, 01:18:38 AM
State's Rights, who is that hot off-road girl in your picture?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 16, 2004, 07:41:34 AM
State's Rights, who is that hot off-road girl in your picture?

I was thinking the same thing ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 16, 2004, 09:06:29 AM
State's Rights, who is that hot off-road girl in your picture?

I was thinking the same thing ;)

Gretchen Wilson (http://www.gretchenwilson.com)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 16, 2004, 09:10:28 AM
A country singer? :(


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 16, 2004, 09:15:31 AM


Yep! No :( about it nothing but ;D ;D ;D ;D from me!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 16, 2004, 09:17:34 AM
Yep! No :( about it nothing but ;D ;D ;D ;D from me!

Other than Shania Twain, I dislike country singers.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: opebo on May 17, 2004, 04:35:17 PM
Yep! No :( about it nothing but ;D ;D ;D ;D from me!

Other than Shania Twain, I dislike country singers.

Country music used to be great stuff, about two generations ago.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: millwx on May 19, 2004, 06:53:16 AM
I tend to agree with you, although I'll reserve that opinion until I hear Vorlon's view of it.

Just wanted to pop in again here, because apparently (it was mentioned on the MI poll thread) Vorlon (I presume he's your resident poll expert?  I've not been around here long enough), has confirmed my statement (not personally said I was right... but he has stated something similar... I didn't see such a post by Vorlon, but someone was referencing him)...

The challenger gets a vast majority of the votes.

Though I admit it's a very questionable thing to do due to methodologies, I can also tell you that if you take the six most recent national polls and average the three with the largest pool of undecideds versus the three with the smallest pool of undecideds you'll see that, indeed, the undecideds break better than 2:1 for Kerry.  I'll admit it's a bit shady to be averaging polls like that, but it does indicate that the 2:1 rule does hold.

I mention this because a lot of Bush supporters on this thread and the MI poll thread are disregarding this "rule", for a number of reasons.  I'm not being pro-Kerry here (I don't have much of an axe to grind, I don't like either one), I'm just being realistic.  The Dems appear correct in flaunting this axiom around.  The "resident expert" has confirmed this, and current poll averages IMPLY the same (though, again, I'll say that poll averaging like that is a bit shady).

So, with about 5-8% undecided in most states (more in some), Bush needs to be about 2-4% in the lead for it to really even be a dead heat.  If I could figure out how to post my prediction here (I'm a bit of a techno-idiot), I would.  It's straight from the poll numbers, but using the 2:1 interpretation and tipping any ties to Kerry, due to the trends plus the Nader factor (some Naderites will likely go for Kerry at the last minute).  You'd see that it's far more Kerry-colored than a map using the poll numbers straight-up, with no interpretation.

Anyway, sorry for being so long-winded... I don't post often, so needed to get all my thoughts out at once!  :-)  Just wanted to chime in again that there is some validation on the 2:1 (or more!) issue I raised earlier.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 19, 2004, 11:24:01 AM
I tend to agree with you, although I'll reserve that opinion until I hear Vorlon's view of it.

Yup, Vorlon's our poll expert... we're all lost and confused without him ;)

He's gone 'till May 31st, although somehow his polls get into the "Polls" part of the site... hmm...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on May 21, 2004, 08:49:20 PM
Do you have to pay to do the prediction thing?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 21, 2004, 09:03:33 PM
Good Graphic:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ElectionAtlas on May 22, 2004, 02:03:35 PM
Josh22 - no payment is required for user predictions or forum or polls comments.  These are free user interactive features.  The pay part of the site is only for the detailed data and maps.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on May 22, 2004, 02:38:04 PM
Josh22 - no payment is required for user predictions or forum or polls comments.  These are free user interactive features.  The pay part of the site is only for the detailed data and maps.

Oh ok thank you Dave. I love you site by the way.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Nym90 on May 23, 2004, 12:19:29 PM
cskendrick--

You should register to vote in the fantasy elections. We have a presidential election coming up in June. Here's the link...

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?board=13;action=display;threadid=2153;start=330


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 23, 2004, 02:11:37 PM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure:


()

R - 321
D - 216*





*- 1 Democratic Elector will abstain.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 23, 2004, 03:00:48 PM
One Democratic elector will NOT abstain


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 23, 2004, 03:54:31 PM
One Democratic elector will NOT abstain

Yes the DC one will out of protest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 23, 2004, 03:55:27 PM
It won't necessarily be the SAME ONE, and even if it was, they wouldn't necessarily protest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 23, 2004, 07:50:11 PM
Here's a freaky one:

()

Kerry 452, Bush 86 (From a Washington Republican)

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=368


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 23, 2004, 07:51:28 PM
Here's a freaky one:

()

Kerry 452, Bush 86 (From a Washington Republican)

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=368

Kerry winning Texas, TN, Georgia? Keep dreaming!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 23, 2004, 07:51:43 PM
The Confidence Map is even scarier:

()

NC Strong Kerry but the upper midwest, NM, and OR are tossups.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: bergie72 on May 24, 2004, 08:52:12 PM
Maybe they are assuming it will be a Kerry/Edwards ticket.  The polls so far sounds like the Dems would get a big boost in NC with that combination.  

His (I'm guessing it's a he) previous prediction was:  Dem 280, Rep 258, with just a few changes in the confidence map...

Just my $.02 worth    :-)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 24, 2004, 08:53:23 PM
His first map makes a LOT more sense..Except TN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on May 27, 2004, 08:28:33 PM
here's my maps:
()
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 27, 2004, 08:45:51 PM
I updated these a few days back:

()

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 28, 2004, 07:07:19 AM
John Engle has a prediction entry :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 28, 2004, 10:18:20 AM
Who is John Engle?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on May 28, 2004, 11:27:57 AM
John Engle has a prediction entry :D

Yeah, I saw that :D


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 28, 2004, 01:40:55 PM

He is John from Iowa.  The troll.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on May 28, 2004, 03:30:52 PM
John Engle has a prediction entry :D

Yeah...WA is lean Bush, but GA is strong Kerry... :D

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on May 28, 2004, 06:15:23 PM
()

My newest prediction. slight up-date from the last.
Derived from information from http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Georgia soon to become a toss up

Also Dave I love the update to the map prediction part of your web page.  Finally their might be some traction in changes in the mean map prediction instead of having Ohio frozen solid Bush and Wisconsin solid Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 01:33:05 AM
()

My newest prediction. slight up-date from the last.
Derived from information from http://www.electionprojection.com/elections2004.html

Georgia soon to become a toss up

Also Dave I love the update to the map prediction part of your web page.  Finally their might be some traction in changes in the mean map prediction instead of having Ohio frozen solid Bush and Wisconsin solid Kerry.

Barring a complete Bush collapse this map will NEVER happen. Look at my map. That WILL happen.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 01:46:30 AM
I think he is assuming a Bush collapse.  However, you're doing the same thing with Kerry.

Not sure how the heck he loses California and New Jersey but keeps Washington.  You'd think if Bush was +14 or so he'd take Washington and Minnesota too.  Not to mention Illinois and Maryland.

New Jersey was +16 and California was +12.  California = Georgia.  New Jersey = Alabama.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 01:58:22 AM
I think he is assuming a Bush collapse.  However, you're doing the same thing with Kerry.

Not sure how the heck he loses California and New Jersey but keeps Washington.  You'd think if Bush was +14 or so he'd take Washington and Minnesota too.  Not to mention Illinois and Maryland.

New Jersey was +16 and California was +12.  California = Georgia.  New Jersey = Alabama.

A Kerry collapse is inevitable. The Democrats have been carrying him along since the primaries.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 01:58:48 AM
It's not inevitable, it's a chance.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on May 29, 2004, 10:39:12 AM
Come on be fair to the others.  Lets take a look at States Rights map

My map is assuming a bush collapse.  I like my confidance map better because under a collapse situation I think those will be the states that are with in 5% difference.  Your map is good but I think at this point that the Bush collapse has better odds despite Kerry's efforts.  

For the Bush or Kerry sweep the race cannot be about Republic vs Democratic and I think that the build up will not let the race be purely political.  This election is about the future of America.

For the Bush sweep he wants Patriotic America vs Intelectual Elitists.  Being that their are much much more Patrotic Americans than Elitists it would be a huge sweep and the whole middle would fall to Bush. Your map probably doesn't express that well enough.

For the Kerry sweep he wants Freedom Lovers vs NeoCons.  If Bush becomes defined by his actions and those he surrounds himself by as a NeoCon and not a republican much of that solid and stout support that he is showing right now will have a reason not to vote for him.  Being proud republicans i doubt that Kerry would pick up those votes but they will not be enthused to vote at all.

Much of this depends on how it plays out on election day though.  I think that the NeoCons have enough control over polling sources that their will show a close election up to the day of it.  Even if it is not a reflection of reality.  The Anti-Bush people are skittish enough over losing the last one that if it looks close they will vote in droves.  Most Republicans at this point will believe that the election is close but in the states that I show as new toss-ups will think that with-in their states it will not be close and so will much more likely decide not to vote.

Its an exteme but it is rationalized and valid.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 29, 2004, 10:48:00 AM
Here is Thurmond's map:
()

Why would Kerry lose CA and NJ but hold on to WA and MN?  Khirkbib's map makes more sense, although neither will happen.


Title: NJ vs. VA
Post by: Shira on May 29, 2004, 04:50:58 PM
Someone claimed here that NJ is a tossup state. The fact is that NJ is super-safe for Kerry. Bush+Buchannan got there only 40.3% in 2000.
VA, on the other hand might become tied, since Bush got there 52.5% in 2000 and the Reps are in a slow, but constant decline in that state.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on May 29, 2004, 04:58:34 PM
Here is my prediction (I can't figure out how to post it): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1196


Title: Re:NJ vs. VA
Post by: opebo on May 29, 2004, 05:23:03 PM
Someone claimed here that NJ is a tossup state. The fact is that NJ is super-safe for Kerry. Bush+Buchannan got there only 40.3% in 2000.
VA, on the other hand might become tied, since Bush got there 52.5% in 2000 and the Reps are in a slow, but constant decline in that state.


Yes, Bush will lose New Jersey but he will get more than the 40.3% mentioned above.  I'd guess around 46-47% or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 05:44:31 PM
Here is my prediction (I can't figure out how to post it): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1196

Just right click and copy the image location.  Then paste it between IMG tags (see the help button if you need greater detail).

You have a strong Kerry victory.  I think if Kerry is +5% or whatever, he'll win West Virginia and be stronger in New Jersey than you have him.


Title: Re:NJ vs. VA
Post by: Shira on May 29, 2004, 05:52:20 PM
"Yes, Bush will lose New Jersey but he will get more than the 40.3% mentioned above.  I'd guess around 46-47% or so"

The matter of the fact is that Dem states become more Dem and Rep states become more Rep.

You can see this in western states like UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE as well as TX. On the other hand RI, MA, NY, CT, NJ become more and more Dem. The Deep South: GA, AL, MS, NC, SC are more or less stable with around 55%-56% to the Reps.

There are some movements: IA, WI, and MN are Dem states which are slowly moving toward the Reps. At this point MN still looks very safe for Kerry (depends on Nader)

FL, AZ, NH and VA are Rep states which are moving toward the Dems.

There is a reasonable chance that Kerry would win in NH and FL and lose IA and WI.

OH is stable around the 50:50 and totally unpredictable

My assessment/prediction is that not more then 4 or 5 states will vote differently than in 2000



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 06:07:15 PM
Here is my prediction (I can't figure out how to post it): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1196

Florida will never and I repeat never go Kerry this year. Mark my words.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 29, 2004, 06:09:43 PM
It has the edge to Bush, but it obviously isn't the equivilent of Texas or Alabama.  You really think Florida has shifted +10 Bush since 2000 or something?  Even then, 55-45 isn't impossible.  I think it has shifted about +4.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 06:35:33 PM
It has the edge to Bush, but it obviously isn't the equivilent of Texas or Alabama.  You really think Florida has shifted +10 Bush since 2000 or something?  Even then, 55-45 isn't impossible.  I think it has shifted about +4.

The reason I see it shifting to heavier then before GOP was that most of the old time Democrats are becoming offended by the social views of their party. They see their party as being taken over by fringe elements. I wholeheartedly agree with that setiment to.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 29, 2004, 06:48:55 PM
Here is my prediction (I can't figure out how to post it): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1196

put img tags around the url.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 29, 2004, 06:50:57 PM
Here is my prediction (I can't figure out how to post it): http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1196

put img tags around the url.

RWN you need AIM! :( I'd enjoy having a discussion with you someday.


Title: Re:NJ vs. VA
Post by: classical liberal on May 29, 2004, 06:51:59 PM
Someone claimed here that NJ is a tossup state. The fact is that NJ is super-safe for Kerry. Bush+Buchannan got there only 40.3% in 2000.
VA, on the other hand might become tied, since Bush got there 52.5% in 2000 and the Reps are in a slow, but constant decline in that state.


Yes, Bush will lose New Jersey but he will get more than the 40.3% mentioned above.  I'd guess around 46-47% or so.

44% max, most likely 42.5-43.5


Title: Re:NJ vs. VA
Post by: classical liberal on May 29, 2004, 07:20:04 PM
"Yes, Bush will lose New Jersey but he will get more than the 40.3% mentioned above.  I'd guess around 46-47% or so"

The matter of the fact is that Dem states become more Dem and Rep states become more Rep.

You can see this in western states like UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE as well as TX. On the other hand RI, MA, NY, CT, NJ become more and more Dem. The Deep South: GA, AL, MS, NC, SC are more or less stable with around 55%-56% to the Reps.

There are some movements: IA, WI, and MN are Dem states which are slowly moving toward the Reps. At this point MN still looks very safe for Kerry (depends on Nader)

FL, AZ, NH and VA are Rep states which are moving toward the Dems.

There is a reasonable chance that Kerry would win in NH and FL and lose IA and WI.

OH is stable around the 50:50 and totally unpredictable

My assessment/prediction is that not more then 4 or 5 states will vote differently than in 2000



IA is a GOP state moving towards the Dems.  MN has moved to the center but I don't think that it will go much farther right.  WI has been centrist and will continue to be so.


Title: Re:NJ vs. VA
Post by: opebo on May 30, 2004, 12:38:18 AM
"Yes, Bush will lose New Jersey but he will get more than the 40.3% mentioned above.  I'd guess around 46-47% or so"

The matter of the fact is that Dem states become more Dem and Rep states become more Rep.

You can see this in western states like UT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NE as well as TX. On the other hand RI, MA, NY, CT, NJ become more and more Dem. The Deep South: GA, AL, MS, NC, SC are more or less stable with around 55%-56% to the Reps.

There are some movements: IA, WI, and MN are Dem states which are slowly moving toward the Reps. At this point MN still looks very safe for Kerry (depends on Nader)

FL, AZ, NH and VA are Rep states which are moving toward the Dems.

There is a reasonable chance that Kerry would win in NH and FL and lose IA and WI.

OH is stable around the 50:50 and totally unpredictable

My assessment/prediction is that not more then 4 or 5 states will vote differently than in 2000



IA is a GOP state moving towards the Dems.  MN has moved to the center but I don't think that it will go much farther right.  WI has been centrist and will continue to be so.

Iowa hasn't been a very GOP state for the last 25 years or so.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 30, 2004, 08:03:02 AM
They just recently elected a Dem Gov, and their House delegation and state legislature are GOP held.

States w/0-1 Dems in their House Delegation except those w/Dem majority delegations:

()

States w/0-2 Dems in their House Delegation except those w/Dem majority delegations:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 30, 2004, 08:08:35 AM
In contrast:

States w/0-2 Republicans in their House Delegation except those w/GOP majority delegations:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: AuH2O on May 30, 2004, 08:56:40 PM
My first post! I'm a political science student... live in VA, go to school in SC.

My first comment: Virginia is not moving to the Dems! If anything, it's becoming more Republican. The legislature was dominated by the DNC less than a decade ago. Now, the GOP is over 2/3 in the House and 25/40 or so in the Senate. Mark Warner got elected by running as a pro-choice Republican.

The state has had a lot of Northerners move in, but these 'immigrants' tend to adopt similar voting patterns to the locals (there could be self-selection, but Merle Black of Emory thinks it is a real phenomenon). In fact, the emerging monopoly on white voters by the GOP in the South guarantees its power base there. For many people, the debate is GOP vs. not voting.

To some extent, that trend is being mirrored nationally. As the DNC continues to fancy itself a coalition of minority interests, 'majority' interests will shift to the GOP. The Upper Midwest is particularly fertile ground for Republicans, as is the Pacific Northwest. The Northeast is tougher, but I expect the shift will impact that region as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Horus on May 30, 2004, 09:22:35 PM
Hey! New here.

These are my predictions.

Liable to change, if need be.


()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 30, 2004, 09:41:54 PM
If he does that well in Colorado, Louisiana and Missouri then he'll pick up West Virginia too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 30, 2004, 09:46:04 PM
current electionprojection.com prediction-

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on May 30, 2004, 09:52:41 PM
It's not actually a prediction, merely a snapshot of the election if it were held today.  The owner of the site still believes Bush will get Delaware and California.

Interesting though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 30, 2004, 10:14:20 PM
()

R-270
D-268


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kfseattle on May 31, 2004, 04:21:18 AM
How many of you plan on considering a change to your predictions after Kerry's VP is announced?

Personally, I think a lot could hinge on it.  I'm not a believer of a landslide in 2004.  I think this will be won on the margin, where factors like a VP pick can make a big difference.  

So I'm not even going to predict state-by-state until I know who Kerry's running mate is.

I will, of course, still predict a Kerry victory, but a very, very close one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on May 31, 2004, 07:18:45 AM
My first post! I'm a political science student... live in VA, go to school in SC.

My first comment: Virginia is not moving to the Dems! If anything, it's becoming more Republican. The legislature was dominated by the DNC less than a decade ago. Now, the GOP is over 2/3 in the House and 25/40 or so in the Senate. Mark Warner got elected by running as a pro-choice Republican.

The state has had a lot of Northerners move in, but these 'immigrants' tend to adopt similar voting patterns to the locals (there could be self-selection, but Merle Black of Emory thinks it is a real phenomenon). In fact, the emerging monopoly on white voters by the GOP in the South guarantees its power base there. For many people, the debate is GOP vs. not voting.

To some extent, that trend is being mirrored nationally. As the DNC continues to fancy itself a coalition of minority interests, 'majority' interests will shift to the GOP. The Upper Midwest is particularly fertile ground for Republicans, as is the Pacific Northwest. The Northeast is tougher, but I expect the shift will impact that region as well.

I love it when people say things like. "GOP strengthening in all parts of the country amongst majority of population smooth sailing from here till dawn."  OK I'm paraphrasing.  Niether party is going to led themselves get caught off guard and lose the majority of its constiuency.  Since the party's are diametrically they will shift along the political spectrum relative to each other more or less relative to each other.  This political era has seen a major shift to the right in political ideology.  The democratic party in the 1990s is about as liberal as the republican party was in the late 1960s. It didn't mean that everybody quit the democratic party and joined the republican though since the party is composed and at the will of its constituents the whole dialog (for both parties) shifted to the right.  The has disenfranchised the the left wing of the democratic party and has empowered some of the fringe right groups of the republican party (the neocons).  If anything though this relation is pendular and I hope that we stand at the dawn of a new day for liberalism.  And I know that their are those of you who think that I'm just rearranging  chairs on a ship that's going down.  I think though the democratic party is increasing going to appeal to many American's with a fiscally wise and freedom embracing philosophy.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2004, 10:20:35 AM
Re: VA becoming "more Republican".
Using State Legislative results in VA is deeply flawed... most districts in VA are uncontested, and a lot of the Democrats in VA used to be rather right wing (eg. Harry F Byrd... or Virgil Goode, before he ratted).
You ought to know that.
Secondly to describe *Warner* as a *Republican* is plain silly. Sure he's a moderate-to-populist-rural-orientated-Democrat, but *that does not make someone a Republican*.
Your other analysis is highly suspect as well.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on May 31, 2004, 10:24:59 AM
Re: VA becoming "more Republican".
Using State Legislative results in VA is deeply flawed...
Or just about every other state...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 31, 2004, 10:26:58 AM
Republicans have an 11 seat advantage is the NY senate.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2004, 10:38:08 AM
Re: VA becoming "more Republican".
Using State Legislative results in VA is deeply flawed...
Or just about every other state...

True... but for some reason it's worse in VA... sod all candidates get opposed... meaning that a gain of 2 seats is thought of as huge...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on May 31, 2004, 10:39:41 AM
In VA, the House is Conservative GOP, but the Senate is N.E. liberals and Rockafeller Republicans.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2004, 10:44:19 AM
On the subject of State legislatures, has anyone else heard what the NC GOP has done to the Co-Speaker?
Ouch!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2004, 12:08:09 PM
On the subject of State legislatures, has anyone else heard what the NC GOP has done to the Co-Speaker?
Ouch!


Did you hear the Governer of S.Carolina brought pigs into the state house. In honor of pork! lol


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on May 31, 2004, 12:10:52 PM
On the subject of State legislatures, has anyone else heard what the NC GOP has done to the Co-Speaker?
Ouch!

Did you hear the Governer of S.Carolina brought pigs into the state house. In honor of pork! lol

???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 31, 2004, 01:25:51 PM
What is this guy thinking?
()

Picks up the upeer south but loses the upper midwest?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Horus on May 31, 2004, 01:51:47 PM
Kerry wins Virginia yet loses Wisconsin and New Mexico?

Odd.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2004, 01:56:16 PM
On the subject of State legislatures, has anyone else heard what the NC GOP has done to the Co-Speaker?
Ouch!

Did you hear the Governer of S.Carolina brought pigs into the state house. In honor of pork! lol

???

I believe they overrode the governers veto so he brought pigs into the state capital in honor of "pork" spending.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on May 31, 2004, 03:01:04 PM
The map I posted a while ago is Al Cephmiar's.  He is a bit delusional :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on May 31, 2004, 03:18:53 PM
How many of you plan on considering a change to your predictions after Kerry's VP is announced?

Personally, I think a lot could hinge on it.  I'm not a believer of a landslide in 2004.  I think this will be won on the margin, where factors like a VP pick can make a big difference.  

So I'm not even going to predict state-by-state until I know who Kerry's running mate is.

I will, of course, still predict a Kerry victory, but a very, very close one.
I think its worth making a prediction to have something on the record. Saying that, I think the the VP choice is well worth a revisit to the prediction map. I don't think a lot will hinge on it, but one or two states may.

My current predictions dates immediately after Super Tuesday. I expect my next update will follow the Democrat VP selection.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MAS117 on May 31, 2004, 03:20:08 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2004, 06:23:08 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.

I asked this before but never got a response. How will this effect the farther left Dems who would have thrown their votes to Kerry?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 31, 2004, 06:26:58 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.

I asked this before but never got a response. How will this effect the farther left Dems who would have thrown their votes to Kerry?
it won't.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2004, 06:57:37 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.

I asked this before but never got a response. How will this effect the farther left Dems who would have thrown their votes to Kerry?
it won't.

Kucinich is very popular among some Democrats. If they really don't care for either Bush or Kerry I can see many of them voting for Kucinich. Especially in Ohio.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: The Dowager Mod on May 31, 2004, 07:02:48 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.

I asked this before but never got a response. How will this effect the farther left Dems who would have thrown their votes to Kerry?
it won't.

Kucinich is very popular among some Democrats. If they really don't care for either Bush or Kerry I can see many of them voting for Kucinich. Especially in Ohio.
hey may get a few green votes but most democrats don't want to lose again because of a "nader" factor.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on May 31, 2004, 07:04:55 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.

I asked this before but never got a response. How will this effect the farther left Dems who would have thrown their votes to Kerry?
it won't.

Kucinich is very popular among some Democrats. If they really don't care for either Bush or Kerry I can see many of them voting for Kucinich. Especially in Ohio.
hey may get a few green votes but most democrats don't want to lose again because of a "nader" factor.

Not everyone that votes are political junkies like us. If a Ohioan sees his hometown fellow on his ballot he would probably heavily weigh voting for him. Not everyone that votes thinks of factors and what third party candidates do. They vote for who they believe will do the best job.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Andrew on May 31, 2004, 07:49:55 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.
On March 23, 2003, John Hagelin wrote that the Natural Law Party was "supporting [Kucinich] in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination."  

This isn't quite the same as saying that Kucinich is going to get the 2004 NLP nomination (if there is one).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 01, 2004, 08:23:48 AM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.
On March 23, 2003, John Hagelin wrote that the Natural Law Party was "supporting [Kucinich] in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination."  

This isn't quite the same as saying that Kucinich is going to get the 2004 NLP nomination (if there is one).
Right.
I don't Kurkick is running.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 01, 2004, 08:28:29 AM
The map I posted a while ago is Al Cephmiar's.  He is a bit delusional :)

Hey!
I was assuming a Kerry-Edwards ticket... and that map isn't the importent one... the importent one is (IMO) the confidence map:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on June 01, 2004, 11:58:32 AM
If SC is lean GOP, then so are KY and IN.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on June 01, 2004, 12:04:56 PM
If SC is lean GOP, then so are KY and IN.
All 3 are solid GOP, but I think SC will be the closest of the 3, with KY being most solid GOP.  Weird, I know, but it's what I think.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 01, 2004, 01:15:24 PM
If SC is lean GOP, then so are KY and IN.

Textiles... and the map assumes a Kerry-Edwards ticket...
The map *will* change... KY was almost a leaner.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 01, 2004, 02:43:17 PM
I don't understand why you think Kerry will have more pull in the upper south than Gore did.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on June 01, 2004, 03:28:02 PM
Kerry won't, Edwards will.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 01, 2004, 03:29:11 PM
John Engle has submitted 2 predictions in 24 hours.  Take a look, and decide which is the crazier:
()

And:
()

I say the first one.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MAS117 on June 01, 2004, 11:16:55 PM
I havent posted in the 146 other threads in this board, but for the mock election, I would just like to point out that the Natural Law Party endorsed Rep. Dennis Kuchinich for President.
On March 23, 2003, John Hagelin wrote that the Natural Law Party was "supporting [Kucinich] in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination."  

This isn't quite the same as saying that Kucinich is going to get the 2004 NLP nomination (if there is one).

Thanks for clearing that up Andrew.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on June 03, 2004, 06:19:33 AM
The 2nd one. That someone would get 80% in WY but below 40% in ID makes very little sense...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on June 03, 2004, 11:40:07 AM
John's newest prediction!

()

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on June 03, 2004, 03:26:29 PM
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1464
Here's an odd one. Maybe there's an avoidable terrorist attack that creates a hill in Nebraska.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MAS117 on June 03, 2004, 11:54:14 PM
I believe the miniumum about of EV's Kerry can recieve is either 220 or 230.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 04, 2004, 07:17:04 AM
I believe the miniumum about of EV's Kerry can recieve is either 220 or 230.

89


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 04, 2004, 04:13:19 PM
89?  This is a best case scenario for Bush:
()

Kerry -171


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: zachman on June 04, 2004, 04:15:46 PM
89?  This is a best case scenario for Bush:
()

Kerry -171
I disagree. Delaware, New Jersey, California and Connecticut could all fall to Bush in a realistic best case scenario for him.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 04, 2004, 04:16:14 PM
Lunar,

The map wou just posted minus CA, IL,  and DE.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on June 04, 2004, 09:30:57 PM
Lunar's map with 171 is very close to the base of states that voted 52% or more for Gore in 2000. The only difference would be to remove the rest of ME and VT for a total of 165. Barring a stunning collapse by Kerry or amazing success to rally voters behind Bush, it seems like a reasonable bottom line for Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 05, 2004, 11:36:56 AM
John now has the race at a tie, and hsi first prediction that makes any sense:
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 05, 2004, 02:30:11 PM
Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.

()

R-319
D-219


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on June 05, 2004, 02:33:42 PM
Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.

()

R-319
D-219

Does that person think that Red=Rep and Blue=Dem.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 05, 2004, 02:42:35 PM
Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.

()

R-319
D-219

Does that person think that Red=Rep and Blue=Dem.

That is MY Prediction ;) And Republican IS red and Dem Blue. Always been that way. I will now stay with the traditional colors.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on June 05, 2004, 02:57:42 PM
Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.

()

R-319
D-219

Does that person think that Red=Rep and Blue=Dem.

That is MY Prediction ;) And Republican IS red and Dem Blue. Always been that way. I will now stay with the traditional colors.

Weirdo non-conformist ;) ::) :P


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on June 05, 2004, 09:07:00 PM
Updated Prediction for you viewing pleasure/displeasure.

()

R-319
D-219

Does that person think that Red=Rep and Blue=Dem.

That is MY Prediction ;) And Republican IS red and Dem Blue. Always been that way. I will now stay with the traditional colors.

Weirdo non-conformist ;) ::) :P
Not only non-conformist, but non-traditional. In the 1970's and 80's TV more frequently used R=blue. Only in the 1990's did I see R=red.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on June 05, 2004, 09:25:58 PM
it don't look good that way.. red is a ugly color. Plus blue is my fav. color.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on June 05, 2004, 09:40:06 PM
it don't look good that way.. red is a ugly color. Plus blue is my fav. color.

I'm afraid you've got it all mixed up :)

Red>Blue


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on June 05, 2004, 09:52:25 PM
it don't look good that way.. red is a ugly color. Plus blue is my fav. color.

I'm afraid you've got it all mixed up :)

Red>Blue
No, Red is bad.. very very bad. But Blue is good, very very good.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ElectionAtlas on June 06, 2004, 11:46:38 AM
See the new Version History graphs.  I added a first cut at this on the prediction pages.  Enjoy,
Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on June 06, 2004, 12:19:07 PM
Hey, that's spiffy!

() Mine :)

I also submitted a U.P. Bug & a Feature Submission related to the graphs... so...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 06, 2004, 12:35:17 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:
()

Bush/Cheney 307
Kerry/Edwards 231


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 06, 2004, 01:18:01 PM
Here's a crazy one:
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 06, 2004, 01:58:48 PM
Here's Vorlon's:
()

And Boss Tweed's:
()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on June 06, 2004, 03:51:35 PM
here is mine.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 06, 2004, 03:54:15 PM
Here is mine. he he

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Michael Z on June 06, 2004, 05:47:42 PM
Here's mine.......

()

Exhilarating, huh?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on June 06, 2004, 09:27:07 PM
mine:

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Blazers93 on June 06, 2004, 11:57:33 PM
() Here is mine if it shows.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: BushAlva on June 08, 2004, 11:09:39 AM
My prediction is on the prediction page.  Look at it and be shocked.

Just a hint -- Oklahoma and Missouri are Kerry and California is Bush


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on June 08, 2004, 03:22:28 PM
My prediction is on the prediction page.  Look at it and be shocked.

Just a hint -- Oklahoma and Missouri are Kerry and California is Bush

Why do you say that?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 08, 2004, 03:27:06 PM
This is BushAlva's map:
()

He makes John Engle look sane.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: BushAlva on June 08, 2004, 08:15:56 PM
I was basically playing around with my version 2.  Version 3 looks a lot more like how I think it will or can turn out.  Again its on the prediction page.

The notable differences from Version 2 include Oklahoma a strong Bush (though I could easily lean the state), California leaning Kerry.  North Carolina leaning Bush and Arkansas leaning Bush because of Edwards and Clark, respectively.  Minnesota is now a Bush toss-up.  It could easily be a Kerry toss-up, as well.  Iowa and Pennsylvania still are leaning Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 09, 2004, 07:09:06 AM
()

Makes a little more sense, but Kerry won't lose MN and IA and win MO.


Title: Mon Prediction noveau
Post by: Platypus on June 10, 2004, 12:52:39 AM
()

Bush: 279
Kerry: 259


Title: Re:Mon Prediction noveau
Post by: opebo on June 10, 2004, 02:55:43 AM

Very nice - I'd call that Bush's minimum.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: classical liberal on June 10, 2004, 04:15:11 PM
I think that you're way too optimistic.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 12, 2004, 06:52:28 PM
UPDATED Kerry v. Bush:
()

Bush 274
Kerry 264

Kerry/Edwards v. Bush/Cheney analysis in a quickie


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 12, 2004, 06:56:43 PM
()

Edwards swings WV and NC


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 15, 2004, 05:41:19 PM
()

Kevinstat's graph


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 15, 2004, 06:00:27 PM
This is my new format:
()
Shrunk Alaska, switched colors, add CDs for Maine and Nebraska and a new DC.

It's a modified version of Election Projection's.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 16, 2004, 09:42:50 AM
Lunar,  

The image is poor quality, in .jpg format.  Save in .png format for a nice, clean, crisp image.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 16, 2004, 12:57:27 PM
I made it a bit fuzzy on purpose.  I edited it to make it moreso.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 16, 2004, 03:25:13 PM
Can I ask why?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 16, 2004, 03:59:58 PM
Take a look at my high quality, brisk, beautiful new prediction map:
()

No EV Changes from last time.  I added CD's for ME and NE, and moved Florida to solid Bush from lean Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 16, 2004, 05:26:25 PM
Your CD-1 for Nebraska is too big.

()

The reason why I made mine slightly fuzzy was because I liked it a bit better.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ilikeverin on June 16, 2004, 05:47:45 PM
IMO Kerry Max:

()

(maybe add GA to this?)

Bush Max:

()

(Maybe switch Wash. and/or Cali)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 16, 2004, 09:24:58 PM
Your CD-1 for Nebraska is too big.

:(

I did it by hand...so it was hard...and I am surprised it doesn't look like total crap.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 18, 2004, 07:22:23 AM
I am considering adding a third column/color in my map: likeley Bush.  If I do, here wil be the key:

Lean (light red or blue): <5% lead
Likely (medium red or blue): 5-10% lead
Solid (dark red or blue): >10% lead


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 18, 2004, 07:24:29 AM
I am considering adding a third column/color in my map: likeley Bush.  If I do, here wil be the key:

Lean (light red or blue): <5% lead
Likely (medium red or blue): 5-10% lead
Solid (dark red or blue): >10% lead

Tweed, ***** **** ***** ******
message edited for the purposes of skullduggery


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 18, 2004, 07:30:38 AM
I'm there


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 18, 2004, 08:35:36 AM
How's this?

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 18, 2004, 10:12:55 AM
Tweed,

Why don't you use the colors on my map.
Red=Republican Blue = Democrat. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 18, 2004, 10:31:25 AM
I don't like your color system.  The big red Bush area hurts my eyes.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 18, 2004, 10:58:07 AM
I don't like your color system.  The big red Bush area hurts my eyes.

Get ready it will be redder on the 3rd of November. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 21, 2004, 08:17:20 AM
StatesRights,

Your percentages are out of whack.  Bush won't get 60% in TN, KY, IN, and SC.  Also, there is NO WAY Kerry gets 60% in Vermont.  Gore only got about 51% there.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 21, 2004, 10:32:47 AM
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 21, 2004, 10:44:33 AM

Wanna put money on 60% for Kerry in Vermont?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 21, 2004, 10:51:37 AM

Wanna put money on 60% for Kerry in Vermont?

I just bet beer. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on June 21, 2004, 10:55:43 AM
I guess it's just about possible - assuming a very bad showing for Nader, a clear Kerry victory across the US and an overaverage VT swing.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 21, 2004, 10:57:32 AM
I guess it's just about possible - assuming a very bad showing for Nader, a clear Kerry victory across the US and an overaverage VT swing.

I know virtually nothing about Vermont politics although I would just generally assume they are pretty liberal. Well, we all know what assumption is the mother of.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 22, 2004, 12:17:57 AM
R - 327
D - 210*

()





*One Democratic DC elector will abstain out of protest.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 22, 2004, 10:33:30 AM
I told you, no DC elector will abstain...but you don't seem to listen...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on June 23, 2004, 06:45:23 AM
My graph:

()

Most changes are because of mindless tinkering wi' the map when I'm bored...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 23, 2004, 07:55:22 AM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 23, 2004, 08:51:34 AM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.

Pretty random.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: platypeanArchcow on June 23, 2004, 11:09:24 AM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.

It'll still be 270:268 (but more realistic) if you switch MO, LA, and VA for MN, IA, AR, and WI.  Hell, if you just have Gore states + NV and WV, you'll still have 270:268.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on June 23, 2004, 06:09:42 PM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.
Yes, that would be a gut feeling. If Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana go for Kerry, he will probably also get Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennslyvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio.    


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: BushAlva on June 23, 2004, 09:47:24 PM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.
Yes, that would be a gut feeling. If Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana go for Kerry, he will probably also get Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennslyvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio.    

It may be a gut feeling, but it looks to me like a very realistic outcome.  I would probably give Arizona and Missouri back to Bush, but you're map look slike a very real possibility


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on June 23, 2004, 09:54:52 PM
Actually it's not.  I understand how he came up with it, and I'd have something similar if I were to do the same, but it's a bit out of line.

Many states, such as Louisiana and Arizona will be below Bush's national number while states such as Wisconsin will be above it.  

Actually, it's more like this:
Above Bush's national number (Kerry's in a 49-49-2 election): Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Oregon, West Virginia

Below Bush's national number (Bush's in a 49-49-2 election): Ohio, Missouri, Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana, Arizona, Nevada

It's extremely unlikely for Bush to lose a state that he should be +5 in and simultaneously win a state that he should be -3 in.  If he's doing well he wins both, he's doing badly he loses both, and in a rough tie he wins the + and loses the -.  No scenario exists where he  loses the + and wins the -.  


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on June 23, 2004, 09:56:41 PM
Total-intuition map. Basically, i pictured myself as a voter in that state, going to the polling booth, and voting for the first campaign banner I saw.

()

Kerry-270
Bush-268

It isn't mean to be an in depth analysis. Just gut feeling.
Yes, that would be a gut feeling. If Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, and Louisiana go for Kerry, he will probably also get Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennslyvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and maybe Ohio.    

It may be a gut feeling, but it looks to me like a very realistic outcome.  I would probably give Arizona and Missouri back to Bush, but you're map look slike a very real possibility

If you give Arizona back to Bush, Kerry should get New Mexico at least.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 24, 2004, 07:46:33 PM
Update:
()

Iowa seems to be becoming solid for Kerry, while Michigan is getting closer, as is North Carolina.  The closest states are probably Pennsylvania (Kerry up one), Ohio (Bush up two), and West Virginia (Kerry up 1.5).

North Carolina is right on the brink of 'solid' Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on June 24, 2004, 07:48:51 PM
Error: WA should be light red on my little map.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TeePee4Prez on June 25, 2004, 01:58:38 AM
Here's mine:
[link]
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=1935
[/link]


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on June 25, 2004, 10:36:55 PM
I can't believe people are tking my map so seriousl :D

It's purely intution, and I believe says more about the state of the campaign in those states then the actual way it will go. It is purely based on the first banner I 'saw' when heading to the ballot box.

If you were to do the same, i'm sure your map would looki similar. It depends on whose campaign machine will be doing better in those states on the day.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on June 25, 2004, 11:37:39 PM
Im ot going to support John Kerry because I see a banner saying "VOTE KERRY" I would vote for Kerry because he has the best vision for the country.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 26, 2004, 02:05:32 AM
Im ot going to support John Kerry because I see a banner saying "VOTE KERRY" I would vote for Kerry because he has the best vision for the country.

Well, what exactly is his vision? Has anyone actually figured it out?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on June 26, 2004, 09:34:34 AM
Im not going to support John Kerry because I see a banner saying "VOTE KERRY" I would vote for Kerry because he has the best vision for the country.

Well, what exactly is his vision? Has anyone actually figured it out?

His vision is for a United States that does not render allies opinions meaningless, that does not distort the reasons why we invade another country and see our brave soldiers dying, that does not give unfair tax cuts to wealthy individuals, that provides health care for all elderly who need it- without lying about the costs, that punishes corporations from taking away American jobs for cheap ones overseas, that esnures women have the right to choose, and attempts to preserve the Environment- not destroy it.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on June 26, 2004, 10:22:24 AM
Im not going to support John Kerry because I see a banner saying "VOTE KERRY" I would vote for Kerry because he has the best vision for the country.

Well, what exactly is his vision? Has anyone actually figured it out?

His vision is for a United States that does not render allies opinions meaningless, that does not distort the reasons why we invade another country and see our brave soldiers dying, that does not give unfair tax cuts to wealthy individuals, that provides health care for all elderly who need it- without lying about the costs, that punishes corporations from taking away American jobs for cheap ones overseas, that esnures women have the right to choose, and attempts to preserve the Environment- not destroy it.

So basically a liberal, tax hiking protectionist? Great we need one of those. ::) Yeah those "tax cuts for the wealthy" again. I didn't benefit at all from them. ::)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on June 26, 2004, 08:31:15 PM
John Kerry would have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, he would not have dismissed the UN, as Bush did. He would also not have gone in without as plan, as Bush has.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 03, 2004, 03:23:06 PM
Hi from Wolverhampton UK

I've just posted a prediction and I hope to keep my predictions updated in the run-up to November

At the moment, based on latest polls  I have Bush in by 76 in the College (34 states to 17) but I am amazed at how sensitive to change in so many states Bush's majority is. It seems to build mostly in rural USA, and any shift to Kerry from Gore's position in 2000 would have dramatic results, particularly in Florida. I only had to knock Bush's score in Rhode Island down by 25 votes to take Florida across to Democrats!

I have used Lotus 123 to build my forecast and I also have an Excel file for predicting the next UK General Election (slightly more complex in that there are 659 "states" up for grabs instead of your 51!) . I'm also trying to build a forecast file for the Australian Federal Election which will probably be on the Saturday after US Election day, and the Mauritian General Election in September - however there are different voting systems at play here and it may take some time.

Anyway, glad to be here.

Happy forecasting!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 04:14:37 PM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure. Not sure about Washington. Still a What-If IMHO.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on July 03, 2004, 05:45:51 PM
80% in Utah???


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 06:42:18 PM

Mid to high 70's.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 03, 2004, 07:19:52 PM
I've certainly got Utah as the safest Republican state. If current Green polls hold up it will be more like 60-65% Republican.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 07:27:18 PM
I've certainly got Utah as the safest Republican state. If current Green polls hold up it will be more like 60-65% Republican.

Blue States = Safe states
Red  States = Semi-Safe states

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 03, 2004, 07:49:29 PM
Is that Red = Semi-safe Republican?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 07:50:40 PM

Yes, if their was some huge lanslide I believe all those would go to Kerry.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 03, 2004, 07:58:43 PM
The best maps I've seen on this site for Kerry are red on the West coast, dark red in the North east, and some of the other "big states" - but not all, and the interior is still blue for Bush. I have a feeling that Florida will see a lot of activity this year especially in the final weeks as it would be enough to swing it either way if every other state stayed solid for one side or the other. If it came down to a Florida fight though I would favour Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 03, 2004, 08:04:44 PM
I think Florida will solidify for Bush by August. The state will be put in second and the dogfight will be the midwest states such as Ohio and PA. I still believe we will see a few shockers this year. I believe WA, OR, and MN will be shockers. NJ perhaps too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 03, 2004, 09:15:07 PM
Updated for your viewing pleasure/displeasure. Not sure about Washington. Still a What-If IMHO.

()

Why does Kerry win New Mexico but lose Michigan and Washington?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Akno21 on July 03, 2004, 09:28:40 PM
The best maps I've seen on this site for Kerry are red on the West coast, dark red in the North east, and some of the other "big states" - but not all, and the interior is still blue for Bush. I have a feeling that Florida will see a lot of activity this year especially in the final weeks as it would be enough to swing it either way if every other state stayed solid for one side or the other. If it came down to a Florida fight though I would favour Bush.

The best possible scenerio for Kerry would be: ()
Kerry:370
Bush:168

Best possible for Bush: ()
Bush:355
Kerry:183


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ATFFL on July 03, 2004, 09:30:11 PM
Best Bush includes Washington and 1 EV from Maine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TommyC1776 on July 06, 2004, 09:00:48 AM
How do I get a s/n and a password for my own prediction page?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 06, 2004, 07:46:33 PM
It's weird how such a predictable event as Edwards getting the VP nomination has made such a difference in the collective opinion here in under a day.  Ohio has swung back to being seen as a Kerry tossup and the Median projection has gone from 280-258 Kerry-Bush to 284-254 Kerry-Bush.  Granted, I changed my own prediction, but that was because my prediction was based upon a generic VP.  A lot of people had said they were basing theirs on Edwards as VP, so they shouldn't have had any reason to change their prediction today.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ThePrezMex on July 07, 2004, 02:34:04 PM
The best maps I've seen on this site for Kerry are red on the West coast, dark red in the North east, and some of the other "big states" - but not all, and the interior is still blue for Bush. I have a feeling that Florida will see a lot of activity this year especially in the final weeks as it would be enough to swing it either way if every other state stayed solid for one side or the other. If it came down to a Florida fight though I would favour Bush.

The best possible scenerio for Kerry would be: ()
Kerry:370
Bush:168

Best possible for Bush: ()
Bush:355
Kerry:183

The best scenario for Kerry includes also NC and Louisiana.
The best scenario for Bush includes also WA, CA and Maine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 07, 2004, 05:48:47 PM
I've just posted another forecast - Kerry by 44 - on the back of the Princeton MSNBC overnight poll 6 July which gives Kerry 49 Bush 41. I would have expected some kind of Kerry boost from a Southerner (and previous favourite for the D nomination) joining the camp as Veep, though not quite that big, and this may well even out.

In any case the big question mark for me rests over Florida, so with the EC votes at stake their Kerry by 44 could just as easily be Bush by 10.

I would now expect a bit of evening out and it may be a couple of weeks before we really see the effect of the Edwards factor.

For now though my forecast is very much moving back towards Akno 21's best Kerry outcome - red west coast and I have good deal of grey down going from Minnesota - Wisconsin down the Mississippi spine.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: PMMWolverhampton on July 07, 2004, 05:58:22 PM
I just want to make one statement about my assumptions before we go any further. I respect any opinion put to me in disagreement with my forecasts as regards individual states or regional polling. But my central assumption is simple:

You're a martyr to the national swing, mate.

I certainly think that's true in the UK. How true it is in the US I would be interested to find out - I've never done this before as scientifically as I am doing now - and I will be quite happy to compare my final forecast with the actual outcome.

This is a learning experience for me - I'm aiming to use what I learn here for our General Election (probably next year).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: TeePee4Prez on July 10, 2004, 12:36:13 AM
I would even add NJ, DE, and CT to Bush's best.

NC, SC, LA, and TN to Kerry best


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: AuH2O on July 10, 2004, 12:14:17 PM
Bush technically could win 48 states. 'Best' and 'Worst' isn't a very valuable discussion.

Though Kerry's "best" is not nearly Bush's...


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on July 15, 2004, 09:31:19 AM
Best Bush includes Washington and 1 EV from Maine.
best Bush includes all Maine, as well as Washington. Similarly, best Kerry inculdes Louisiana. Neither is at all probable, though.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 15, 2004, 10:22:16 AM
Lewis this is my prediction. You will disagree with MN but Bush has been polling a lot better there then Iowa or NMexico. The map will resemble 2000 but will NOT be the same. Mark my words right now. :)

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 15, 2004, 12:26:09 PM
States,

Stop fooling around


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 16, 2004, 01:30:39 AM

I'm not. Bush wins comfortably. Bush will be the first president since 88 to break 50%


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 16, 2004, 10:30:48 AM
Yes, you're fooling around.  Kerry won't win NM if he loses Washington.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 16, 2004, 06:20:23 PM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 16, 2004, 07:25:37 PM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Did you mean 'lose' for one of those?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 17, 2004, 01:47:29 AM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Right now IMHO Bush is polling better in those three then in Iowa. I still believe Bush will end up sweeping every battleground in the end.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on July 17, 2004, 10:11:51 AM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Right now IMHO Bush is polling better in those three then in Iowa. I still believe Bush will end up sweeping every battleground in the end.

You also believed Hillary was absolutely going to be the VP choice.  What happened to our bet by the way?  Heh.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 17, 2004, 10:14:55 AM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Did you mean 'lose' for one of those?

I meant to say. 'but Kerry win Iowa.'

What's the latest poll out of Iowa say about the Dems vs. The GOP?

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on July 17, 2004, 11:40:14 AM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Did you mean 'lose' for one of those?

I meant to say. 'but Kerry win Iowa.'

What's the latest poll out of Iowa say about the Dems vs. The GOP?

Siege
As States says - by polls alone, Iowa has looked almost secure of late.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 17, 2004, 11:44:40 AM
This just may be my ignorance, but why would Bush win Wisconsin, Ohio and PA etc. but win Iowa. Or am I missing something States.

Siege

Did you mean 'lose' for one of those?

I meant to say. 'but Kerry win Iowa.'

What's the latest poll out of Iowa say about the Dems vs. The GOP?

Siege
As States says - by polls alone, Iowa has looked almost secure of late.
Excellent....

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 18, 2004, 09:05:42 PM
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I don't think he's laughing now!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: freedomburns on July 19, 2004, 12:51:24 AM
In my third effort at a prediction I give all of the tossups to Bush.  Bush wins in this version, and this outcome is entirely possible.  This prediction obviates the importance of Missouri.  Missouri has voted with the winner in every election except 1956.  MO is a bellweather.  It is a border state at the intersection of the South, the Midwest and the Great Plains states.

This state is the crucial key to the 2004 election.  Whoever wins Missouri wins the election.  That is my current prediction.  I will stand by this one.  If Kerry can't win here, if his message does not resonate, he may not win the election.  He is currently 2 points down in the polls in MO.  That's up from 11 points down in early June.  It's mid-July now and there are three and a half months to go.

However: There are two Zogby polls from Missouri that show Kerry ahead.  One from May 28 had him up 3.3 points.  One from July 10 has him up 3.9 points.  I tend to discount Zogby, though, as they use a sample that includes people who are unlikely to vote.  There is a slight trend toward Kerry in their polling which may show hope.

If Kerry can carry a big state like Florida or Ohio, this may become a moot point.  I doubt this will happen in the current climate.  There are intangilbes to consider, like Jeb Bush.  Missouri is the key, and Kerry is behind.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=3685


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on July 19, 2004, 01:09:23 AM
Missouri has been slipping slightly conservative.  It'll stop being the bellweather state as soon as a Democrat wins a close election.  Ohio and Florida both will probably switch before Missouri, either being enough to toss the election to Kerry (supposing he can hold onto Pennsylvania and the Midwest).  If Kerry does better than minimum necessary to win, then other states like Missouri will certainly switch.

Note that Gore actually got more votes than Bush despite losing in Missouri (that's with an illegal move keeping the courts open late only in heavily Democratic St. Louis).  You can see polls showing Kerry up nationally and down in St. Louis.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: freedomburns on July 19, 2004, 04:51:44 AM
Excellent points Lunar.   Missouri does seem to track more toward the conservative lately.  But Iowa and Illinois still exert a strongly Democratic influence over it.  And it is on that Missippi River line of loose morals and fast waters that is less cohesively Republican like the Mountain states.

I'm just sayin, if I were Kerry's Karl Rove (and I sure hope he has one) I'd focus some money here.  I'm not so sure about Ohio.  I'm not ready to agree that it would go before MO; and Florida is just such an iffy proposition still.  It's a total crap in the wind for Kerry to invest a lot there.  With the way Jeb runs it and the Republican majority in the State legislature, I just can't be confident there.  I would focus on Missouri to win it.

Another (really lousy) strategy is to make sure you win New Hampshire and Nevada.  Totally doable, but this only give you a tie.  Does anyone know exactly how many of the State legislatures are controlled by the Republicans this year?  I know it is a strong Republican majority in state congresses.  Is it about 32 Republican and 18 Democrat?  Just a guess.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 7,052,770 on July 20, 2004, 05:46:42 PM
()
Blue--both Rep
Red--both Dem
Gray--split
NE--nonparistan, one body


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 21, 2004, 07:39:44 PM
Harry, what is thar map supposed to signify?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 21, 2004, 08:05:37 PM
I think it has to do with local State Governments, based on the previous post before his map.

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 21, 2004, 08:13:45 PM
It is a map of state legislatures. Some are Dem controlled, some are Rep controlled and some have divided control. NE is unicameral.

Okay, thanks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: freedomburns on July 22, 2004, 12:54:23 AM
Thanks Harry.  Your map looks like 11 state houses split, 16 with both state houses for Dems and 23 with both for Reps.

That's a clear win for Bush in the event of a tie.  I think that everyone here should hope that that does not happen, even the Republicans.  If Bush wins, I hope he wins with a majority of the Electoral College.  A tie would have some danger of throwing the country into outright revolt, like a new revolution.  I'm serious.  You likely don't see the same things I see and hear the same things I hear.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kevinatcausa on July 22, 2004, 09:37:14 PM
But the state legislatures don't have any say in the case of an electoral college tie, do they?   As I understand it, all that matters for the Presidential race is which party controls a majority of the state delegations in the House of Representatives (each state's delegation gets one vote).  For the VP it's the senate delegations that matter


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 22, 2004, 11:28:32 PM
Actually, for the VP its just the Senators that matter.  Since each state has 2 senators, the writers of the 12th Amendment probably fighure that if they had them vote by delegation there would be too much chance of a tied delegations not casting a vote so instead the requirement is a "majority of the whole Number" which means that 51 Senators have to agree omn who the VP should be.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kevinatcausa on July 23, 2004, 02:00:41 AM
If the senate ties 50-50, does Cheney get to cast the tiebreaker?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 23, 2004, 02:27:29 AM
If the senate ties 50-50, does Cheney get to cast the tiebreaker?

Yes.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on July 23, 2004, 08:29:19 AM

I have seen this point rather heavily disputed, it was posted in the predictions in one of the threads for prediction comments.  The argument was that because the 12th amendment says "majority of whole number of senators" and does not mention the VP, that in this case the VP does not get to break a tie.  They would just have to keep voting until a candidate got a majority of the actual senator's votes


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on July 23, 2004, 05:06:11 PM
The twelfth amendment clearly sets a different standard for the quorom required for when the Senate votes for the Vice President, so it is reasonable that the explict wirding given there about needing "a majority of the whole Number" means exactly what it says, namely that 51 Senators would be required.  Even a 50-49 vote would be insufficient in my opinion as 50 is not a majority of 100.  However since the Senate has never elected a Vice President, there is no precedent to call upon in this case.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Fritz on July 23, 2004, 07:07:07 PM
However since the Senate has never elected a Vice President, there is no precedent to call upon in this case.

Actually they did once...1836.  Some southeren electors wouldn't vote for Van Buren's running mate, something to do with having a slave as a common-law wife and raising their children as free.  So that VP election did go the Senate, where the end result was not a tie.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 24, 2004, 03:19:26 PM
This topic is to re-start the discussions around the user predictions located at  the 2004 Prediction page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php).  I have created another topic to discuss the technical issues with the feature.

The 2004 presidenial election is one of the most difficult to predict for a variety of reasons.

First, the normal 36 year cycle is NOT occuring largely due to demographic changes over the last forty years.  Among those changes are:
 
Longevity has increased even as the birth rate has dropped.  The result is that the actual electorate (those who do vote), as opposed to the voting age population (VAP), is unusually high by historical standards.  

Further, due to illegal immigration, a significant proportion of the VAP is ineligible (legally) to vote.

Additionally, the percentage of the VAP which is disqualified for voting based on felony convictions (where full civil rights have not been restored) is at a historical high.

Second, the public opinion polls available to the general public are more defective today than at any time in over fifty years for a couple of reasons:

Some 'poll' are intentionally designed to return the result desired by the entity paying for the 'poll'.  Such polls include, LA Times, CBS, Princeton Associations and some state polls (in Arizona, my home state, the 'crank' poll is notorious for overstating Democrat preference).

Other polls are unintentionally slanted either in reaction to the suprisijng 2000 results (a number of polls significantly increased the black percentage of respondents in their surveys in reaction to that election) or because of the changes in the telecommunications industry (an analogy would be if you only polled people who watch over the air television only to determine television viewing preferences, and excluded those who watch cable or satellite television).

In my view, the key data to examine:

(a)  the economic statistics (which is a good, abeit imperfect indicator),

(b) partisan voter registration data (available in most states outside the south and border area), which has been a very good indicator of election results,

(c) the 2002 and 2003 election results (a fair, abeit imperfect indicator),

(d) nomination data (a good indicator),

(e) technical campaign data (fundraising, organizational efforts, campaign coherency, etc.),
which are good indicators in close elections, but sometimes difficult to quantify.

(f) likeability (a good indicator in close elections). and

(g) historical voting patterns (a very good indicator except in lanslide elections).

As has previously been noted, if the economy continues along the path established in the last two quarters, every president in the last fifty years with such statistics seeking reelection has been reelected.

If you check the voter registration statistics (available in the links to the states), you will find that in more than ninety per cent of the states with partisan registration (this includes most of the states), the Republicans have improved their relative ratio to the Democrats.

In the 2002 and 2003 elections, the Republicans did far better than expected.  They not only retained control of the House, they regained control of the Senate, and did far better than expected in the Gubenatorial elections.

Every President who has sought reelection without serious challenge in his own party over the past half century has been reelected (Clinton in 1996, Reagan in 1984, Nixon in 1972, Johnson in 1964 and Eisenhower in 1956).  Every president who sought reelection and faced serious challenge within his party lost (Bush in 1992, Carter in 1980, and Ford in 1976).

While Kerry did far better in fundraising than is usually the case for challengers, Bush raised more money than Kerry.  Moreover, Kerry has not really gotten his act together organiztionally while Bush has one of the best organized campaigns in recent years.  Further, while Bush has a relatively coherent campaign, Kerry has a major difficulty trying to square his record in the Senate with positions palatable to enough voters to be elected.

In the end, where major trends are not going in one particular way and the candidates are not seen as unqualified, likeability has a significant factor in ultimate voting decision.  Every source I have seen shows that the voting public finds Bush more likeable than Kerry.

Finally, except in landslide elections (and I have yet to see any credible source suggest that 2004 is likely to be a landslide), historical voting results give a good project future results (given sophisticated modeling).  Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  Since that election Republican nominees have exceeded fifty per cent of the vote on three occasions (1980, 1984, and 1988).  So, those who suggest that Kerry will do better than Carter did in 1976 are, IMHO, blowing smoke.

Given these points of analysis, I project that, the total presidential popular vote will total approximately 108,200.000, and that Bush will receive 51.10 % of that vote, Kerry will receive 44.97 % of that vote, Nader will receive 1.51 % of the vote, Badnarik 1.06 % of the vote, Cobb will receive 0.71 % of the vote, Peroutka will receive 0.43 % of the vote, with other candidates (the usual menagarie) approximatly 0.22 % of the vote.

My electoral college map is posted in the predictions section.  A number of states are either marginal or lean to one candidate.  However, the math is such that it is virtually impossible (unless a major catastrophe occurs in the next three and half months) for either the electoral college or the popular vote to go for Kerry.

I fully expect the partisans of Kerry, and those on the left in general to howl about this posting, but I suggest they get it out of their system now, as it will reduce their frustration on the night of the election when the cold hard data is accumulated.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 24, 2004, 03:24:45 PM
Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  

Clinton would have done it twice had Perot not ran.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 24, 2004, 04:35:17 PM
Notice, that except for my prediction, I cited facts.

If we want to go into "would have." I suggest that if Sen. Gramm's campaign had not screwed up and alienated the Govenor of Louisiana, he would not have lost the contest there to Buchanan.  He would have been a far more formidable candidate than Dole.  

Dole was a lousy candidate (Republicans, when not in front of a reporter, generally referred to him contemptously as "senator taxman").  He also alienated social conservatives.  

The fact is that the people who voted for Perot could have voted for Clinton, and chose not to so cast their vote.  

Speculation is interesting, but facts are more reliable.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ATFFL on July 24, 2004, 05:22:34 PM
Please note that the last Democrat nominee to win more than half the vote was Carter in 1976 (with just 50.08% of the vote).  

Clinton would have done it twice had Perot not ran.

Unlikely.  Without Perot Bush would have likely won 50-51% of the vote.  The majority of Perot's support came from Bush.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 24, 2004, 05:35:35 PM
Its really hard to say.

In 1992, a lot of conservatives were very angry with Bush.

They didn't want to vote for Clinton, but they wanted to punish Bush for his betrayal.

Suggests that many of the Perot voters would have declined to vote in the Presidential election (a few would have voted for the Libertarian candidate).

Note, that while Bush was getting a smaller percentage of the popular vote than Goldwater (or any other Republican candidate in fifty years), Republicans had a net gain in House seats.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 24, 2004, 08:19:24 PM

Unlikely.  Without Perot Bush would have likely won 50-51% of the vote.  The majority of Perot's support came from Bush.

LOL...so with a recession loomingm Bush does nearly as well as he did in 1988?  I don't think so.

That also means 13-14% of Perot's 19% comes goes to Bush, which leaves...2% for Clinton and 3% stay home?

I would say Bush gets 1-2% closer in the PV without Perot but is still beaten soundly.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 24, 2004, 08:20:14 PM
Also, it is a downright fact that Clinton would have got 50% in 1996 without Perot.  It's a fact.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ATFFL on July 24, 2004, 10:27:14 PM
People percieve the economy as it was 6 months earlier.  While not good, the economy was not in recession then.

Perot also doubled the number of attacks on Bush.  One of his goals was to keep Bush from winning re--election.

Finally, we need to discuss your definition of what a "fact" is.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 10:58:27 AM
First, thanks for the comments.

Second, I do agree that Clinton would probably have gotten slightly over fifty per cent without Perot in 1996, but he would not have gotten a majority of the Perot vote, and his reelection percentage would have been lower than Reagan in 84, Nixon in 72, Johnson in 64, and, Eisenhower in 56.

However, it would have been the lowest sucessful reelection percentage since 1948 (when Truman also didn't get a majority of the vote).


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 25, 2004, 11:13:41 AM
Carl,

Tell me what you think of this.

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 11:54:57 AM
In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 25, 2004, 12:00:11 PM
In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.

I need the order in which the states are called on election night to make a proper analysis. If you can provide that I would be grateful. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 25, 2004, 03:19:37 PM

Kerry does better in Iowa than Vermont?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 25, 2004, 03:52:52 PM
Vermont may be close.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 04:09:52 PM
In general, quite plausible. however, I believe New Mexico is more likely to vote Republican than Washington, and Iowa more likely than Michigan.

The bottom line is that Bush has the hearland advantage.

I need the order in which the states are called on election night to make a proper analysis. If you can provide that I would be grateful. :)

The "order" in which states are "called" by the television networks will depend upon a number of factors.

First, will they wait until the polls are closed in a state before calling it, as they have pledged?  As you know, Florida was "called" for Gore before polls had closed in the panhandle by a couple of networks.

Second, it depends upon how good the technical analysis is of the data used by a particular network.  

Third, while the networks got 'egg' on their faces for their error in Florida four years ago, there always is a tendency to want to be 'first.'

Fourth, don't be concerned by the first hour to two hours of raw vote as the initial vote will be coming in from the eastern time zone (Kerry's strongest) and from the big cities (rural votes come in latter.

Another factor to consider in the raw vote totals is whether it includes 'absentee' voting, which is looming larger in every voting cycle.  Some jurisdictions count those votes first (since they're already avaialable at the central facilities), while others count them last (alleging delays in verification), and others in the middle (when the machines have excess counting capacity.

Expect the following jurisdictions to be "called" for Kerry about a minute after the polls close:

District of Columbia
Hawaii
Massachusetts
Rhode Island

Expect the following jurisdictions to be "called" for Bush about two minutes after their polls close:

Alaska
Idaho
Kansas
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Utah
Wyoming

Note the the bulk of Kerry "quick" victories are in the Eastern time zone, whereas Bush's "quick" vitories are in the Central/Western and latter (Alaska) time zones.

Its one of the few times I watch a few minutes of Dan Rather is election night.

Its funny to watch Rather bubbling over joyously announcing the early Democrat victories, and then becoming more and more glum as tallies from the hearland roll in to bury his delusions.




Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 25, 2004, 04:15:05 PM
I believe it starts

Indiana
Kentucky
Florida


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 25, 2004, 04:58:56 PM

You asked about, "calling," which means stating making a determination which way a state will actually end up supporting, not when the election polls have closed.

BTW, since Florida is in two time zones, the closing time for polling places differs (after their last fiasco, the networks are going to treat Florida with kid gloves).

I expect that both Indiana and Kentucy will be 'called' by the networks for Bush about a five minutes after the polls close in those states.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Floridude on July 25, 2004, 11:56:51 PM
If I recall, I remember from four years ago fairly early in the evening seeing a map of the whole US blank except for Indiana and Kentucky, which were red.  I also recently saw a picture which confirmed this thought.  My question to you therefor is-Why would anyone call Indiana and Kentucky (both about 15 point  Bush victories) before they call rhode island or Boston (both 30 point Dem victories).

Interestingly, who begins election night with a meaningless lead will depend on whether the networks call the southeast or the northeast first.



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 26, 2004, 10:21:44 AM
Oh, that's simple.

The closing time on polls is earlier in Indiana and Kentucky than Rhode Island.

This 'closing time' is historical and dates back to around 1910 when both Indiana and Kentucky were largely rural.

Generally, farmers were 'early to bed and early to rise,' so the polling times followed their schedule.

Rhode Island by contrast was largely urban and industrial at the time, so later polling hours (closing times) were provided so that industrial laborers could cast their ballots after they left work.

As an interesting side light, in New Hampshire, a township by the name of Dixville Notch, accounces its vote at approximately 1 a.m. on Tuesday morning.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 26, 2004, 10:27:55 AM
This is going to sound rediculously stupid, but what's the date of the 2004 election?

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on July 26, 2004, 10:29:56 AM
This is going to sound rediculously stupid, but what's the date of the 2004 election?

Siege


November 2nd. If you're a Democrat it's on November 3rd. ;)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 11:50:43 AM
1992:

()

Clinton's lead INCREASES by 2% after Perot drops out the first time.

()

Clinton's lead remains at 16% after Perot re-enters.

Also, as Perot climbs, Clinton's lead decreases, and as Perot tapers off at the end, Clinton's lead climbs.

I just don't see any evidence Perot hurt Bush in the polls.  The only argument you can make is if that you say Perot's ads hurt Bush, but there really is no evidence to support that claim.

I think we can safely say Perot had little effect.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on July 26, 2004, 12:23:34 PM
Also, we have to remember that even though a lot of Perot's voters were conservatives they supported him over Bush BECAUSE they were unhappy with Bush and his broken tax pledge. They might well have refused to vote for him anyway, even if Perot wouldn't have been around.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 12:25:29 PM
Also, we have to remember that even though a lot of Perot's voters were conservatives they supported him over Bush BECAUSE they were unhappy with Bush and his broken tax pledge. They might well have refused to vote for him anyway, even if Perot wouldn't have been around.

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on July 26, 2004, 12:29:31 PM
Also, we have to remember that even though a lot of Perot's voters were conservatives they supported him over Bush BECAUSE they were unhappy with Bush and his broken tax pledge. They might well have refused to vote for him anyway, even if Perot wouldn't have been around.

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.

Yep, that's it. :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 26, 2004, 12:57:02 PM
1992:

()

Clinton's lead INCREASES by 2% after Perot drops out the first time.

()

Clinton's lead remains at 16% after Perot re-enters.

Also, as Perot climbs, Clinton's lead decreases, and as Perot tapers off at the end, Clinton's lead climbs.

I just don't see any evidence Perot hurt Bush in the polls.  The only argument you can make is if that you say Perot's ads hurt Bush, but there really is no evidence to support that claim.

I think we can safely say Perot had little effect.

Well Boss, thanks for pointing out an example of the inaccuracy of a major poll.

While Gallup had Clinton at 49 in their closing poll, he actually received 43 per cent of the actual vote (a 6 point difference).

Gallup had Perot at 14 at closing whereas he received nineteen per cent of the popular vote, a five point differenct.

Further, when a number of studies looked at the Perot 92 vote, they found that in 1988 those same voters had split approximately as follows (minor differences in studies);

Bush 1988          -          60% of 1992 Perot votes
None in 1988        -        30% of 1992 Perot votes
Dukakis/other in 1988 - 10% of 1992 Perot voters

If you compare the combined Bush 92 and Perot 92 vote to the Bush 88 vote (go state by state, county by county if you wish) you will see a remarkable similiarity (Arkansas excepted).

The thing is that the 1992 Perot voters were very angry at Bush such that (according to the best projections I have seen), if Perot had not been on the ballot in 1992, they would have 'voted' as follows for President.

Other   10%
Clinton 20%
Bush    40%
None    30%

Further evidence of the normally pro-Republican nature of the Perot vote can be seen in the fact that although Bush in 92 had the lowest popular vote percentage of any Republican candidate since Alf Landon, Republicans actually gained in the U.S. House of Representatives.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 01:04:59 PM
Carl,

First, I'd like to knwo where you got your numbers from, then I will point some things out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on July 26, 2004, 02:20:33 PM
40%-20%=20%

20%*19%=4%

So, Clinton still wins, though by a much smaller margin.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 08:16:03 PM
Lets assume carl's numbers are right.

Clinton/Gore: 48,858,570 (49.6%)
Bush/Quayle: 47,002,078 (47.7%)
Other: 2,639,382 (2.7%)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 08:23:14 PM
Here's the map:
()

Clinton/Gore: 48,858,570 (49.6%); 346 EV's
Bush/Quayle: 47,002,078 (47.7%); 192 EV's
Other: 2,639,382 (2.7%); 0 EV's

So with Carl's numbers, Clinton wins convincingly.  Which is what I have been saying all along.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 26, 2004, 08:37:36 PM
Bush will run much tougher in California and New york than he did in 2000.  He won't win those two states but will force Dems to spend resources there they didn't have to spend in 2000.  

Bush ain't winning no NY or CA as it stands now.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Lunar on July 26, 2004, 08:56:03 PM
Kerry shouldn't have to spend resources there.  He'll show up for fundraiser after fundraiser in both states (as well as Texas), but beyond that would be stupid.  Any Bush spending would be climbing uphill when in other states he could be getting much more bang for his buck.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 27, 2004, 12:41:39 AM
Carl,

First, I'd like to knwo where you got your numbers from, then I will point some things out.

As I said, they come from a number of studies done by a couple of Political Science professors assisted by graduate students.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 27, 2004, 12:51:40 AM
Boss,

Your projection of the 92 Democrat vote closely mirrors the actual Democrat vote in both 96 and 2000,

So, it looks pretty credible to me.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on July 27, 2004, 05:17:50 AM
WOW Everybody should check out the NY Times Electoral college Map it is amazing how much info they have in this feature.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on July 27, 2004, 05:28:40 AM
WOW Everybody should check out the NY Times Electoral college Map it is amazing how much info they have in this feature.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/2004_ELECTIONGUIDE_GRAPHIC/index.html)
Look at the source they give, though!


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on July 27, 2004, 05:44:40 AM
True.  Congratulations Dave.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 27, 2004, 12:36:17 PM

As I said, they come from a number of studies done by a couple of Political Science professors assisted by graduate students.

Carl,

Do you have the numbers for 1996?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 27, 2004, 01:30:30 PM
Unfortunately, I do not have such number.

Interesting that you should ask, as I asked one of the persons who produced one of the studies I cited, and he stated that there just wasn't enought interest in putting the time into replicating the 1992 Perot studies.

He had done some preliminary work and guardedly suggested that had Perot not been on the 1996 ballot, his votes would have gone as follows:

Others                         5%
Clinton                       10%
No vote for President 20%
Dole                            65%

While the Perot voters did not like Dole, they weren't as angry with him as they were at Bush.

Also, the Republicans had championed a number of Perots positions.

Dole had resigned from the Senate, of which they approved.

Clinton was perceived as big government (health care, gun control, opposition to term limits, etc.)

For most of the 1996 Perot voters, they would have "held their nose" and voted for Dole.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 27, 2004, 01:58:39 PM
Using those numbers:
()

Clinton/Gore: 48,208,665 (50.9%); 348 EV's
Dole/Kemp: 44,454,266 (47.0); 190 EV's
Other: 1,995,389 (2.1); 0 EV's

Florida would have been extremely close, I have it as Clinton by .09%.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 27, 2004, 02:53:48 PM
Your maps looks about right.

The data I earlier provided was national data, and there were minor regional variations.  The data is, as I previously noted, better for 92 than 96.

Generally speaking, Perot voters in both elections were slightly more likely to back the Republican candidate in the South than elsewhere in the nation, so Florida would probably have been incredibly close in 1996.

Conversely, Perot voters in both elections were slightly more likely to back third party candidates in the West, so Nevada would have probably been incredibly close in 1996.

Perot voters in the midwest (particularly upper midwest) and northeast (particularly new england) were just a tiny bit more likely to back the Democrat candidate in both elections than nationally (probably woudn't have had a significant impact on any state).\


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 28, 2004, 11:43:18 PM
Question, why is a state like Arkansas a Tossup? To me at least it seems pretty conservative. Arkansas is the only Battleground state that doesn't make much sense to me, can someone help me out?

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ATFFL on July 29, 2004, 12:15:50 AM
Question, why is a state like Arkansas a Tossup? To me at least it seems pretty conservative. Arkansas is the only Battleground state that doesn't make much sense to me, can someone help me out?

Siege

Lingering Clintonism.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on July 29, 2004, 12:23:31 AM
Actually, it depends upon you estimate of turnout.

If you expect heavy turnout in the black belt counties and normal turnout in the ozarks, then you could show Arkansas as competitive.

A normal turnout turnout would give Bush a clear lead.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Gustaf on July 29, 2004, 06:07:48 AM
Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

In 1992 Clinton did abot 10% better in Arkansas than he did nationally. In 1996 the difference was about 4.5% (Arkansas stayed the same, whereas Clinton's national vote went up from 43% to 49%).

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 29, 2004, 08:32:28 AM
That's a good idea Gustaf, have Clinton campaign in Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana see if he can grab more votes for the Democrats.

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on July 29, 2004, 07:25:23 PM
Here is my 'pre-bounce' projection:
()

Kerry 274
Bush 264


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: freedomburns on July 29, 2004, 09:01:38 PM
Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar. ;)  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Reignman on July 30, 2004, 12:02:02 AM
This is an outstanding and unbiased site:

http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: khirkhib on July 30, 2004, 03:56:21 AM
Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar. ;)  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

Having Clinton Campaign in the gravy states is a good idea. The gravy states are the ones that he has an off-chance of winning and doesn't need to count on.  Even if Clinton can help make them competive increases the  number of toss up states and makes Bush have to spread his attention thinner.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on July 30, 2004, 09:27:37 AM
Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar. ;)  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

That's odd... those are the states I specifically name.... I'm not suppose to be good at politics.... wierd

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: AuH2O on August 01, 2004, 04:39:04 PM
Clinton can't win anything for Kerry.

In fact, I can't think of a single example of someone out of office delivering a state via campaigning.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on August 01, 2004, 05:40:18 PM
Clinton and the DNC hurt McBride in Florida vs JEB Bush back in 2002. You know the one where JEB won by 13% and somehow it's all irrevelant to 2004. ::)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: freedomburns on August 07, 2004, 07:19:42 PM
I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.

In that case, the very presence of a Ralph Nader-type candidate should illustrate Kerry's weaknesses.  

If it weren't for the reality of the five states that were so close in 2000 that Nader's votes arguably made the difference, more people would vote for him this time.  Also, he would be given a greater forum to expound his policies, like he should be.  The two-party system is rigged to maintain power stays with the two parties.  They have a virutal lock-hold on power in the US.

freedomburns


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on August 15, 2004, 12:21:31 PM
Current Snapshot:
()

Kerry/Edwards 312
Bush/Cheney 226

Kerry has been up since he picked Edwards (mid-July) on my map.  I'm trying my best not to get excited, because I learned my lesson in 1992 when Perot dropped out.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on August 16, 2004, 12:28:43 PM
Current Snapshot:
()

Kerry/Edwards 312
Bush/Cheney 226

Kerry has been up since he picked Edwards (mid-July) on my map.  I'm trying my best not to get excited, because I learned my lesson in 1992 when Perot dropped out.

Well I don't know. I agree with 96% with your prediction. However, the most recent poles I've seen have Bush winning Nevada. Also, in most poles I've seen Missouri is a dead die. But in the end it'll go Bush. Making Missouri the incorrect Bellweather state only twice in its history (Adlai Stephenson I think was the other).

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on August 18, 2004, 09:31:38 PM
Here is a map from the realm of impossible :

()


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) on August 18, 2004, 10:17:10 PM
Agreed.  There is no way that Bush would win Alabama and lose Mississippi.  Put Mississippi into the Bush column and that map would be merely very extremely improbable.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Democratic Hawk on August 23, 2004, 07:26:00 AM
Kerry 296 / Bush 242

Dave


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Shira on September 17, 2004, 12:24:33 PM

I wish the Brits and the Canadians could participate in the US elections.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on September 17, 2004, 12:25:53 PM

I wish the Brits and the Canadians could participate in the US elections.

I wish England would take New England back.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on September 17, 2004, 12:29:34 PM
I wish Texas was still in Mexico.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on September 17, 2004, 12:31:01 PM

Me too.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Siege40 on September 17, 2004, 04:15:56 PM
The tide seems to have shifted, for me at least it's a predicted Bush win.... sadly.

Siege


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on September 17, 2004, 05:54:20 PM

I wish Spain had kept Florida.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: amkbailey on September 22, 2004, 10:17:16 AM
I think that the current predictions are making this site irrelevant except for historical election information.  We all have to admit that there are only 2 possible winner to this election.  No, one of them is not Badnarik as the perdictions would have you think, but it is Bush and Kerry.  I think that people should be a little more realistic about who they think will win.  It is a perdiction page not a fantasy page.  My last perdiction was made in protest to the obvisously skewed picks.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ATFFL on September 22, 2004, 10:22:34 AM
I think that the current predictions are making this site irrelevant except for historical election information.  We all have to admit that there are only 2 possible winner to this election.  No, one of them is not Badnarik as the perdictions would have you think, but it is Bush and Kerry.  I think that people should be a little more realistic about who they think will win.  It is a perdiction page not a fantasy page.  My last perdiction was made in protest to the obvisously skewed picks.

You have the predictions and the mok elections confused.  You can't pick anyone but Bush and Kerry on the prediction page.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on September 25, 2004, 07:33:39 AM
New Prediction
()

332-206...or 336-202, can't remember.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Hitchabrut on September 26, 2004, 10:53:24 AM
I guess I think the Dutch should've kept NY and the English can keep MA and RI.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Bob Dole '96 on October 09, 2004, 04:40:15 PM
Alright, my map is up!  How do I post it?


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on October 09, 2004, 05:41:20 PM
Alright, my map is up!  How do I post it?
It is posted in the predictions area. The image is here:
()
If you quote this message you'll see the link to your map.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Donovan on October 10, 2004, 05:01:54 AM
Alright, my map is up!  How do I post it?
It is posted in the predictions area. The image is here:
()
If you quote this message you'll see the link to your map.
Alright, my map is up!  How do I post it?
It is posted in the predictions area. The image is here:
()
If you quote this message you'll see the link to your map.

DO you seriously think that Kerry is going to lose Oregon, MN, and New Jersey. Bush already pulled funding from NJ and Oregon.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: K. Osmers on October 10, 2004, 10:12:50 AM

We're not all bad... :(


Title: Bush did not pull funding from OR
Post by: Bob Dole '96 on October 10, 2004, 11:02:48 AM
In fact, he's making a huge swing through there next week.  Fact is Gore barely won the state in 2000 and several polls have shown Bush ahead.  so why would he pull funding?  A simple 5 point win for Bush would easily carry Oregon and Minnesota, and New Jersey will come into his column by less than1 percent.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Napoleon XIV on October 13, 2004, 12:31:50 AM
New Prediction
()

332-206...or 336-202, can't remember.

Hey, same as mine! :)


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on October 14, 2004, 02:10:43 PM

That was from 3 weeks ago, Kerry has signnificantly closed tha gap since then.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Bono on October 16, 2004, 04:05:16 AM
First time I post here. My prediction:
()
Bush-272
Kerry-266


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: josh_24 on October 19, 2004, 04:13:26 PM
how do i post my prediction on this forum>??


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on October 20, 2004, 02:49:40 PM
Updated.

()

Washington, Michigan, Oregon, WV and New Hampshire are finished.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: elcorazon on October 20, 2004, 03:00:25 PM
Updated.

()

Washington, Michigan, Oregon, WV and New Hampshire are finished.
you forgot to fix New Jersey.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on October 20, 2004, 03:05:15 PM
Updated.

()

Washington, Michigan, Oregon, WV and New Hampshire are finished.
you forgot to fix New Jersey.

New Jersey is my election night suprise. ;) Allow me to stay disillusioned, ok? :)


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 20, 2004, 10:26:41 PM
My prediction-the three states that'll really determine it are WI, OH and WI. If Bush wins OH, he wins; if Bush wins NM and WI, he wins; if Bush win OH and NM he wins, if Bush wins OH and WI he wins (4 possibilities).

If Kerry wins Ohio and Wisconsin he wins; if Kerry wins Ohio and New Mexico he wins (2 options).

Therefore, a 66% chance of Bush winning (and I predict NM will go Kerry, WI will go Bush and OH will bve very close-but for Bush)


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on October 21, 2004, 08:05:24 AM
My prediction-the three states that'll really determine it are WI, OH and WI. If Bush wins OH, he wins; if Bush wins NM and WI, he wins; if Bush win OH and NM he wins, if Bush wins OH and WI he wins (4 possibilities).

If Kerry wins Ohio and Wisconsin he wins; if Kerry wins Ohio and New Mexico he wins (2 options).

Therefore, a 66% chance of Bush winning (and I predict NM will go Kerry, WI will go Bush and OH will bve very close-but for Bush)
Of your four scenarios for Bush, two are redundant. If Bush wins OH, he wins, so in that case it doesn't matter what happens in WI and NM. I would also add IA to the mix, since it can pair with WI just as NM can for a win.

I would amend your analysis to read:

Four states will determine the election in a close race: OH, WI, IA, and NM.

Bush wins in three cases:
1) Win OH
2) Win WI and IA
3) Win WI and NM

Kerry wins in two cases:
1) Win OH and WI
2) Win OH, IA and NM


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: MAS117 on October 21, 2004, 08:56:51 PM
It's so close I can't tell you who will win. If you look at my map, I have Kerry wining the election. Bush will win FL, and Kerry will win PA. Ohio is slightly Kerry now. If Kerry wins Ohio and Iowa, but loses New Mexico, he could have only 269 EV, that also puts Bush with 269 EV. SO CLOSE!


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on October 22, 2004, 05:50:49 PM

New Jersey is my election night suprise. ;) Allow me to stay disillusioned, ok? :)

I suppose Bush can win NJ, but he won't lose NH and PA simultaneously.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: alcaeus on October 23, 2004, 09:35:59 AM

   Bush is ahead by 3 in NC, which makes NC a tie.

 


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: alcaeus on October 23, 2004, 09:58:24 AM

   Given that challengers historically do better than the polls indicate while the incumbent stays where the polls indicate, Bush will be at 48 to 49 percent of the vote on election day.

   Kerry is leading in the battleground states 50 -46.

   Predictions for election day:

   Surprises:  Kerry wins North Carolina and Colorado.

   Post election day disputes:  Missouri, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, WV, and NJ

    Kerry wins OH by 3 and PA by 7.

    Bush wins FL by 2

    When the votes are counted Kerry gets 313 electoral votes, Bush 225 electoral votes.

     None of the challenges from either party to election results will be successful, or be heard by the Supreme Court.

   

   


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on October 23, 2004, 04:14:25 PM

   Bush is ahead by 3 in NC, which makes NC a tie.

 

NC is out of play. Bush by 6% at least.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: alcaeus on October 23, 2004, 04:49:43 PM

   Survey USA poll this past week.    NC  Bush 50  Kerry 47.

   North Carolina is similar to VA in this election, except without as much of a military vote.  It's a world apart from South Carolina.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: ?????????? on October 23, 2004, 05:00:56 PM

   Survey USA poll this past week.    NC  Bush 50  Kerry 47.

   North Carolina is similar to VA in this election, except without as much of a military vote.  It's a world apart from South Carolina.

Doubt it will end that close. Kerry has never lead in any poll in N.Carolina.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on October 23, 2004, 06:29:28 PM
()

Bush 286
Kerry 252

Minnesota and NH are basically ties.

If Kerry gains Wisconsin and NM, and puts it at 271-267, a Colorado legal struggle likely decides the election.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: josh_24 on October 23, 2004, 08:53:11 PM
Poll: Who do you think will win the 2004 Presidential Election? George W. Bush or John F. Kerry?
Then: Who do you want to win the 2004 Presidential Election?

please answer my poll.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 24, 2004, 01:59:31 PM
Poll: Who do you think will win the 2004 Presidential Election? George W. Bush or John F. Kerry?
Then: Who do you want to win the 2004 Presidential Election?

please answer my poll.
I think you'll see answers galore around here without people directly answering you.
Are you in any way related to josh_22?


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Silent Hunter on October 25, 2004, 08:35:15 AM
()

How's this?


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Andy25 on October 25, 2004, 11:27:27 AM
Kerry 272- Bush 262

It will be a squeezer. Ohio and Florida will be decisive!
The Colorado thingy might play into this as well...


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 25, 2004, 11:32:27 AM
Kerry 272- Bush 262

It will be a squeezer. Ohio and Florida will be decisive!
The Colorado thingy might play into this as well...
It doesn't really look like it will pass.
:(


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kelpie on October 26, 2004, 10:16:50 AM
Kerry 272- Bush 262

It will be a squeezer. Ohio and Florida will be decisive!
The Colorado thingy might play into this as well...

CT, RI?  I think Kerry should just hold on to them...


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Andy25 on October 26, 2004, 11:33:32 AM
CT, RI?  I think Kerry should just hold on to them...

LOL sure he will, i only wanted to make it more exciting :-)



Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 27, 2004, 06:17:24 AM
The 2004 presidenial election is one of the most difficult to predict for a variety of reasons.
Very true.

Quote
First, the normal 36 year cycle is NOT occuring largely due to demographic changes over the last forty years.
The 36 year cycle never was a natural law. 1824 and 1968 are really only included in that "theory" to make it look rounder - if they weren't in a line with 1789, 1860, 1896 and 1932, nobody would include them. But that's just an aside.
  
Quote
Additionally, the percentage of the VAP which is disqualified for voting based on felony convictions (where full civil rights have not been restored) is at a historical high.
Yes. :(

Quote
In my view, the key data to examine:

(a)  the economic statistics (which is a good, abeit imperfect indicator),
Extremely imperfect.

Quote
(b) partisan voter registration data (available in most states outside the south and border area), which has been a very good indicator of election results,
fair.

Quote
(c) the 2002 and 2003 election results (a fair, abeit imperfect indicator),
extremely imperfect due to uncontested races etc.

Quote
(d) nomination data (a good indicator),
Not sure what you mean - I guess I'll just have to read on (I'm commenting and reading at the same time)

Quote
(e) technical campaign data (fundraising, organizational efforts, campaign coherency, etc.),
which are good indicators in close elections, but sometimes difficult to quantify

(f) likeability (a good indicator in close elections). .
Sometimes difficult to quantify, but usually impossible.
Quote
and

(g) historical voting patterns (a very good indicator except in lanslide elections).
You mean, as in trends?

Quote
In the 2002 and 2003 elections, the Republicans did far better than expected.  They not only retained control of the House, they regained control of the Senate, and did far better than expected in the Gubenatorial elections.
(note: stuff I've deleted is stuff I don't have anything to add to/complain about) By my count, the 2002 House election result, as opposed to the reapportionment and redistricting result, was a Dem gain of 1 - this is despite the fact that the Reps did increase their share of the national vote by about 1.5 percentage points, the biggest move since 1994. I don't recall that about the gubernatorial elections either.

Quote
While Kerry did far better in fundraising than is usually the case for challengers, Bush raised more money than Kerry.  Moreover, Kerry has not really gotten his act together organiztionally while Bush has one of the best organized campaigns in recent years.  Further, while Bush has a relatively coherent campaign, Kerry has a major difficulty trying to square his record in the Senate with positions palatable to enough voters to be elected.
That's the problem with analyses like that - everybody's bound to see exactly what he wants to see.

Quote
Given these points of analysis, I project that, the total presidential popular vote will total approximately 108,200.000, and that Bush will receive 51.10 % of that vote, Kerry will receive 44.97 % of that vote, Nader will receive 1.51 % of the vote, Badnarik 1.06 % of the vote, Cobb will receive 0.71 % of the vote, Peroutka will receive 0.43 % of the vote, with other candidates (the usual menagarie) approximatly 0.22 % of the vote.
That came pretty suddenly. Also, what was the electorate in 2000?
All in all, yeah, some food for thought here, but not a convincing case that Kerry will get stuffed (which is what I would call it if your numbers came true).


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 27, 2004, 12:25:15 PM
In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: stry_cat on October 27, 2004, 12:30:25 PM
In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.

How does this change if you use change in unemployment rate instead of the unemployment rate?


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 27, 2004, 03:26:22 PM
In the post to which I previously refered you to, I briefly listed numerous criteria which I used in developing my projection.

Due to limitations on the length of posts, I did not elaborate on the methodology of each of these criteria.

I will begin listed them in order, starting with the key economic statistic, "unemployment rate."

If you review the unemployment rate statistics back to ther 1932 election (they are not available for prior Presidential elections), you will see that every single President renominated by his party forreelection with an unemployment rate of less that 7.1% has been reelected.

In those Presidential elections during the period involved where the incumbent was renominated and had an unemployment rate of 7.1% or higher, in a majority of the cases, they were defeated (the exceptions are FDR in 36 and 40, and Reagan in 84).

Based on a statistical analysis of this data, it seems to me that Bush would be reelected by a margin of 4.48% or higher.

How does this change if you use change in unemployment rate instead of the unemployment rate?

Good question.

Even though the unemployment rates in 36, 40 and 84 were of a magnitude to disturb the electorate, the unemployment rates were NOT increasing in the year before the election, and were generally decreasing.  In short, the incumbents in those years (FDR and Reagan) were NOT blamed for the relatively high unemployment rates.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 28, 2004, 03:38:28 AM
Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared. :)


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 28, 2004, 08:39:09 PM
Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared. :)

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: WMS on October 28, 2004, 10:25:42 PM
https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=10896

Final prediction for this election. Title: 'It's Gonna Be A Long Night'.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on October 29, 2004, 04:24:53 AM
Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared. :)

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.
Yeah, I know that...imperfect data isn't worthless o/c, but mathematical models based on imperfect data are likely to produce misleading results - and have the potential to produce entirely bogus results. Of course, such minor problems may cancel each other out - they'd have to be tugging in all directions though.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on October 29, 2004, 09:36:23 PM
Wouldn't this figure have to be lowered due to Welfare to Work (ie, lower official unemployment figures when the problem is of the same magnitude)? In other words, are unemployment figures pre-Welfare to Work strictly comparable to those afterwards...
I'll have the same complaint when you mention post-91 GDP data, so be prepared. :)

In the real world, no data is perfect.

Please note that I did NOT base my prediction solely on this particular factor.

You approach seems to be that unless data is perfect its worthless.

I suggest that the data speaks for itself for those who are reasonable.
Yeah, I know that...imperfect data isn't worthless o/c, but mathematical models based on imperfect data are likely to produce misleading results - and have the potential to produce entirely bogus results. Of course, such minor problems may cancel each other out - they'd have to be tugging in all directions though.


Virtually all data used in the social sciences is imperfect, as such absolute precision is impossible.

However, one can make projections with the data with a relatively high confidence level when other independent variables closely correspond with the projections made by the methodology.

BTW, instead of double talk, please cite me one example of an incumbent President seeking reelection when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor Department) was below 6%.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 29, 2004, 11:07:26 PM
I am fairly confident the upper midwest will stick together again-it has since 1988. Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota will almost certainly vote together, in my opinion. Unfortunately, it's slightly more likely that they'll all vote for Bush then Kerry, but it's definently not by a large amount.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: 2952-0-0 on October 30, 2004, 04:25:20 AM
https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/CAMPAIGN/2004/pred04.php?action=indpred&id=11362


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 31, 2004, 12:34:15 AM
()

Probably my final, depending on events over the next bit.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on October 31, 2004, 12:37:21 AM
If the upper midwest IS going to split, this is probably how.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: kevinatcausa on October 31, 2004, 04:41:36 AM
Note that if the current "Most Recent Predictions" map is correct, we'll be stuck waiting for Hawaii to finish counting its ballots before we get the final result. 


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: muon2 on October 31, 2004, 05:00:43 PM
Note that if the current "Most Recent Predictions" map is correct, we'll be stuck waiting for Hawaii to finish counting its ballots before we get the final result. 
I suspect that HI will not be the last state to finish counting ballots this year.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 01, 2004, 04:27:21 AM
Here's my weighted polls average, with thoughts and 2000 results.
ME Kerry by 4 (was 5). Sounds about right. 2nd CD will be close again but will go for Kerry too.
NH Kerry by 1 (was Bush by 1). Ditto.
VT Kerry by 11 (was 10). I think the lead's going to be rather larger here, actually.
MA Kerry by 25 (was 27). Based on polls underestimating Dem motivation, as often happens in safe states. Will be bigger than 2000.
RI Kerry by 21 (was 29). Will be bigger than that, though smaller than Massachusetts (or than 2000).
CT Kerry by 13 (was 17). I'm okay with that.
NY Kerry by 18 (was 25). LMAO. Won't move much from 2000 result.
NJ Kerry by 6 (was 16). I'd guess it'll be a tad more than that, but closer 6 than 16. 8 to 10, say.
PA Kerry by 2 (was 4). I say 4, not that it matters.
OH Bush by 1 (was 4). Looking good, except that Kerry has to win either Ohio or Florida, else he's doomed. Fingers crossed...
IN Bush by 17 (was 16). Yeah, looks fine.
IL Kerry by 12 (was 12). ditto.
MI Kerry by 5 (was 5). ditto.
WI Bush by 2 (was Gore by 0.) Hate to say it, but I believe that's about right.
MN Kerry by 1 (was 2). I'm pretty sure Kerry holds it, not sure whether or not it'll be this close.
IA Bush by 1 (was Gore by 0.) Will be pretty much dead on the national average once more. I'm saying Kerry by 0.
MO Bush by 5 (was 3). Looks a tad high.
ND Bush by 25 (was 28) Looks too low. I'm saying 28 again.
SD Bush by 17 (was 23). I'd love to see that, but we won't. Bush by 20-22.
NE Bush by 29 (was 29). Fine.
KS Bush by 21 (was 21). Fine.
DE Kerry by 11 (was 13). Looks okay. Might be just about in single digits, even.
MD Kerry by 11 (was 16). I say MD will stay three points higher than DE. :)
DC Kerry by 73 (was 76). Based on 2000 result plus one single poll with too many undecideds. I look at the Nader vote and think it'll be more like 79.
VA Bush by 6 (was 8). Fine.
WV Bush by 3 (was 6). I'd a thought it'd swing a we bit more than Ohio...but I guess the Dems would have had to actually campaign in the state for that...I'm not quite writing it off yet, though.
NC Bush by 7 (was 13). Edwards sure having an effect here.
SC Bush by 15 (was 16). Why not?
GA Bush by 16 (was 12). Rich, southern, military. Yeah, might trend that far Republican.
FL Bush by 2 (was 0). Looks the more likely Rep hold by a whisper. Jeb'll manage. Somehow.
KY Bush by 17 (was 15). Fine.
TN Bush by 12 (was 4). Unmasking the Gore effect. Probably spot on.
AL Bush by 20 (was 15). This one looks too high to me. Closer 16, I'd guess.
MS Bush by 16 (was 17). Fine.
AR Bush by 5 (was 5). Looks a tad high.
LA Bush by 12 (was 8). That may well be.
OK Bush by 27 (was 22).The state's very well polled, due to the Senate race, so I'm taking their word for it.
TX Bush by 22 (was 21). Looking allright.
MT Bush by 23 (was 25). Ditto.
ID Bush by 36 (was 40). Ditto.
WY Bush by 39 (was 40). Ditto.
CO Bush by 6 (was 8). Ditto, even though that starts to look repetitive. :)
NM Bush by 0 (was Gore by 0). I say Dems hold it, but I really don't have a clue. Might swing pretty far in either direction actually, though more likely it'll be dead close again.
AZ Bush by 9 (was 6.) Sounds okay.
UT Bush by 43 (was 40). Yeah...looks mighty mighty, don't it now...but there's quite a couple of polls out...I'll take it.
NV Bush by 4 (was 4). Looking quite right.
WA Kerry by 6 (was 6). Okay, sure. Although I'd say 8.
OR Kerry by 4 (was 0). Whoever said Oregon was a battleground? Oregon is not a battleground.
CA Kerry by 10 (was 12). Okay.
AK Bush by 30 (was 31.) Based on 2000 result and one poll. I have an inkling Alaska is going to be a good bit closer than 2000 actually, though still a Rep landslide win. 20-25, say.
HI Kerry 9 (was 18). Sounds fair. Might be even closer. I say HI beats out NJ for strongest pro-Bush swing.
Overall, the maths says 296-242 for Bush. The gut says 274-264 for Kerry. Or, well, maybe the gut does say 296-242 for Bush after all. But the prediction says 274-264 for Kerry.




Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on November 01, 2004, 09:14:49 AM
Still waiting for the example of a President seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate was less than six per cent.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on November 01, 2004, 07:39:05 PM
Still waiting for the example of a President seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate was less than six per cent.

Still waiting for the example of an incumbent president who won when the Redskins lost their final home game before the election.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Esteban Manuel on November 01, 2004, 09:07:01 PM
Prediction

oops, i cant charge the map... Well 274(D) - 264(B) (the gut)
269-269 tie , (the map).

B: FL, WI, CO
k: MN, IA, MI, OH, NH




Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on November 01, 2004, 10:43:19 PM
Still waiting for the example of a President seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate was less than six per cent.

Still waiting for the example of an incumbent president who won when the Redskins lost their final home game before the election.

I don't recall EVER alledging a football based prediction.

I DID use as part of my prediction the unemployment rate.

The poster to whom I had responded tried to argue imperfection of data.

I had given him numerous examples of the proof of my method, and he provided no contrary examples.

So, since you entered the discussion, do you have ANY examples of an imcumbent president seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor department) was 6% or lower?



Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Jyrki on November 02, 2004, 12:02:35 AM
Ranking swing states from most solid for Kerry to most solid for Bush

- KERRY :

(likely)
New Jersey
Hawaď
Washington
Maine 1

(lean)
Oregon
Minnesota
Maine 2
Pennsylvanie
Michigan
New Hampshire
Ohio
Iowa
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Florida

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

- BUSH :

(lean)
Nevada
Colorado
Missouri
West Virginia

(likely)
Arkansas
Virginia
North Carolina
Arizona


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 02, 2004, 07:17:41 AM
Still waiting for the example of a President seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate was less than six per cent.

Still waiting for the example of an incumbent president who won when the Redskins lost their final home game before the election.

I don't recall EVER alledging a football based prediction.

I DID use as part of my prediction the unemployment rate.

The poster to whom I had responded tried to argue imperfection of data.

I had given him numerous examples of the proof of my method, and he provided no contrary examples.

So, since you entered the discussion, do you have ANY examples of an imcumbent president seeking reelection who was defeated when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor department) was 6% or lower?



Are you trying to misinterprete everything you are told or does that come to you naturally?


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on November 02, 2004, 09:47:14 AM
You seem to be losing it.

Your post is totally non-responsive.

I posted a question to you to which you have yet to respond.

BossTweed posted a response to my post to you which had nothing to do with the previous question.

I realize one of the techniques of the left is to try to change the subject.

Try answering the question in the first place instead of trying to change the subject.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on November 02, 2004, 10:33:35 AM
Virtually all data used in the social sciences is imperfect, as such absolute precision is impossible.

However, one can make projections with the data with a relatively high confidence level when other independent variables closely correspond with the projections made by the methodology.

BTW, instead of double talk, please cite me one example of an incumbent President seeking reelection when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor Department) was below 6%.
Yeah, sure.
a) Yes, exactly. That's why mathematical models using them should be treated as nice ideas that may even point something worthwhile out, but not as portents of the truth.
Anyways, your prediction is not based solely on that, nobody has claimed that.
b) In plain English? Which independent variables?
c) "Double Talk"? Me? Never.
As you word the question, 1996. However, I think you meant one seeking it and losing. I guess you'd have to go back to 1912 or 1892. This is *very much* a change of topic, btw. I know you're a registered Democrat but claiming yourself as a member of the left is more than just a bit thick. :)

Yes, my post was unresponsive. That's because yours was.

What miami was saying is, of course, "you can always find some chance unrelated event that looks like it's related". I don't agree that unemployment rates have no effect on elections (of course not...I'm from Germany), but "I don't recall ever alleging a Football based prediction" is a very weird way of answering that if answering it was indeed what you were trying to do. Don't you agree?

BTW: Part of this whole irritation is this: As your prediction is obviously off (why? because I say so :) ) my reply was pointing out possible causes of the error, something I never actually said. That much is my fault...


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: CARLHAYDEN on November 02, 2004, 01:33:14 PM
Virtually all data used in the social sciences is imperfect, as such absolute precision is impossible.

However, one can make projections with the data with a relatively high confidence level when other independent variables closely correspond with the projections made by the methodology.

BTW, instead of double talk, please cite me one example of an incumbent President seeking reelection when the unemployment rate (as measured by the Labor Department) was below 6%.
Yeah, sure.
a) Yes, exactly. That's why mathematical models using them should be treated as nice ideas that may even point something worthwhile out, but not as portents of the truth.
Anyways, your prediction is not based solely on that, nobody has claimed that.
b) In plain English? Which independent variables?
c) "Double Talk"? Me? Never.
As you word the question, 1996. However, I think you meant one seeking it and losing. I guess you'd have to go back to 1912 or 1892. This is *very much* a change of topic, btw. I know you're a registered Democrat but claiming yourself as a member of the left is more than just a bit thick. :)

Yes, my post was unresponsive. That's because yours was.

What miami was saying is, of course, "you can always find some chance unrelated event that looks like it's related". I don't agree that unemployment rates have no effect on elections (of course not...I'm from Germany), but "I don't recall ever alleging a Football based prediction" is a very weird way of answering that if answering it was indeed what you were trying to do. Don't you agree?

BTW: Part of this whole irritation is this: As your prediction is obviously off (why? because I say so :) ) my reply was pointing out possible causes of the error, something I never actually said. That much is my fault...


First, don't know if you're doing drugs or simply flipping out.

Second, I posted a methodology (specifically stated) where Zero exceptions (the unemployment model).  You derided it by alledging the unemployment data was insufficently accurate.  You provided NO example of where the model was wrong!

Third, mathematical models have proven their worth over the years and are more than just "nice ideas."

Fourth, if you went back to my original post, you would see that I used a number of factors (explicitly stated) to arrive at my result.  To cite just one of them, no incumbent President seeking reelection has been defeated unless he had significant primary opposition for the period going back to the end of the second world war (Bush had no significant primary opposition).

Fifth, with respect to your "word question," I can only wonder if you are referring to a post by another poster (perhaps BossTweed).  I never had a 'word question' on this thread.

Sixth, where do you get the idea I ever claimed "myself of the member of the left"?!?

Seventh, my notation that I had never used a football prediction was a response to BossTweed.

Eighth, so your ultimate basis for disagreeing with my prediction is simply "because I say so"?

Suggestion, go back and reread the posts on this thread.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: phk on December 20, 2004, 05:15:12 PM
what a dumbass.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: skybridge on January 05, 2005, 03:04:08 PM
Prediction

oops, i cant charge the map... Well 274(D) - 264(B) (the gut)
269-269 tie , (the map).

B: FL, WI, CO
k: MN, IA, MI, OH, NH




Under what scenario would they have been tied 269-269?


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: minionofmidas on February 24, 2005, 07:10:24 AM
Reasons why Kerry will win Ohio:

1. Many-a-job lost in OH since Bush took office
2. Governor Taft's unpopularity
3. High Muslim population

I don't feel like retyping, so I'll just copy and paste what I said earlier....

The only place where there is a significant Muslim population in Ohio is Cinncinati and that is a BLACK Muslim population.  They wouldn't vote for Bush anyway.  Gov. Taft is unpopular because he RAISED taxes, I don't see how that plays well for the Democrats seeing as the Republican legislature is the group that is most pissed-off by Taft's actions.

Second, I can't believe that you guys acctually think Bush is so aweful that he will harass muslim voters or fake Bin Laden's capture.  That's not a joke, those are some serious accusations.
1. Provide a census result showing that a large portion o Ohio's muslim population voted for Gore.

2. Opebo, a Republican, suggested Bush might fake UBL's captured, and I agreed, he might.

Obebo is a nazi and he probably think it was a good move, my issue is with you and how a rational person could think such a thing.  Let me find some data for the first.

Ok.. I guess I should respond to this.  I am, as others have said in this thread, rather cynical and do believe in 'realpolitic', etc.  But I think its a bit much to call me a Nazi!  I think there's a big difference in being a bit Nixonian (and an admirer of Kissinger) and being a Nazi.  
Seriously though I never thought Bush would really fake bin laden's capture, I was just hypothesizing.  But I think the reason it would never happen is more because it wouldn't work than because its 'wrong'.

What you're missing here is that THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE has called you a Nazi. The LEAST you can do to protest is adopt a red avatar...


See? SEE? SEE??? I turned Opebo around! Mwaahahaha! Mwaahahaha! Mwaahaha!

Relax. Nothing to see here.
I'm just going through old posts of mine deleting stuff, stumbled upon this.


Title: Re: 2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Platypus on February 26, 2005, 05:02:56 AM
btw, Godwin's law came into effect via Opebo, it seems.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 16, 2006, 08:45:45 PM
nfc champion panthers, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Told you so


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: Alcon on January 16, 2006, 08:48:09 PM

Way to sock it to someone who is in Iraq and hasn't posted in months.


Title: Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion
Post by: © tweed on January 16, 2006, 08:49:25 PM

Way to sock it to someone who is in Iraq and hasn't posted in months.

Thank you.

But that's when I was good at picking postseason football games.  Now all these road teams are winning and I'm like a hick on 5th avenue.