Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 27, 2014, 06:10:54 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13
101  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Who Can Stop Dean on: November 28, 2003, 02:43:22 pm
If Dean wins both Iowa and New Hampshire, its all over save the shouting.

NH is a safe bet for him unless his campaign stumbles badly or to be precise, stumbles worse than his highly 'competent' opponents.

If someone else can win Iowa the fight is still on between him and Dean.
I believe Gephardt is the only one who can do that.

Will he?? I'm afraid not. Dean has got his board onto the right wave and I'm afraid it will take him all the way to Boston.

Note: In this analogy Washington DC lies way way beyond where the surf breaks Cheesy
102  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:The major geopolitical event factor on: November 28, 2003, 02:28:01 pm
If we are attacked again by hi-jackers on flights of domestic origin, then I think that could sink Bush.

Well I wont say that it's good for him but I dont think ANY such attack will hurt that bad. After all the logistics of preventing that, if the plot is done well with professionals, are truly formidable.

The damage caused however could be pivotal.

Damn, I'm coolly discussing political ramifications of such an attack and I'm on planes all the time right now. It could well get a whole lot more personal than that Sad
103  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:3rd (minor) parties in 2004: Any effect? on: November 28, 2003, 02:22:13 pm
Okay I'm not going to be debating this topic in-depth cause as you happily point out I lack information to 'seal the deal' Smiley

First I didnt "meticulously (and liberally) dissect the Green voters". The main source of my info was Green party releases themselves.

Second, the incident you refer to was ONE SINGLE CASE in Florida accounting for very few votes and if not Buchanan's name they would have mistakenly marked whoever else was on that particular slot on the ballot.

Third as I mention the Natural Law party as AN EXAMPLE - a possible alternative for voters determined to vote for a "progressive" alternative to Bush/Gore and would have actively sought out such a candidate to vote for.

Fourth I very clearly did not assume that ALL Reform and Libertarian voters would have voted for Bush!!!
If one accepts the GREEN PARTY'S own breakup (as supported by others) of how their own vote would break up, Gore would get a net gain of only 0.27% of the national vote. As you pointed out the Reform and Libertarian candidates 0.80% (approx) was small but ONLY about 40% of those would have had to show up and vote for Bush to make up the advantage Gore would have got  from Naders dropping out. Would 40% have DEF. done so, I don't know as don't YOU. Your argument that if they wanted to vote for Bush, they would have in the first place, applies just as well to Nader voters and Gore. U didn't think of that didja?? Cheesy

As I say we really don't know what would have happened but the conjecture is all the fun of being a political junkie and I think my post has at least dented the notion that Gore woulda definitely won but for Nader.
104  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:"Lock" on the Presidency??? on: November 28, 2003, 12:13:50 pm
I'm beginning to doubt if the Democrats can unseat Bush in 2004, especially considering they're behind in places like Minnesota! This is the sort of place they need to win just to break even! They really shouldn't be behind in Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota, these should be core Democratic states.
One thing I'm sure of, I predict the North East will swing to the Dems, even if the rest of the country goes the other way. I reckon Vermont, Mass & RI may give the Dems +60% or +70%. I also predict they'll gain New Hampshire off the GOP. This is one of the few states where the Republicans have lost support since 2000.

Which specific figures are you looking at, not that I necessarily disagree with any of the conclusions.
I'm especially interested in the time frame of your numbers because for example the GOP has a trifecta in New Hamp. only last year winning all congressional and senate seats up, retaining the legislature and electing a Governor....all with healthier margins than the last.

When does your info say the swing towards democrats have occured??
105  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re:1976 Election ("What if"-scenario) on: November 28, 2003, 05:18:34 am
Very Interesting angle. I do believe you are right about Ford not being able to run again in 1980.
As to who would have won, I'm gonna throw up my hands and admit defeat Smiley I have No Idea. Cheesy
106  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing? on: November 28, 2003, 05:13:19 am
Did you know that 10% of the American public would pay $5 to see Orrin Hatch fight a big mean dog on pay TV?

Over 80% would root for the dog!

(source: a real opinion poll published on TV Nation in 1995. MoE 9%)

Well I first considered being all outraged and upset, then I figured, What if the same question were asked about Ted Kennedy Grin
107  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:3rd (minor) parties in 2004: Any effect? on: November 28, 2003, 05:07:22 am
hmmm y'know this topic is like an onion Wink lets peel another layer and see if it makes anyone cry Tongue

Independent polling as well as research by the Green party itself showed that in excess of 50% of Nader voters in 2000 would not have voted AT ALL if there was no Green party candidate.

In addition they found that another 15-20% of Nader voters would otherwise have voted for the Libertarian candidate Harry Browne or (esp. if Browne were not there) even for BUSH. Yes yes I know that's ridiculous and all; I wouldnt have believed it myself if I didnt know a couple of Libertarians who voted for Nader because of his extreme social liberalism/libertarianism especially on Marijuana legalization etc. With Nader out of the equation, they disliked both major parties social stances almost equally but would have voted for Bush on economic issues (as the lesser of two evils)

The rest would have considered voting for Gore or maybe the nominee of another left/liberal party like Natural Law if that party(s) made themselves known as such.

Now with all the (non-voting) or (voting for another third party) folks taken out of the equation and taking away (subtracting) the votes (say 5% of total) that might have actually have gone to Bush; Gore is left with a NET gain of only 15-20% of Nader voters, tops.

Now I regrettably cannot complete my argument because I have no figures on how many Reform/Libertarian voters would not have voted and how many would have voted for Bush if their candidates did not run.

Given what I know of these parties and their voters I believe the Bush Net gain would have been enough to overcome the 15-20% net Gore would have got from Nader dropping out.

Thus I surmise that the presence of the Green, Reform and Libertarian third party candidates in the 2000 race ended up hurting Bush a lot more than Gore.

Will look forward to reading the enraged rebuttals. Tongue Wink


108  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion 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. Smiley
109  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion on: November 28, 2003, 03:54:27 am
Mikey welcome aboard, I too am much impressed with your analysis. Smiley
Got kinda Deja Vu feeling when I read ur state by state analysis Cheesy

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 Smiley
110  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign / Re:The amazing rise of the angry little doctor. on: November 27, 2003, 04:50:38 pm
Look... either you f*** off back to "Free" Republic or some other hell-hole, or you engage in serious discussion and stop clogging the board up with your partizan stupidity.

Thank you


Realpolitik, I must say I'm shocked at the above post. Quite frankly I would have expected more of you; that was quite beneath your level. Sad   I can only hope you were having a particularly bad day and this was an exception to the rule.

I don't want to be holier than thou. I myself have said far worse though not recently and never in this forum. I think I'm better than that now and this is a better forum with higher standards than most. I'd also like to think that we are all decent and intelligent human beings here and can work out differences like reasonable people.

Regarding partisanship, if there is anyone here who can confidently say "not a single one of my posts have a hint of partisanship in them or are anything but neutral", let him cast the first stone. Smiley
All of us have our strongly held views and we have expressed them in forms that are likely to have at the very least irritated others. Realpolitik (and I trust this doesnt provoke another string of invective) you aren't blameless either. You will have read some good natured ribbing from me when I felt you werent being too neutral and if you are as smart as I think you are, you will in hindsight have seen that there is a grain of truth in each. Wink

I have read M's post and while it was of course strongly stated I found nothing in it to provoke that reaction. That it would have irritated you ;certainly it would!! It did not irritate me. I found MORE than a little truth in it no matter how strongly stated.
Lets put the shoe on the other foot. Our friends, Migrendel and Bandit; you want to tell me that every post of theirs is a perfectly reasonable and neutral evaluation?? You probably dont. Smiley If you are so committed to a neutral forum how come you never said a word to either?? Could it be because (like M), they never said anything WAY over the top and more importantly you agreed with a lot of what they had to say though it may have been a little strongly stated for your taste??

Well I obviously do not agree with most of what they say, as do not most republicans on this forum. How do I deal with it? On days when I am in a bad mood I simply do not read their posts. I read them later (though with a pinch of salt Wink) because I want to be open to all ideas and learn about how very different people view things. Today I was happy to find an issue on which I totally agreed with Migrendel.
If on the other hand you feel you have nothing to gain from M's posts, here's an idea; dont read them!!
Or if you cant avoid that do what the forum rules state and report the message to moderator and let him decide. I trust Dave's judgment, dont you??

Anyways I've gone on for a long time on this but I felt it needed to be said. Smiley Smiley





111  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Clark/Dean Ticket on: November 27, 2003, 03:52:24 pm
Frankly I have heard a lot more praise of Edwards from northern liberals than from southern moderates or conservatives Smiley

There is a mistaken belief in the North that people down south will vote for any southern white who is articulate and not an all out liberal. eg. Clinton.
I dont believe thats true at all. I fact I know it isnt Cheesy

Edwards would be judged primarily on his policies and ideology more than his ability to "connect" to southern voters.
I admit he was able to do the latter in 1998 in North Carolina but now he has a Senate record and it aint pretty....not to Southern eyes anyway.
112  Election Archive / 2008 Elections / Re:2008 Predications on: November 27, 2003, 03:43:03 pm
There should never be a woman president. Men should always hold that high office. That Tradition needs to be upheld.
LOL!!! Oh my God! It's a good thing we don't have any women registered at this forum (at least I don't think we do). They would be all over that in an instant. That's a horrible sexist comment. However, I don't have room to complain, I once wrote a letter (as a joke, of course) bashing women. Here is an excerpt:
 
You know what a woman should be doing? She should be in the kitchen making something to eat! Or getting her husband a beer. Or making babies and or taking care of them. And giving their husbands lots of SEX. Woman should have no respectable place in society. Men are the dominant sex and for GOOD REASON!

Demrepdan:  Even though your letter was a joke you said, I do believe that Men are the Dominant Sex. However, Women should be placed upon pedestals by their Men.
     To all other Liberal Minded Thinkers and Stinkers, My remarks are NOT Sexist! But, us Men need to draw the line somewhere. Is there anything Sacred anymore?


err U guys are joking right?Huh Sorry I'm being a bit dull right now.......its 4am
113  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:The major geopolitical event factor on: November 27, 2003, 03:31:55 pm
I'd say its not the event itself (considering the events you mention) but Bush's reaction to them that would influence the 2000 race.
114  Questions and Answers / The Atlas / Re:Party Colors on: November 27, 2003, 03:30:01 pm
err Chris ol boy.....no idea whatsoever what ur talking about Smiley

When I say America is and should be different; I'm talking about putting faith in the abilities and potential of the common people, leaving money in the hands of private enterprise/wealth creators rather than government/wealth-spenders, encourage not discourage belief and trust in God etc etc
I support our being different for reasons that make us better than the rest; not being different on every minor point where we can be different. I also think we should call "French fries" French fries. Cheesy

115  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing? on: November 27, 2003, 03:26:29 pm
Thanks for the heads-up about the original purpose of the discussion. I'm usually the first one to point that out actually; though I've kinda given up on that of late Cheesy

I was motivated to make my emotional appeal by the fact that a lot of people whose opinions I respect seemed to take a view against the amendment. I decided to make one of a few exceptions to my policy of refraining from advocacy on this site to try and provide logical input that might change a mind or two.  

I hadn't heard that announcement from Sen. Hatch but I'm still going to be difficult Tongue and maintain that even if he did use Arnold as an example of a person who should have the right to run; it is not (as is being made out by some) a partisan move by a few republicans to make eligible a candidate whom they fancy.
I repeat my assertion that, "
Quote
With dozens of promising Presidential candidates for the future, many of who would be far more suitable to Sen. Hatch and the conservative base; it is absolutely illogical to think that Sen. Hatch and colleagues would be pushing this for Arnold's sake. Roll Eyes
"

As to the chances of its passing, I feel they are very good as it’s a bipartisan issue and supporters from both parties are likely to increase as foreign born US citizens and their family become informed about the issue and make clear to pollsters their support for it.  

Just FYI about how many the above category are; in September, the U.S. Census Bureau said the foreign-born population in the United States had grown to more than 33 million in 2002, a jump of 5 percent in one year, and accounted for nearly half the country's population growth last year. The foreign-born population accounted for 44 percent of the total U.S. population growth during the year.




116  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 User Predictions - Technical on: November 27, 2003, 03:14:47 pm
Well even though I had said earlier that simplicity was best; in this case, I do think the colors are a useful addition. Nice job Dave.  Smiley

I having been using the EV calculator a good bit and maintain its the best one I've used yet. I do not find the lack of a map to be a negative point at all.
However Dave, if like all techies you like to continually make improvements to your work Smiley I would suggest a horizontal bar graph depicting the new dem/rep totals

This is the only feature from Edwards EV calc on
http://www.johnedwards2004.com/map/

that I find could be a good addition here and even then its obviously not vital. Smiley
117  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:2004 User Predictions - Discussion 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/

118  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re:US Political junkies have a sense of humor too!! :-) on: November 27, 2003, 02:53:49 pm
Well since Demrep indulged in some own party bashing, I will do so too. I understand that John Asahcroft himself found this funny, so that makes it easier for me to use it. Tongue


    Mr. Ashcroft is spending the day at an elementary school and after the morning session fields questions from the children. Johnny raises his hand.
    "Mr. Ashcroft," he pipes up, "I have three questions for you: Why haven't we gotten Osama bin Laden yet? Why haven't we gotten Saddam Hussein yet? And doesn't the Patriot Act infringe on our civil liberties?"
    Before Mr. Ashcroft can answer, the recess bell rings and the children run out to the playground. When they return and sit back down, Susie raises her hand.
    "Mr. Ashcroft," she said, "I have five questions for you: Why haven't we gotten Osama bin Laden yet? Why haven't we gotten Saddam Hussein yet? Doesn't the Patriot Act infringe on our civil liberties? Why was recess 20 minutes early today? And where's Johnny?"
119  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:"Lock" on the Presidency??? on: November 27, 2003, 02:46:34 pm
Undecided voters will spilt about 75% against Bush. Remember that.

I'm aware of the Historical precedent for that but I do caution against making it gospel truth. Note you said "WILL" not "should or might".
120  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re:Have you moved left or Right as you grew older? :) on: November 27, 2003, 02:39:57 pm
I can empathise; the basic reason I turned against the democratic party a few years ago was its stance on basic economic policy. That so went against what I considered common sense and fair play I simply could not reconsile being a part of that party.

The GOP gained in my favor at the same time largely due to the same reason.
121  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re:Long term drift to the Democrats? on: November 27, 2003, 02:30:24 pm
If people in the US voted as Britons do, Connecticut would be the safest GOP state and Mississippi would be a Democrat landslide (80%+ Democrat).
You're assuming that poorer people will believe the Democrats when they claim to be "on their side".  It doesn't ring true when the US Senate is full of liberal Democrats that are millionaires.
One of my state's Senators, Dayton, is from an extrememly wealthy family.  How can he relate to a guy trying to start his own business?

All fine but in English's defence he did say "IF" Smiley
122  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re:A new "Solid South" ? on: November 27, 2003, 02:27:20 pm
You have to factor in the undecided who will spilt about 75% against an incumbent.

Also note that Florida is not typical of the rest of the South at all, in theory it should be one of the most GOP states in the South.

Lemme guess.....cause ov the ol "Rich should vote Republican" theory??

The same one that suggests Mississippi should be heavily democratic???

Well what the heck.... in this case it benefits my party. Smiley Realpolitik I'll be partisan and agree with you here. Florida should be SOLIDLY REPUBLICAN!!! Tongue Grin
123  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re:Ahnuld amendment: chances of passing? on: November 27, 2003, 02:19:49 pm
Well the unthinkable has occurred!!! :O :O
I actually find myself in complete agreement with Monsieur Migrendel Cheesy

For one the debate over allowing naturalized citizens to run for the highest office is not a new one by far and the idea that it was started to accommodate Arnold is ridiculous. It is being pushed by BOTH democrats and republicans and led by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) Lets lets say if there is ever an "Arnold for President" campaign; Hatch wont be one of its foremost backers. With dozens of promising Presidential candidates for the future, many of who would be far more suitable to Sen. Hatch and the conservative base; it is absolutely illogical to think that Hatch and colleagues would be pushing this for Arnold's sake.

No the issue that they are concerned about is treating all Americans as Americans. To say that naturalised citizens are unfit for certain office is to declare them in some way Second-Class Citizens. This is fundamentally un-American and unacceptable.

The current law makes so sense whatsoever. As things stand several known sympathizers of Al Quaida especially of Saudi origin are US citizens because they happen to have been born here while their parents were working in the US. On the other hand someone whose family came to the US when he/she was six months old, was brought up entirely American and maybe even has long service in the Armed forces is deemed unfit to run for President. Does this make sense to anyone???

There are thousands of Americans citizens who became so slightly late in life but are more loyal and committed to America than many of those born here. Many of these actually serve in the Armed forces and contribute considerably to American society. They account for a large section of the Hispanic population of America as well as Asian-Americans etc
Now I am all too aware that aside from one or two examples all of these would not be able to make a serious run for President in the near future. This is besides the point. It is a question of fundamental rights and privileges of these people that cannot be denied.

If for no other reason the current policy is odious because it assumes that people are unable to make an informed choice for President and must be protected from themselves by regulating who they are allowed to vote for in the first place.

Denial of the right to stand is an affront to both liberal and conservative principles and to the very idea of America herself. Fortunately I believe its days are numbered and one of the least notices but most grievous inequities of our system will soon come to an end.


I would support this amendment, not because of any adoration of Arnold, but because I think it fundamentally right to make naturalized citizens full members of our society. One does not choose their first homeland. It is an accident of birth. Yet one can choose to renounce that country because of a new-found allegiance to this one. If someone comes here, often against intense odds, puts the effort in to become a citizen, and wishes to lead after 20 years, that should be our right. It's a simple part of our national ethic of acceptance.
124  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re:Kentucky 2003 on: November 27, 2003, 12:42:45 am
I'm expecting a close race in terms of the popular vote.
I'm not so sure about the EC though.

I think it will be close but not Bush/Gore close.

If close is around 10% margin then yes it will be close but just think of how many states were won in 2000 by margins of <10% or just above. That's what makes politics exciting Wink It would be dreadfully bring if 40 states were likely to give one nominee or the other 20% margins.

In this case, My question would be, is there a realistic chance that in a reasonably close race, the democratic nominee can win Virginia. My answer is NO.

Btw since U just mentioned EC votes were you talking nation-wide?? In that case the race is bound to be close in terms of the popular vote. My read is that the nation is split 45-10-45 so the popular vote total will be close in any event.
125  Election Archive / 2004 U.S. Presidential Election / Re:Clark/Dean Ticket on: November 26, 2003, 02:30:40 pm
I think Clarke is Dean's main rival, so I don't think they would get along either.  Also, Clarke has a history of "going off the reservation" (just ask William Cohen, Clinton's Sec. of Defense). Dean needs someone submissive (politically speaking).  Maybe Sen Durbin (D-Ill)?



WOW!!! not one but TWO Northern liberals on the dem ticket. GO DEAN-DURBIN Cheesy Cheesy
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... 13


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines