Election Odds

[Gustaf]

I wouldnt corelate the NUMBER of casualties to Bush's reelection chances. Remember US Presidents were re-elected in 1944 and 1964 two years of very high US military casualties.

The difference was that then people believed the sacrifice was worth it because they could see tangible results in the wars on at that time.

The American people, more than those of any other country, are willing to accept war-related hardships when they believe its worth fighting for.

AS to the current situation my impression is that 70% of Americans (including me) supported a war to take out Saddam Hussien. Casualties in that pursuit were acceptable.
A majority of Americans (including me again) do not currently support keeping our troops there in pursuit of nation-building. I/we  dont believe thats our job and that any results will be worth the price we are paying. The administration has not yet made an convincing case on that. This is not to say they will not by November 2004 or that the results may be self-evident by then, but right now they are not!!!!

I think the British have a higher tolerance of casualties (as well as all non-democracies, but I suppose we aren't counting these)

[Gustaf]

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%

Ah, but would Dean even become the Nominee if there's another Terrorist Attack against the United States? Wouldn't Wesley Clark pull out far ahead and win the Nomination?

I agree with Chris. Dean would be hurt if national security became a more important issue.

[Gustaf]

Will dean win the nomination

Yes, unless something unforeseen happens, he is Mr. Democrat.

More like Mr. Far-Left.

Very funny.

You just keep doing this, huh?

[Gustaf]

Will dean win the nomination

Yes, unless something unforeseen happens, he is Mr. Democrat.

More like Mr. Far-Left.

Very funny.

You just keep doing this, huh?

Dean at one time may have been moderate but in the last five year (problely when decided to run for pres) he turned hard left.

He is not hard left, his rhetoric is.  There is a difference.  I think he is to the right of Kerry.

If he was right of Kerry then Kerry would be the frontrunner not Dean.

Not true--Kerry voted for the war, which weakens his message.  Plus he is a "dead amn walking"...

That proves my point.  The only way that Dean could win the nom is that he ran a hard left campaign.

It does?  Dean is to the right of all the Dems economically.  The major candidates, anyway.

Not anymore.  It's tax increases id Dean is elected.

Are you guys biulding another pyramid?

[Gustaf]

You really have no idea do you?
The PCF's official program is a:

DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIET

The Hard Left is very Illiberal and is not liberal at all.

Yes! Finally some sense!

[Gustaf]

communism CAN work if everyone worked hard towards the goal.  It can work like in a commune where the society is small, but when on a big scale lots of people get lAZY and then one dictator rises up tog et them into line and then gets too much power, hence it snowballs and doesn't work.

Actually, when you think about it, the family is probably the place where communism is really present.

Secondly, Marx was primarily a historian and economist rather than idelouge and he made a great analysis of history and economics. He was wrong on the core issue of whether the poor can get reasonable living situations without a revolution. Marx thought they couldn't and it turns out they could. That means that his ideological theme falls. Btw, there was an escellent "interview" with Marx in the Prospect earlier this year, anyone who is interested should read it. It was rather funny...

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Wow, cool -  I have no reason to agree or disagree with this prediction, but if there's a chance, it sure gives me another reason to be pulling for Bush.  I tend not to hope for too much, even from a Republican administration.
Yeah - lets topple those Mullahs!

Anyway I put Bush's re-election chances at 70%.  A stock market crash/dollar crash or possibly some terrorist event could derail it - though the terrorist event might actually help because the more dangerous the world looks the less people trust Dems - especially one like Dean.

Don't be ridicuulous. You don't want to fight Iran, or North Korea for that matter. It's funny; all of you Republicans are so fiercely patriotic, and yet you fail to see that the same feelings exist in other countries. Most people will fight back if they're invaded, even if their government is not an absolute favourite. A government has to be extremely unpopular, like Saddam Hussein, for people to "accept" an invasion from a foreign power. And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants? I really hope Bush don't get completely carried away with assaulting sovereign nations on a whim. Sooner or later you'll end up in another Vietnam.

[Gustaf]

Potential yes, always everything has potential.  But reality says attacks are down.  They (terrorists) havbe just been lucky to hit large numbers in single attacks.  It was said just the other day that in one of the dangerous towns they were down from 17 to 5 attacks a day.

Plus if we keep rounding up these leaders such as #54 and Al-Douri (hopefully soon) we will break the resistance completely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Iraq does have the potential of becoming another Vietnam. Capturing Saddam is a awesome feat, but things can still escalate and get nasty, big time.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not awfully worried about Iraq, the chance of it going well is bigger than the chance of it turning out bad. But it might lead to the belief that wars and invasions is something to be taken lightly and that would be disastrous in the long run.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And it would be a bloody and futile excercise to try and occupy a country with, what, 70 million inhabitants?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh I don't know, the British occupied India for quite a long time, and it contained a lot more than 70 mil, even back then.  

That is not comparable and you know it. Colonial times were very, very different.

[Gustaf]

I agree.  The hardliners have only hastened their demise by trying to ban reformist candidates.  This is such an obvious and outrageous abuse of power that it plays right into the hands of reform minded elements of Iranian society.  Hardliners have really overplayed their hand in this case.

So do I. At the World Economic Forum, the Iranian president, Khatami, held a speech in which he quoted Hume and other western philosophers. Pretty impressive! How often do western statesemen do that?

[Gustaf]

I think I generally agree with MiamiU's odds, though I am inclined to agree wuth NHpolitico that Kerry is almost unbeatable by now. I don't see anyone mounting a serious challenge to him now. Edwards is losing the electability battle, b/c he is doing worse than Kerry in match-up polls with Bush, and he lost aginst Clark in NH. Kerry has more momentum, higher support, more money and more wins than Edwards, as well as a better geographical position, in the Dem primaries.

I also agree that Bush chances of reelection has sunk significantly, but I'm not sure from where to where....I'll still put Bush really high though, 60-80% sounds about right.

[Gustaf]

I think I generally agree with MiamiU's odds, though I am inclined to agree wuth NHpolitico that Kerry is almost unbeatable by now. I don't see anyone mounting a serious challenge to him now. Edwards is losing the electability battle, b/c he is doing worse than Kerry in match-up polls with Bush, and he lost aginst Clark in NH. Kerry has more momentum, higher support, more money and more wins than Edwards, as well as a better geographical position, in the Dem primaries.

I also agree that Bush chances of reelection has sunk significantly, but I'm not sure from where to where....I'll still put Bush really high though, 60-80% sounds about right.

Scoring one of Kerry's advantages is one thing, but he's got them all and no one has any other advantages.  Kerry might be able to win SC if Clark and Edwards can't knock the other out early.

Is that an agreement, b/c it sounds like it? A late poll that I didn't see puts Edwards way ahead in SC, so he might survive until Super Tuesday. Edwards only chance laid in very good early results, since he never had a chance against a viable Nortern liberal in the big primary states of Super Tuesday.

[Gustaf]

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.

Wow, that sounds...really good!

I agree that Bush election chances are falling some, but I still view him as the favourite. One of the main problem is that most economic factors so far aren't real changes that people notice, just numbers. If unemployment doesn't fall soon, Bush will have tremendous problems.

[Gustaf]

Dem nomination:

Dean 70%
Clark 15%
Gephardt 10%
Edwards <5%
Other <1%

It's amazing...Just half a month ago I gave Kerry <1% chance of winning the nomination.

"The times they are a-changin'"

[Gustaf]

Centigrade or Farenheit?

Hah!  I'm an American.

Lol...75 degrees Celsius would be unsustainable. 75-32=43 43/9*5=23 degrees Celsius. That's not too bad, actually...

[Gustaf]

I'd say this race is a real toss-up. Bush has some strengths, but also some real weaknesses too. It'll be a close race, I'd be shocked if Bush wins by more than 5% or loses by more than 2%. Realistically I see no conceivable scenario in which Bush could win by more than 10% or lose by more than 5%. Recent polling, all of these taken in January, seems to suggest this as well...

Newsweek
Kerry 48
Bush 46

Newsweek--would you like to see Bush reelected?
No 49
Yes 45

American Research Group
Kerry 47
Bush 46
Among Independents, it's Kerry 55, Bush 39....

Quinnipiac University
Bush 49
Kerry 45
 
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Bush 43
Democrat 39

Bush 49
Kerry 42

ABC/Washington Post
Bush 48
Kerry 46

Zogby
Democrat 45
Bush 41

Zogby--Bush deserves reelection or time for someone new?
Someone new 48
Deserves reelection 41

Democracy Corps

Bush 49
Democrat 45

Time/CNN--likely to vote for Bush?
Very/Somewhat likely 49
Very/Somewhat unlikely 48
Very unlikely beats very likely 36-30....

CBS/New York Times
Democrat 45
Bush 43

Also, Newsweek has Bush's approval rating down to 49% now.

So anyone saying that Bush is a shoo-in is completely ignorant of reality at this point in the race. Certainly, one can predict a strong Bush win, but at this point in time, all evidence suggests that the nation is evenly split. Thus, any prediction of a solid Bush win means that you are saying that people will change their minds and vote for Bush.
And all available evidence suggests that Kerry is the strongest possible Democratic nominee, as all recent polls which test Bush against any of the 5 serious Democrats always show Kerry as running strongest against Bush.

And no, incumbent presidents don't always trail at this point in the race. Clinton and Reagan both led continuously throughout the entire election year in head to head matchups against the eventual opposing nominee. I'd say Bush's chances are worse than Clinton's or Reagan's, but better than Carter's or Bush 41's. In other words, it's going to be really close.

I agree its going to be awfully close, as these polls suggest - though it is early.  I can't actually identify why Bush's popularity would've gone down in January, other than the attention drawn by the Democratic primary and the fact that he hasn't begun compaigning.   I'm really hoping money can make the difference this time around.

The one thing I do pin my hopes on is I don't see how Bush is likely to do any worse than he did in 2000.  I think the people who voted Bush in 2000 represent a kind of very likely Republican core vote.  Given the changes in the electoral college caused by the Census, Bush could lose NH, lose an even bigger percentage of the vote in the Gore states, and just gain about a hundred thousand votes net in Florida to make up for the Nader factor (FL was the only state where Nader mattered), and he holds.  I could actually see Bush winning again with a slightly lower percentage of the popular vote.

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Nader matter in NH as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, Gustaf, but NH is totally expendable.  I'm saying Bush could win with every state he won in 2000 minus New Hampshire.  Not that I think he'll lose NH but the point is he can get the same votes he got in 2000 plus a few more in Florida, while getting even less votes in 'Gore States'.  In other words his net vote percentage could actually be lower due to polarization and unpopularity in the Northeast and West Coast, and yet still win reelection!  That would be cool stuff!

OK, I was just checking.