Election Odds

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nov 2, 2003

12 Months until election day, and I'll boost Bush's chances at reelection to 65% from 60%.

Barring a major geopolitical event (30% chance) or scandal (5% chance), Bush is a shoe-in for reelection.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dec 2, 2003

11 Months until election day, and I'll boost Bush's chances at reelection to 75% from 65%.

Barring a major geopolitical event (25% chance) or scandal (<1% chance), Bush is a shoe-in for reelection.

The economy in 2004 has an excellent chance of having the highest GDP growth since 1984 and will add at least 2.5M new jobs.

If Dean wins Iowa and NH, which I expect, then Bush's reelection chances should look like this:
Feb 2004 - 90%
March 2004 - 91%
April 2004 - 92%
May 2004 - 93%
June 2004 - 94%
July 2004 - 95%
Aug 2004 - 96%
Sept 2004 - 97%
Oct 2004 - 98%
Nov 2, 2004 - 99%

Barring a major geopolitical event or scandal, Dean has <1% chance of beating Bush in 2004.

I'll also place the GOP's chance of gaining a super-majority in the Senate at 5%.  If an opening in the SCOTUS becomes available with Bush nominating a Hispanic, then I'll boost the GOP chances to 25%.  If the Dems filibuster a Hispanic SCOTUS nominee, then I'll boost the GOP super-majority chances to 50%.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nym,

thanks for the reply.  

I think Hispanics would be up in arms (with maybe even some riots taking place) if the Dems filibuster a Hispanic SCOTUS nominee.  80% of Hispanics supported Estrada this last time around.  Also, the issues of gay marriage and partial birth abortion are unpopular among Hispanics.

CA & NY Senate seats could be won by the GOP if the Hispanics vote 60% for the GOP; also Daschle could be dumpted in SD when it is clear the Dems can't win the Senate.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Roberts was never asked for sensitive work product memos and papers that NO ATTORNEY has to give up, but Estrada was and that is what the Dems hung their hat on.  Also 4 Democrat US Attorney Generals , DEMOCRATS! came out and sai that to give up or even to ask for these papers was outrageous!

The only time these papers have been looked through is in the case the government is investigating itself for criminal activity.....they treated Estrada like a criminal!  That alone justifies Estrada playing the race card - he is being treated differently because he is a GOP Hispanic nominee.

That's why, if I were Bush, I would nominate Estrada for the SCOTUS if a spot becomes available in the Spring of 2004.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I predict a Democratic Sweep in the State Houses and in the Congress. Even if Bush gets re-elected, he'll have to deal with a Democratic Majority in Both Houses of Congress.

And I predict you'll be looking for a spider-hole to craw into on Nov 3 2004.

The liberal’s hatred of both truth and morality will not win in Nov 2004.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dec 2, 2003

11 Months until election day, and I'll boost Bush's chances at reelection to 75% from 65%.

Barring a major geopolitical event (25% chance) or scandal (<1% chance), Bush is a shoe-in for reelection.

Now it's almost 10 months until election day, and I'm going to raise the chance of a major geopolitical event (such as another terrorist attack on the US) to 35% from 25%.  Therefore, Im going to lower Bush's chances to 65% from 75%.

Dem nomination:
Dean 75%
Clark 15%
Geph 5%
Other 5%

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<Why do you say a terorist attack is mor likely now?  And do you think another terrorist attack will help Bush or hurt him?>>

The Feds seem pretty worried, so I boosted the chances of another attack.

If the homeland were hit again, I think Bush could be in real trouble because Dean could argue that Bush was distracted by Iraq.  Also, another large scale attack would kill the economic recovery.

I think the earlier the attack, the more danger for Bush.  But, if an attack occurs in Oct 2004, then I think it would help Bush.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Now it's almost 9 1/2 months until election day, and I'm going to raise the chance of a major geopolitical event (such as another terrorist attack on the US or on the troops in Iraq) to 50% from 35%.  So, Im going to lower Bush's chances to 60% from 65%.

Dem nomination:
Dean 65%
Clark 25%
Geph 5%
Other 5%

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'd say that Bush has a 50-55% chance of winning re-election, and the Democratic nomination could go several ways.

Excluding terrorists attacks, I'd put Bush's chances right now at 90%.  No president has even lost reelection during rapid economic expansion.  What's more, a large majority of American's like Bush personally.  Bush's polls and the undercurrents closely resembles Reagan's in early 1984.

Also, Bush has the South locked-up, none of the Dem candidates could challenge Bush in the South.  Clark MAY be able to win Ark, but that's all.

Only a major terrorist event that portrays Bush's war strategy in a bad light could derail Bush.  

If Bush is reelected, I think there is a 75% chance that we'll be at war with Iran before the end of 2005.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What about North Korea?

I mentioned Iran because there are fresh reports that WMD from Iran have been moved into Iraq for a major WMD (bio or chem) attack on Baghdad or US troops.

If that happens, Bush would probably respond with nuclear forces.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Almost 9 months until election day, and I'm going to lower Bush's chances to 55% from 60%.

Kerry's nomination would boost Bush's chances, but that has been more than offset by:

1) No signs of job growth....Has to change by April or Bush is toast.
2) 2003Q4 GDP growth of only 4% was at the low range of expectations....2004Q1 & Q2 need to come in above 5% and 2003Q4 needs to be revised upward.
3) Bush's spending proposes offending GOP base and balloning budget deficit.
4) Bush's immigration policy.

Instead of focusing on the themes of fighting a dual war on terror and recession, Bush:

1) Proposes to increase funding to the Arts (Huh?!)
2) Proposes to take us to barren places like the Moon and Mars at HUGE expense
3) Dramatically increased spending on education instead of focusing on the lack of discipline and parental involvement in the schools
4) Proposed and signed into law a Prescription Drug package whose estimated costs exploded with WEEKS from $400B to $520B.
5) Proposed winking at illegal immigrants
6) etc, etc, etc…

Bush is rapidly losing respect of the GOP base.

What can help?  Drop immigration, drop increase spending on the arts, drop moon and mars.....and pray for Rhenquist (sp?) to retire and appoint Estrada (heals GOP base and brings in Hispanics).

January 2004 was a HORRIBLE month for Bush, by far the worst in his administration.  A couple more months like this and it's hello to Pres Kerry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I guess we're all like a bunch of ants on a log floating down the river arguing over which direction it will go next.

Actually, it's exactly like watching a bunch of turds floating in a toilet and wondering which one is going down first.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

4/8/04

I'd put Bush's chances at 70%, the strength of the economy will be unquestioned come Nov.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

05/27/04

I'd put Bush's election chances at 60%.  The huge spike in gas prices is trumping (in the mind of the average voter) the sharp upturn in employment.

Inflation will get you thrown out of office faster than unemployment.  Unemployment only affects those who are unemployed, but inflation makes everyone mad.

If oil remains above $35 from now until election, Bush could very well be toast.

Bush should lift the dozens of different mixture requirements throughout the US in order to be able to buy more gas from Europe.  Doing that would shave AT LEAST 20 cents off the price of gas within a week, even if the price of oil remains the same...but, of course, the price of oil would drop also thus shaving off much more than 20 cents a gallon.

He should also sell 100 million barrels of oil out of the national reserve, spread out over the 3 summer months.

If he did both, it would drop the price of oil from $40 to under $25 within a very short period of time....and just in time for summer vacations.

He should also try to do something to increase refinery capacity within the US.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think Bush is currently (5/28/04) five percentage points from victory.  He needs to be polling around 48-49 percent in the current polls, but he is only polling 43-44 percent.

Look at the economic news out today: Chicago PMI (manufacturing) is booming at a 16 year high with strong job growth, personal income increase by .6% of a percent last month- the best in over three years.  Yet consumer confidence is dropping and Bush's approval rating on handling the economy continues to drop.

Why?  Answer: GAS PRICES.  Not only are consumers being gouged at the pump, but each time they drive past a gas station (probably 10 times a day), they're remined that they are being gouged.

The anger over high fuel prices has trumped any credit Bush would have gotten for the rebound in employment.  And instead of just the unemployed being angry, everyone is angry over gas prices.

Barring the capture of bin Laden, the election is not winnable for Bush if gas prices stay around $2 throughout the summer.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As well they should be. As you say, high gas prices hurt almost everyone

Agreed.  So what do you think Bush's plan is?  One of the main reasons I stayed home in 1992 was because every time I filled up with gas, I was reminded that Bush41 raised the gas tax by 5 cents.

Bush is vastly underestimating the risk of $2 gas to his reelection chances.  And I don't think he can wait for the prices to go down in September.  He needs a 30 cent reduction within the month of June....and that is very much within his power to do.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

On another thread, I posted excerpts from Kerry's foreign policy speech yesterday. One of his four "imperatives": reduce dependence on foreign oil.

But he has no plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.  His ""imperatives" is a big ZERO:  He doesn't want to increase domestic production through new drilling.  He doesn't want new nuke power plants.  The only thing he can point to is technology that doesn't yet exist!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, since the gas tax is what largely funds transportation and roads, decreasing it, while perhaps providing some short term economic relief, would be far more costly in the long run...

Im not saying Bush should decrease the gas tax, I simply pointed out the situation in 1992.

Bush43 has in his power to do two things:

1) Remove mixture requirements that add 20 cents a gallon to the price of gas.  Europe was a large oversupply of gas.  But the US can buy all it wants of Euro gas because it isn't formulated to meet the US environmental restrictions.  

If you remove these restrictions currently requiring 20 different mixtures within the US, then gas made on the East Coast (or in Europe) could be burned in cars on the West Coast, thus removing shortages of certain blends of gas in different regions of the country.  That's 20 cents a gallon right there.  

On top of that, you then use more European gasoline since it would then be allowed to be used, having removed the 20 different mixture requirements.  That increase in allowable supply from Europe would shave another 10 cents off the price of gas.

(Bush could also use these EPA restriction as a campaign issue since these fuel mixture requirements costs far more than any benefit they provide)

2)  Now that OPEC has agreed to remove export quotas (will be made official June 3) Bush could announce the sell of 100 million barrels from the strategic reserve over the next 3 months while threatening to sell more.  That drops the price of oil 10 bucks to back down under $30.

Bush could do both of these things with the stroke of a pen and withOUT congressional involvement.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I believe he supports raising CAFE, doesn't he? That would be a huge step in the right direction. We have the technology now to make cars much more fuel efficient, if the automakers had the proper incentive to do so.

I haven't kept up with Kerry's statements on energy policy, but I'm pretty sure he's for that.

Again, increasing domestic production is a short-term solution at best, as the world's supply of fossil fuel is of course limited. The real long term solution here is to switch to the use of renewable energy sources whenever and wherever possible, and encourage the development of new research into this.

Part of the problem in Washington, of course, is that politicians are only there for a short time, so they usually go for the short-term solution, even if it will be worse in the long run.

First off, Washington doesn't drive ingenuity, business does.

Second, the auto manufactures already have plenty of business incentive to produce cars with better gas mileage, because consumers like you and me ALREADY compare gas mileage when buying a car.

---

Why not do both?  

Production: Why not open up the entire North Slope of Alaska to drilling?  Is anyone living there?  Is anyone vacationing there?  Is Al Gore going to move there when his environmental doom prediction made with his 'D' education in science come true?  Why do we care if drilling rigs are scattered across a place we will never visit in our lifetime?

Conservation:  Why not raise the required EPA to 40 MPG by 2015?

Why can't we come at this problem from both ends by increasing production while increasing efficiency?  Or are we going to continue to call "leaders" those who claim that they detect the Spirit of God with rocks, frogs, and slugs?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Interesting ideas.

I don't honestly know a lot about the mixture requirements, and I'd want to see more as to the benefits vs. costs before I'd endorse that, but it's certainly something worth looking into.

Here is a list (maybe a tad old) of gas prices across the US.  

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/gasprices/

Why do you think there is a 40-50 cent difference between regions?  It’s because of the different requirements in the mixture.  It is NOT because of closeness to refineries since gasoline is easily transported through pipelines at very small costs.  

Natural gas also is transported through pipelines (at much higher costs per unit of energy since gas is compressed in a pipeline, thus causing heat.  Kinda like a compressor on a AC uses a lot of energy), but it’s basically the same price throughout the US (unless there is a pipeline disruption).  Why is natural gas roughly the same price throughout the country?  Because there is only ONE standard for the mixture of natural gas, not 20 different standards.

And it is NOT just the West Coast that is paying the price because the differing gas standards are costing all of us by limiting the supply of available gas and raising the costs of all goods through higher transportation costs.

This translates into tens of billions of dollars that is going into the pockets of the companies operating the refineries.

---

As for the strategic reserve, I'm not so sure there. Personally I tend to feel that it should be saved for times of true national emergency (I opposed Clinton's attempts to use it to reduce gas prices back in 2000, as well). But again, I admit I don't know enough about the particulars.

Im not saying the reserve is a bad idea, but why not suck some out when the price is high and replace when the price is lower, thus making the American tax-payers a profit?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Hehe, I just knew you'd try to bring Gore into this at some point...

How can I help when he makes a bigger and bigger fool of himself with each speech?  He's like a child literally screaming for attention.

Did Gore express this much emotion after 9/11?  Or is his outrage only directed toward his political opposition?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As far as the mixture thing goes, I don't think it would do all that much good to change the requirements, as we wouldn't use Euro gas anyways, as it has far higher environmental requirements then the stuff we use here.

Don't talk about things you obviously know nothing about.  We are ALREADY buying gas from Europe, but we can't buy as much as we want because of the different mixtures required in the US.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

As far as the mixture thing goes, I don't think it would do all that much good to change the requirements, as we wouldn't use Euro gas anyways, as it has far higher environmental requirements then the stuff we use here.

there are plenty of news articles documenting the fact the US imports gasoline from Europe and that European plants are having trouble with meeting our EPA standards.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/May/23/bz/bz04a.html

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5068594/