Why Bush will win
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 12:21:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  Why Bush will win
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6
Author Topic: Why Bush will win  (Read 17221 times)
StevenNick
StevenNick99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2004, 12:17:50 AM »


Democrats are starting to talk about the Bush Deficit Tax and the Bush State Tax.  They say that the high deficits will cause higher tax burdens on future generations and that therefore the tax reductions are ephemeral. Same with the State Tax argument. Less money to bail states out, so they raise state tax rates by the same amounts as federal income taxes fall.  I think it's about the best argument the Dems could come up with, and I don't think voters will think much of it.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats cannot logically condemn both tax cuts and deficit spending.  If, as many of the democrats currently running for president have openly stated, the economy can be revived by government "pump priming" and public works programs, then the only real problem with the Bush teams deficits is that they are not big enough.  If they truly believe that a balanced budget has some kind of inherent value, they must not subscribe to the Keynesian view of economics.  If they do not subscribe to Keynesian economics, why aren't they in favor of tax cuts as a means of stimulating economic growth?
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2004, 05:15:20 AM »

No, Democrats can logically oppose both tax cuts and deficit spending. The tax cuts are what is causing the deficit, so the Democrats say get rid of the tax cuts to balance the budget, which will help the economy in the long run. Massive amounts of debt will eventually have to be repaid back with interest, so in the long run this will hurt both the economy and the availability of government programs. Of course, as I've stated before, I think that's exactly what the GOP is hoping for. The Republicans think that when forced to choose, people would rather have lower taxes than more spending, so they are deliberately trying to force the issue with a game of political chicken in the hopes that the Dems will blink first and agree to cut spending in order to balance the budget.

You used a fairly circular logic in your argument. The Democrats aren't supporting Keynesian economics, true, but you fail to see that Keynesianism and supply-side aren't the only economic alternatives. Democrats instead believe in increasing government spending on social programs to boost the economy and the standard of living of the poor and middle class, and raising taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget and pay for the social programs. Yes, Bush is practicing pseudo-Keynesian economics by cutting taxes and increasing spending (although I think his real intent is to starve the government of money in an attempt to try to force spending cuts which otherwise would not be politically feasible), but one must remember that the main focus of Keynesianism was on the demand side of the ecomomic equation; increasing spending to get the economy going, decreasing it if the economy grows too fast so as to curb inflation. This makes more sense than supply-side because demand tends to create supply in a capitalistic economy much more than supply will create demand.

Also, while the arguments that state taxes will have to be raised to make up for federal revenue shortfalls and that future tax rates will have to be higher due to massive deficits may indeed be too esoteric for the general populace to grasp, it doesn't make them any less true.

Yes, one can argue whether or not government should attempt to force morality on rich people in the form of taking some of their money away, just as one can argue any other attempt by government to enforce morality. However, in this case there is a vested societal interest in redistributing a certain degree of income from the wealthy while still leaving them with a lot of money left over, and most rich people won't voluntarily donate large sums of money to charity or other worthy causes if they are allowed to keep the money from lower tax rates.

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that Democrats have no limit whatsoever on how high they want to raise taxes, or anything like that. That would be as silly as me suggesting that Republicans have no limit as to how much to cut taxes for the rich, and they won't be satisfied until the rich pay no taxes at all. None of the Democratic candidates have proposed raising taxes to any higher level than they were under Clinton. Even the most ardent conservative would still have to admit that the economy boomed in the 1990's despite the tax increases. I think it was because of them, but even if you don't think so, they certainly at least didn't stop the economy from booming. It's kind of funny to go back to the budget debates of 1993 in which not a single Republican voted for Clinton's economic plan, and read some of the statements from Republicans about how Clinton's policies were going to throw the nation into a depression and do nothing at all to help with the deficits. But anyways, clearly the Clinton tax rates were at a bare minimum not an impediment to strong economic growth, and thus I don't see how going back to those rates now could be expected to hurt the economy.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: January 12, 2004, 08:41:08 AM »

No, Democrats can logically oppose both tax cuts and deficit spending. The tax cuts are what is causing the deficit, so the Democrats say get rid of the tax cuts to balance the budget, which will help the economy in the long run. Massive amounts of debt will eventually have to be repaid back with interest, so in the long run this will hurt both the economy and the availability of government programs. Of course, as I've stated before, I think that's exactly what the GOP is hoping for. The Republicans think that when forced to choose, people would rather have lower taxes than more spending, so they are deliberately trying to force the issue with a game of political chicken in the hopes that the Dems will blink first and agree to cut spending in order to balance the budget.

You used a fairly circular logic in your argument. The Democrats aren't supporting Keynesian economics, true, but you fail to see that Keynesianism and supply-side aren't the only economic alternatives. Democrats instead believe in increasing government spending on social programs to boost the economy and the standard of living of the poor and middle class, and raising taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget and pay for the social programs. Yes, Bush is practicing pseudo-Keynesian economics by cutting taxes and increasing spending (although I think his real intent is to starve the government of money in an attempt to try to force spending cuts which otherwise would not be politically feasible), but one must remember that the main focus of Keynesianism was on the demand side of the ecomomic equation; increasing spending to get the economy going, decreasing it if the economy grows too fast so as to curb inflation. This makes more sense than supply-side because demand tends to create supply in a capitalistic economy much more than supply will create demand.

Also, while the arguments that state taxes will have to be raised to make up for federal revenue shortfalls and that future tax rates will have to be higher due to massive deficits may indeed be too esoteric for the general populace to grasp, it doesn't make them any less true.

Yes, one can argue whether or not government should attempt to force morality on rich people in the form of taking some of their money away, just as one can argue any other attempt by government to enforce morality. However, in this case there is a vested societal interest in redistributing a certain degree of income from the wealthy while still leaving them with a lot of money left over, and most rich people won't voluntarily donate large sums of money to charity or other worthy causes if they are allowed to keep the money from lower tax rates.

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that Democrats have no limit whatsoever on how high they want to raise taxes, or anything like that. That would be as silly as me suggesting that Republicans have no limit as to how much to cut taxes for the rich, and they won't be satisfied until the rich pay no taxes at all. None of the Democratic candidates have proposed raising taxes to any higher level than they were under Clinton. Even the most ardent conservative would still have to admit that the economy boomed in the 1990's despite the tax increases. I think it was because of them, but even if you don't think so, they certainly at least didn't stop the economy from booming. It's kind of funny to go back to the budget debates of 1993 in which not a single Republican voted for Clinton's economic plan, and read some of the statements from Republicans about how Clinton's policies were going to throw the nation into a depression and do nothing at all to help with the deficits. But anyways, clearly the Clinton tax rates were at a bare minimum not an impediment to strong economic growth, and thus I don't see how going back to those rates now could be expected to hurt the economy.
Ah, but what Nym90 fails to understand is that demand on consumer goods and services increase cost for those items, which puts a strain on consumers and the economy. I don't see how increasing demand will create a better economy much at all. However, if there is increased supply, and not as much demand, prices drop, people will buy, not increasing demand, but buying what's already on stock. Consumers, sometimes will purposely not buy a new product/service intentionally, just to wait for the high prices to drop. I've done it myself. Once a good or service has been available for some time, the high market price will drop, opening the door for more people to be able to afford it. And my theory does hold much truth to it. Some of my prescriptions used to go as high as $280 for a 30 day supply, when they were first released for public use, those scripts have had a fairly nice drop in price, in just over 1 and 1/2 years. Now that $280 drug price has dropped to $187 for a 30 day supply.
     Care to elaborate further your theory of Demand v. Supply there Nym90.
     I still support you fully for the Nomination.
Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: January 12, 2004, 05:32:16 PM »

No, Democrats can logically oppose both tax cuts and deficit spending. The tax cuts are what is causing the deficit, so the Democrats say get rid of the tax cuts to balance the budget, which will help the economy in the long run. Massive amounts of debt will eventually have to be repaid back with interest, so in the long run this will hurt both the economy and the availability of government programs. Of course, as I've stated before, I think that's exactly what the GOP is hoping for. The Republicans think that when forced to choose, people would rather have lower taxes than more spending, so they are deliberately trying to force the issue with a game of political chicken in the hopes that the Dems will blink first and agree to cut spending in order to balance the budget.

You used a fairly circular logic in your argument. The Democrats aren't supporting Keynesian economics, true, but you fail to see that Keynesianism and supply-side aren't the only economic alternatives. Democrats instead believe in increasing government spending on social programs to boost the economy and the standard of living of the poor and middle class, and raising taxes on the wealthy in order to balance the budget and pay for the social programs. Yes, Bush is practicing pseudo-Keynesian economics by cutting taxes and increasing spending (although I think his real intent is to starve the government of money in an attempt to try to force spending cuts which otherwise would not be politically feasible), but one must remember that the main focus of Keynesianism was on the demand side of the ecomomic equation; increasing spending to get the economy going, decreasing it if the economy grows too fast so as to curb inflation. This makes more sense than supply-side because demand tends to create supply in a capitalistic economy much more than supply will create demand.

Also, while the arguments that state taxes will have to be raised to make up for federal revenue shortfalls and that future tax rates will have to be higher due to massive deficits may indeed be too esoteric for the general populace to grasp, it doesn't make them any less true.

Yes, one can argue whether or not government should attempt to force morality on rich people in the form of taking some of their money away, just as one can argue any other attempt by government to enforce morality. However, in this case there is a vested societal interest in redistributing a certain degree of income from the wealthy while still leaving them with a lot of money left over, and most rich people won't voluntarily donate large sums of money to charity or other worthy causes if they are allowed to keep the money from lower tax rates.

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that Democrats have no limit whatsoever on how high they want to raise taxes, or anything like that. That would be as silly as me suggesting that Republicans have no limit as to how much to cut taxes for the rich, and they won't be satisfied until the rich pay no taxes at all. None of the Democratic candidates have proposed raising taxes to any higher level than they were under Clinton. Even the most ardent conservative would still have to admit that the economy boomed in the 1990's despite the tax increases. I think it was because of them, but even if you don't think so, they certainly at least didn't stop the economy from booming. It's kind of funny to go back to the budget debates of 1993 in which not a single Republican voted for Clinton's economic plan, and read some of the statements from Republicans about how Clinton's policies were going to throw the nation into a depression and do nothing at all to help with the deficits. But anyways, clearly the Clinton tax rates were at a bare minimum not an impediment to strong economic growth, and thus I don't see how going back to those rates now could be expected to hurt the economy.
Ah, but what Nym90 fails to understand is that demand on consumer goods and services increase cost for those items, which puts a strain on consumers and the economy. I don't see how increasing demand will create a better economy much at all. However, if there is increased supply, and not as much demand, prices drop, people will buy, not increasing demand, but buying what's already on stock. Consumers, sometimes will purposely not buy a new product/service intentionally, just to wait for the high prices to drop. I've done it myself. Once a good or service has been available for some time, the high market price will drop, opening the door for more people to be able to afford it. And my theory does hold much truth to it. Some of my prescriptions used to go as high as $280 for a 30 day supply, when they were first released for public use, those scripts have had a fairly nice drop in price, in just over 1 and 1/2 years. Now that $280 drug price has dropped to $187 for a 30 day supply.
     Care to elaborate further your theory of Demand v. Supply there Nym90.
     I still support you fully for the Nomination.
Does anyone else care to elaborate? I really want to hear/read your views.
Logged
dazzleman
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,777
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2004, 10:39:56 PM »

"Get rid of tax cuts" means increase taxes.

I don't really agree that the tax cuts are causing the deficits, and that tax increases would necessarily cure the deficit.  Economics is often counterintuitive.

The deficit is caused by a combination of decreased revenues due to the economic slowdown, decreased revenues (in the short run) due to the tax cuts, and massively increased spending.

While the Democrats generally did not favor the tax cuts, there is no record of Democrats fighting spending increases, unless of course that spending is for defense.

The tax cuts are an attempt to pump up the economy in order to produce larger revenues in the future.  Keep in mind also that since states require balanced budgets, the entire burden of stimulating the economy falls to the federal government.

As far as the mix between spending and tax cuts as a means of stimulus, you could debate that forever.  This administration has done both.  I tend to favor tax cuts because it is very difficult to bring increased spending under control again.  Once a program is created, the need for it develops, and it's very hard to ever make it go away.

Logged
CHRISTOPHER MICHAE
Guest
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: January 12, 2004, 11:53:09 PM »

dazzleman, I do agree with you that once a program is created it is damn near impossible to eliminate. I was taught that throughout my Political Science Undergrad studies.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2004, 10:54:07 AM »
« Edited: January 13, 2004, 10:55:49 AM by Nym90 »

Yes, I agree that cutting spending is probably more politically unpopular than raising taxes, although tax cuts are hard to reverse as well.

True, the deficits are caused by a number of factors, one of which is clearly the lagging economy. I agree with all of the factors you listed as being reasons, but I still think the tax cuts are the biggest reason. Of course it's impossible to prove either way since there are so many variables.

Yes, the Democrats mostly opposed the tax cuts, but quite a few did support them, many more than the number of Republicans who supported Clinton's economic program (which was literally ZERO, in both the Senate and House). At least some of the Dems were willing to give Bush a chance.

Yes, states require a balanced budget, which is negating some of the effects of the tax cuts as state governments are being forced to either increase taxes or drastically cut spending to get their budgets to balance. So overall, taxes aren't going down nearly as much for people as they appear to be. And likewise, social programs are being cut, just not at the federal level. Also, many states are drastically increasing other revenue sources such as user fees, which are really just hidden taxes.

That's the main reason why I would oppose a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, I trust legislators to make the right decisions regarding budgeting and then trust the people to throw them out of office if they don't want deficits. It's better to allow the flexibility to deal with problems as they arise. Deficits aren't always bad, they are necessary in some situations. However, they are always bad in the long term, so any short term benefit must be weighed against long term consequences.

As for demand side vs. supply side economics, the reason that I feel that demand is more important than supply is because if sufficient demand exists for a product, businesses will produce more of it to increase their profits, and new businesses will sprout up to sell more of the product, as well. That's the nature of capitalism, supply will follow demand. Creating supply when little demand exists, however, will not lead to an increase in demand for the product if one did not already exist. If people don't want something, they won't start buying it just because it gets cheap enough. But, if people want to buy a product, in capitalism there will always be businesses racing to produce more of it since the potential for profit is clear. Supply can create demand to a certain extent if low prices causes people to buy, but if they don't want to buy, it's not going to have much of an effect. So supply can create demand, if prices are exorbinant and that is substantially driving demand which would otherwise exist, but prices would have to get to be quite high before cutting prices would result in greater profits, so overall the ability for demand to create supply is much greater than the ability of supply to create demand.

You can think of government fiscal policy the same way you can think of running a business to a certain extent, in terms of that a business will make more profit in the long run by producing a high quality expensive product than by producing a low quality cheap product.
Logged
00tim
Rookie
**
Posts: 24


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2004, 12:33:58 PM »

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway. Smiley
No problem. I am a fiscally conservative morally moderate independant. By fiscally conservative I mean not entirely a supply sider but that the people's money comes first before the gov't and I feel that we as a society are taxed enough. budget cuts should come first and if there is a tax raise I think the gov't should provide something with it not just more money for the gov't. As for moral issues I feel that this country needs to continue to explore alternatives and to seek ground that is good for as much of the majority as practical. However, I feel that recently those on the liberal side have gone too far with moral issues and in an attempt to "not offend" anyone we are starting to lose individuality. I think we should welcome people of faith to be able to dislpay and share their beliefs, just as we should with any and all cultures so long as the practices and rituals are not defammatory or injurious in nature, of course. I think that people should be able to say Merry Christmas without worrying about others rights. I think Children should be able to participate in voluntary prayer and the schools should welcome this because it is "voluntary" We should continue to strive for culteral diversity and freedom, not take it all away.
Lately I have ben siding more with Republicans although I have some serious issues with the party. If GW Bush wins fine what I'm more concerned with right now is that I feel that the democratic party is teetering on implosion and that will leave the Republicans with too much control. For all of these reasons and various others I am an independant.   Although I often score on a libertarian side with the ploitical identity polls I don't really consider myself one.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: January 13, 2004, 12:47:37 PM »

This is really off topic, but would it be allright for those of you who are independents to have a signature that tells us what kind of independents you are? There are two independents from NY, and I keep mixing you up! It's easier to understand the points if I can distiguish between green independents and libertarian ones. You don't have to, if you don't want to, of course, but I would appreciate it, anyway. Smiley
No problem. I am a fiscally conservative morally moderate independant. By fiscally conservative I mean not entirely a supply sider but that the people's money comes first before the gov't and I feel that we as a society are taxed enough. budget cuts should come first and if there is a tax raise I think the gov't should provide something with it not just more money for the gov't. As for moral issues I feel that this country needs to continue to explore alternatives and to seek ground that is good for as much of the majority as practical. However, I feel that recently those on the liberal side have gone too far with moral issues and in an attempt to "not offend" anyone we are starting to lose individuality. I think we should welcome people of faith to be able to dislpay and share their beliefs, just as we should with any and all cultures so long as the practices and rituals are not defammatory or injurious in nature, of course. I think that people should be able to say Merry Christmas without worrying about others rights. I think Children should be able to participate in voluntary prayer and the schools should welcome this because it is "voluntary" We should continue to strive for culteral diversity and freedom, not take it all away.
Lately I have ben siding more with Republicans although I have some serious issues with the party. If GW Bush wins fine what I'm more concerned with right now is that I feel that the democratic party is teetering on implosion and that will leave the Republicans with too much control. For all of these reasons and various others I am an independant.   Although I often score on a libertarian side with the ploitical identity polls I don't really consider myself one.

Sounds like you're close to me then! Smiley Thanks for the answers, I will try to remember which is which now.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: January 14, 2004, 11:50:11 AM »

encouraging signs in California for President Bush!.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7705225.htm
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: January 14, 2004, 11:32:44 PM »

If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: January 14, 2004, 11:41:15 PM »

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.


If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: January 26, 2004, 03:29:14 PM »

Bush: Bin Laden Aide Is Caught in Iraq    

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The minister in charge of Iraqi police said Monday that al-Qaida was probably behind some suicide bombings in Iraq (news - web sites), and President Bush (news - web sites) praised the capture of a senior member of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s network.

"There is a presence of al-Qaida in this country. We've announced that directly and indirectly," Interior Minister Nouri Badran said.

"A lot of the suicide attacks have the fingerprints of the crimes committed by al-Qaida," he added. Asked if al-Qaida is operating in Iraq, he said: "Yes, it is."

But he provided no evidence to back his claim. There was no immediate comment from U.S. military commanders.

During a visit to Little Rock, Ark., on Monday, Bush said Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq last week.

"He was a killer. He was moving money and messages around South Asia and the Middle East to other al-Qaida leaders. He was a part of this network of haters that we're dismantling," Bush said.

Iraq has witnessed a number of devastating suicide vehicle attacks since the ouster of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime in April — attacks aimed at both coalition forces and their Iraqi allies.

A few non-Iraqi Arab and foreign fighters have been detained or killed in Iraq since the fall of Baghdad, but coalition forces have been reluctant to clearly say if they were part of or directly linked to al-Qaida.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: January 26, 2004, 10:57:48 PM »

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.


If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: January 27, 2004, 01:13:13 PM »

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.


If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579


I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: January 27, 2004, 01:31:36 PM »

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.


If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579


I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: January 27, 2004, 01:35:58 PM »

Can you post links when you post polls, thanks.

Yes and if Bush makes these states competitive it helps down ticket for state govt and congress and senate also.


If Bush maintains a lead in CA, there is no way Dean or any other Democrat can win.
Even if Bush is just close in CA the Democrats will have to divert vast amounts of money and time to hold CA, limiting their chances of success in other states.
Besides the surpisingly large lead over Dean in CA (16%), Bush also leads in another Democratic must win state: MI by 17%
sure:

The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research, finds Bush winning a majority of votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579


I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  


Heh...this is the 4th time this site is posted on the forum, but it never fails to give positive reactions each time... Smiley

I suppose you like it b/c it seems so encouraging to the Reos. Let me just remind you that some of them has a lot of undecided, and those usually go against the incumbant. States where Bush is polling below 45% now are not that likely to vote for him in Novemeber. But I agree that Bush chances are looking pretty good right now.
Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: January 27, 2004, 02:38:35 PM »

exactly! we win OHIO it is over.  I do like that site though for many polls.

Polls were from jan 12 though and before IA.


www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like this site Gustaf - most encouraging of all was Bush's strong showing in Ohio polling.  

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: January 27, 2004, 09:01:14 PM »

[
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: January 27, 2004, 09:04:02 PM »

Hey I wonder what happened to my post above?

Here's a repost:
The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote:
 

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote:
 

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: January 28, 2004, 04:14:22 AM »

Hey I wonder what happened to my post above?

Here's a repost:
The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote:
 

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote:
 

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: January 28, 2004, 02:32:16 PM »

Hey I wonder what happened to my post above?

Here's a repost:
The survey, conducted by Probolsky Research in early January, finds Bush winning a majority of MI votes, or 50.9 percent. Dean garnered 35.4 percent, while 3.7 percent of respondents would choose a candidate other than Bush or Dean. Ten percent said they were not sure.  MOE 4% Conducted in both English and Spanish, the poll included the responses of 625 Californians
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36579

Quote:
 

I have seen polls giving the Dems the lead in Michigan.

www.dcpoliticalreport.com/2004/polls04.htm
Quote:
 

Yes, but those polls are 5 and 9 months out of date, as the cmapaign moves forward its likley voters will pay more attention and solidfy their opinions.  So far evey poll I've seen shows voters pick an unnamed Democrat more often than a named Democrat.  Perhaps the more voters get to know Democrats the more they prefer Bush

Dean is not the nominee anymore, and Kerry is a much stronger candidate. I expect California and Michigan both to vote clearly for Kerry. He will break 200 EVs.

I think you're about right - 200 to around 230 is Kerry's potential.  The most realistic looking contributed maps are at about that level.  But I don't think Kerry is that much more likely to actually win than Dean.  He'll just lose less badly, and I'm not sure how that will matter.  Will it mean a smaller increase in the Republican Senate majority?  I don't see how.

Logged
jravnsbo
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,888


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: January 28, 2004, 02:35:15 PM »

Honestly I like Kerry better for GOP win than Dean.  Dean has the potential to try and look moderate with record from VT.  Kerry is a liberal, was a liberal and always will be a liberal.

Love it.  I'd rather they nominate kerry than Dean.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: January 28, 2004, 03:00:29 PM »

Honestly I like Kerry better for GOP win than Dean.  Dean has the potential to try and look moderate with record from VT.  Kerry is a liberal, was a liberal and always will be a liberal.

Love it.  I'd rather they nominate kerry than Dean.

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: January 28, 2004, 03:09:26 PM »

Yeah, right. You keep saying that about everyone in the Dem field. Dean was a bit of a wierdo, Kerry has better appeal, as well as the whole vet thing. He's a stronger candidate, I'm pretty sure of that.

How is Kerry stronger?:

He has a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy.  

He is not going to win a single state in the South in a 50/50 election.

The NRA is going to come after him BIGTIME.

As gays travel to Mass to get married and return to their home states to demand recognition, Mass will be constantly in the news and that will reflect badly on Kerry.

His war record will be met with his anti-defense voting record and Jane Fonda protest ties.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.077 seconds with 13 queries.