Some random thoughts on the 2004 Election

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. Despite the dearest wishes of partisan jerks on both sides of the divide, the election remains a tossup and will almost certainly be decided by who can get their base (a quick reminder to some of you (again on both sides) the Democrats base is minorities and low income/blue collar workers. Not liberal yuppies... a very small % of the U.S population. If the Dems really were dependent on said yuppies they would be a minor party) out in competative states.

2. Logical results may be a thing of the past (let me correct that: logical results are a myth) and while in theory Kerry/Bush should be more likely to win state x he may have a better chance in state y, despite the 2000 results.

3. Expect upsets. Lot's and lot's of upsets

4. Small Town discontent (against both the current Federal Administration and against certain Governers) adds an interesting dimension to the races in several states. Ignore Small Town discontent at you're peril.

5. The level of debate (and analysis) in this forum has dropped a lot recently (Phillip and Nomo being the worst offenders. Could you two just go back to the mother ship now?) and while it's better than media analysis... that's not exactly an impressive feat.
Hopefully things will start to improve soon...

6. Polling firms that only give the headline figures (and no regional/demographic stuff) really, really irritate me.

7. More random thoughts will appear here soon...

[mddem2004]

I agree with most of what you said....

Some randomness of my own:

1) 1st time voters Gore bested Bush in 2000 52% - 43%, Nader 5%. With Nader a largely has-been campaign, the internet coming into its own in politics, the fact that 18-24 year olds are dying for non-existant WMD's in Iraq.....look for that differential to become even wider. In 2000 1st time voters accounted for 9% of the electorate, this year I predict at least a 2% to 3% increase....

2) Hate to say it....but if true..... there is only Bush to blame....but.....Things are getting ALOT worse in Iraq than we poor lambs that watch the major media outlets. Example: Of all the attention that was given to the fighting around Najef last month....only 10% of the casualties came from that fighting. Septembers death toll is on track to become the second deadliest month since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished". If you listed closley, long time military analysts are saying in effect "there is no solution on the ground in Iraq".

It has been acknowledged that in October there will be what amounts to an insurgent offensive.

Iraq will come storming back into the headlines soon enough.....and that can't be helpful for Bush.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

8. The Media is biased... in favour of ratings, their owners and occasionally political viewpoints. To claim that the Media is uniformly liberal is ridiculous.

[Angel of Death]

I dare say there won't be a landslide. The country is too much polarized for that to happen.

[A18]

The actual companies aren't biased towards liberal, in fact, probably the other way around...but poll after poll shows that the actual reporters are overwhelmingly liberal.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The actual companies aren't biased towards liberal, in fact, probably the other way around...but poll after poll shows that the actual reporters are overwhelmingly liberal.

No... they show that most reporters are socially liberal. How much of the media is Pro-Labor or Anti-NAFTA?

[Democratic Hawk]

You make some very good points Al.

While national polls give the President a c.6% lead, the state polls show that the race is still very tight.

The last thing the Democrats should do is lose heart because the game is still very much in play.

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

9. Most national polls aren't worth the paper they're printed on... whether Bush is up 2 pts, 4 pts, 5 pts or 11pts (hah!) at this stage is immaterial... and isn't a lot of use come election day either.
America is in effect a union of 50 very different countries and this is reflected by the Electoral Collage system.
The main purpose of national polls is to create headlines.

[minionofmidas]

8. The Media is biased... in favour of ratings, their owners and occasionally political viewpoints. To claim that the Media is uniformly liberal is ridiculous.

At the very, very most, it's biased towards the most moderate bit of the Democratic party - what would be center-right virtually everywhere else.

[CollectiveInterest]

I'm looking for this cycle to be rougher for incumbents than recent cycles.

[Nym90]

8. The Media is biased... in favour of ratings, their owners and occasionally political viewpoints. To claim that the Media is uniformly liberal is ridiculous.

At the very, very most, it's biased towards the most moderate bit of the Democratic party - what would be center-right virtually everywhere else.

The media, like every other business in America, is biased in favor of ratings. They want to make money. They will put anything and everything out on the air if they think it will make them money. They don't care about anything else but that. Plain and simple.

[AuH2O]

The NYT and many other major news sources are openly supporting Kerry (i.e. the endore him or make it plain otherwise). So, clearly they have the net effect of helping Democrats, or at least of trying to help them.

Main point: people make too much of the electoral college, geographic differences, etc. It's really a national vote, and the popular vote almost never disagrees with the electoral vote (2000 was the only time in the 20th century, I believe).

There is no compelling reason to think the election will be particularly close. What happened in 2000 means little in terms of 2004. I doubt Kerry could win big, but Bush could.

Underlying the race is the strength of the candidates; Bush is an incumbent who is otherwise unspectacular; Kerry is a terrible, terrible candidate. His campaign is being run by people that may or may not want him to really win (Carville, Begala)- because they want Hillary to the nominee in 2008.

The election isn't "over;" technically, it hasn't really started. But the fundamental components of the race have remained the same since Edwards was picked as Kerry's VP candidate... and those favor Bush heavily. In an equally well-run race, Bush would win by 3-5%. Any over or under is probably the work of the campaigns and/or outside events.

[Gabu]

Main point: people make too much of the electoral college, geographic differences, etc. It's really a national vote, and the popular vote almost never disagrees with the electoral vote (2000 was the only time in the 20th century, I believe).

Not really; it depends on what you're looking for.  1888 was the last time before 2000 that the winner of the popular vote did not win the electoral college vote, but the two rarely agree on anything other than the winner.  The following is a list of popular vote portions and electoral college vote portions for every election in the 20th century:

(Year - Portion of popular vote - Portion of electoral college vote)

2000 - 47.9% - 50.4%
1996 - 49.2% - 70.5%
1992 - 42.9% - 68.8%
1988 - 53.4% - 79.2%
1984 - 58.8% - 97.6%
1980 - 50.9% - 90.9%
1976 - 50.1% - 55.2%
1972 - 60.7% - 96.7%
1968 - 43.2% - 55.9%
1964 - 61.0% - 90.3%
1960 - 49.7% - 56.4%
1956 - 57.4% - 81.4%
1952 - 55.3% - 82.3%
1948 - 49.7% - 56.4%
1944 - 53.5% - 81.4%
1940 - 54.8% - 84.5%
1936 - 60.8% - 98.5%
1932 - 57.7% - 88.9%
1928 - 58.2% - 83.6%
1924 - 54.0% - 71.9%
1920 - 60.6% - 76.1%
1916 - 49.4% - 52.2%
1912 - 41.9% - 81.9%
1908 - 52.0% - 59.8%
1904 - 56.4% - 70.6%
1900 - 51.7% - 65.3%

The average discrepancy between the portion of the electoral college vote and the popular vote is 21.8%.  In every single election the electoral college vote portion was higher (and often much higher) than the popular vote portion.

The popular vote is very rarely a good indicator at all of how big the margin of victory will be.  If you purely want to know who the winner is (or rather, is likely to be), then the national vote works.  However, since the electoral college is what the election is ultimately decided by, if you really want to be 100% sure regarding who's winning at the current time and by how much, the electoral college is the best thing to look at.  The popular vote may be an indicator of who will win the election, but it's not a very good predictor of anything beyond that.  Of course, it might not even be an indicator of who will win: four times in America's past it was not (2000, 1888, 1876, 1824).

[struct310]

1. Despite the dearest wishes of partisan jerks on both sides of the divide, the election remains a tossup and will almost certainly be decided by who can get their base (a quick reminder to some of you (again on both sides) the Democrats base is minorities and low income/blue collar workers. Not liberal yuppies... a very small % of the U.S population. If the Dems really were dependent on said yuppies they would be a minor party) out in competative states.

2. Logical results may be a thing of the past (let me correct that: logical results are a myth) and while in theory Kerry/Bush should be more likely to win state x he may have a better chance in state y, despite the 2000 results.

3. Expect upsets. Lot's and lot's of upsets

4. Small Town discontent (against both the current Federal Administration and against certain Governers) adds an interesting dimension to the races in several states. Ignore Small Town discontent at you're peril.

5. The level of debate (and analysis) in this forum has dropped a lot recently (Phillip and Nomo being the worst offenders. Could you two just go back to the mother ship now?) and while it's better than media analysis... that's not exactly an impressive feat.
Hopefully things will start to improve soon...

6. Polling firms that only give the headline figures (and no regional/demographic stuff) really, really irritate me.

7. More random thoughts will appear here soon...

And this is why Washington state will vote republican this year.
1)people assume wa is all liberal yuppies
3)big upset potential
4)governor locke is hated, and the gov race is a tossup with potential bush coattails
6)washington is regionally favorable to bush, regionally bush recieved more support, but gore got good turnout in seattle and eastern wa.  this good dem turnout will not occur this time, rep turnout will.