My Prediction

[Mort from NewYawk]

                           

Bush 346   Kerry 192


The Democrats have made an unwise choice in selecting a nominee from the classic 60’s liberal wing of the party at a time when the nation’s top concern is security and world affairs. John Kerry represents the post-Vietnam conflicts of the Democratic position in foreign affairs, and in all likelihood will suffer a defeat similar to Michael Dukakis, who also was perceived as a potentially weak Commander in Chief.

The situation in Iraq will steadily improve from this point. Less American lives will be lost as Americans withdraw from actual combat. The voices and images of Iraqis settling their differences and running their own affairs will be evidence of the soundness of the Bush policy. Kerry will find little to distinguish his position as the effort becomes increasingly multilateral. Even a major terrorist event or instability in another Middle Eastern country will not move any votes from Bush to Kerry, as Kerry will not offer solutions that Bush has not already pursued.

The only conditions that would have made a Kerry victory possible would have been a stable Iraq (America takes a breather as foreign policy seems less urgent) coupled with an unfavorable economy. This combination would play to the Republicans perceived weakness and the Democrats perceived strength. However, with jobs increasing, and stepped up Iraqi oil production calming markets, it is unlikely that Kerry will get a lot of traction on his economic positions.

On Election Day, then, there will be a 2-3% shift from the Democrats to the Republicans off the 2000 popular vote, offset slightly by a shift of about 1% from Nader voters to Kerry:

Bush 50%      Kerry     47%        Nader 2%      Other 1%

In the Midwest, however, conservative voters will come out strongly for Bush, and the loss to the Democrats will be steeper overall, as much as 3-4%. Without a large enough contingent of 2000 Nader voters to compensate for the loss, the traditionally Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan will fall into the Bush column.

The loss could be even worse for Kerry, if the hard left contingent of the party begins to press Kerry toward even more dovish policies on the Middle East. Kerry would then be presented with the cruel choice of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, that is, from which side of the political spectrum does he want to lose votes. In all likelihood, he will choose to stay moderate, in which case, enough defections to Nader in Minnesota and Washington could deliver those states to Bush.

[ilikeverin]

Michigan GOP while Minnesota is Dem?

What are you smoking?

[Mort from NewYawk]

Michigan is a conservative state. Dukakis and Mondale were trashed there. Even Carter lost there twice.

The reverse is true in Minnesota. It only looked close for Gore in 2000 because of the Nader vote:

Minnesota >5% Nader

Michigan <2% Nader

[ilikeverin]

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the arguments for people who say Bush will win MN:

-Minnesota has a Republican governor
-Minnesota has a Republican senator

Minnesota is trending more to the center.  Not to the right, but to the center.

Besides, those elections were in the past... how could you say Michigan is a conservative state?

[Mort from NewYawk]

In 2000, Bush got a greater percentage of the statewide vote in Michigan than he did in Minnesota.

Minnesota also has a much larger contingent of voters whose most important issue is conservation of wilderness (hence the large Green vote in 2000). A lot of voters who are right of center on every other issue will stay with Kerry because of this issue, even in the face of a large defection of moderate conservatives nation-wide.

[ilikeverin]

Bush's vote in Michigan was greater than Kerry's, but the margin was smaller.

All (but one) of these points are correct... HOWEVER, I still think you're wrong.  Conservatism isn't something that will pull people out of the Bush camp and into the Kerry camp.  We like the environment... but not so much as to change our vote, really.

Besides, statistics can't say anything about conservatism or liberalism.  They can only say things about voting patterns.  And guess what... over time, the voting patterns of Minnesota have grown increasingly less Democratic.

[© tweed]

Mort:

You forgot to mention one little thing: gas.

[Mort from NewYawk]

Mort:

You forgot to mention one little thing: gas.

However, with jobs increasing, and stepped up Iraqi oil production calming markets, it is unlikely that Kerry will get a lot of traction on his economic positions.

Oil prices could be an issue, but only if there is a more dramatic rise that threatens the larger economic picture. Though I'm no expert on oil, I somehow think that before that happens, Bush-Cheney and friends have more cards to play on the price of world oil.

I do hope that Iraqi production increases as the Iraqi security force grows - they have a lot of capacity that's not being tapped. American business, particularly the oil industry, will eventually have a great market in Iraq in which to invest.

I'm not sure that Kerry could capitalize on rising gas prices in the absence of oil-induced inflation or recession. What is his winning position, the one that draws moderately conservative midwest voters? That the Iraq war is responsible for instability that caused prices to rise? That we should end our dependence on Middle East oil? These are arguments without immediate solutions. The Republicans will push drilling in Alaska, and with high gas prices, these voters will be inclined to support it and Bush.

[Nym90]

The union vote in Michigan will not abandon Kerry. If he lost by 3% nationally he would still win Michigan.

[Mort from NewYawk]

I knew that you would object.

Of course, you know your state better than I.

But I still will predict that the summer and fall will see a large shift of white males into the Bush column. We know that white males are more hawkish in their views than the general population and disproportionately support Republicans.

When it comes down to a decision, a significant number in midwestern states who may have supported Kerry on the economy will decide that he's not the man they want as Commander in Chief in a dangerous world.

I just have a hunch that if I'm right about this effect, Michigan is just the kind of state that could flip as a result.

Minnesota, on the other hand, may have enough truly liberal voters whose dislike of Bush is strong enough that they will stick with Kerry, even if he looks like a ghastly choice for Commander in Chief by election time.

[Nym90]

Well, we'll see. If things are going vastly better in Iraq, as you say, then that will help Bush everywhere. Right now I've no reason to think things will be all that much better, but obviously we all hope that they will be.

The economy in Michigan, however, is still lagging behind the national economy. The Midwest's economy in general is not doing as well as most of the rest of the country, and Michigan in particular has been hit hard by manufacturing job losses and outsourcing. Michigan is just like Ohio, except 7-8 points more Democratic overall. The black vote in Detroit will be come out strongly for Kerry. The only way Bush can win Michigan is to win the Oakland and Macomb county suburbs. Macomb is more blue-collar, while Oakland has many white-collar professionals. While Oakland tends to be somewhat economically conservative, it is also pretty socially liberal and Bush's stances on social issues do not play well here. Macomb is a strong union area, and while voters there may prefer Bush on foreign policy, the large loss of jobs in manufacturing and such will hurt Bush immensely here.

[© tweed]

Bush won't win if Gas is at 2.15 in November

[pieman]

MN coservationism is exemplified by Coleman's position on ANWAR. Eventhough Coleman is strong Bush supporter, his position on ANWAR has been soft at best.

Minnesotans, some Republicans included, are not fond of the idea of drilling in Alaska. However, ANWAR seems to be less of a flash point than 4 years ago. I think there are several reasons for this. First, the issue is old. Second, Coleman is not running. Third, there is a greater appreciation for the need for more US oil supply in light of higher gas prices and a greater understanding of the ability to drill for oil in ANWAR without disturbing the environment.    

I see MN as trending significantly to the right on tax, regulation, and size of government issues and tending to the center on education and environment.  

MN is willing to endure greater regulation with regard to the environment, but not to the extent that it greatly impacts the economy. There is great respect for the land and lakes due to a heritage of agriculture and fishing.

Almost everyone in MN has a fishing license. The fishing opener is as close to a state holiday as possible without being one. If it occured during the week, I am sure the state would shut down.  The governor is EXPECTED to go fishing on the opener, the location of which is rotated to highlight different fishing and resort locations throughout the state. The number and size of fish caught by the governor is reported by all local networks.

MN's position probably best described as conservationist as opposed to environmentalist.

MN has also been trending to the center regarding education.  Spending on education is being supported at the state instead of the local level. However, there is significant support for accountability requirements as well as support for vouchers.

It will be interesting to see how independent candidates fare this election in MN. Minnesota has seriously dabbled with IND candidates with Ventura as governor and with significant percentage results from Nader, Anderson, Perot on the presidental level and Penny on the governor level two years ago.

I think MN is about -2% for Bush compared to his national averages.

[mddem2004]

346 - 192 ?
It's nice to have pipe dreams....
Who are you kidding?

First and foremost this election is about Bush passing the smell test with the American electorate before they even take a long look at Kerry. And this "1960's, flowers in his hair, dove candidate" image the Republicans would like the electorate to have of Kerry is BS. They only people that hold that stereo type of him are people that won't vote for him anyway.

A 2-3% shift from the Democrats of 2000 to Bush??? Based on what exactly?

I must be smoking something different over here......but.....as I see it, how can an "Anybody But Bush" candidate like Kerry be running even or ahead (Fox even has Kerry 45-43 over Bush) of Bush when only 37% of voters say they Strongly support Kerry?

I'll tell you why....again this thing is first about Bush.

Yes, jobs are thankfully coming back in raw numbers, don't be too quick to think Bush is out of the woods on the job front. 1/4 of those jobs are temp/seasonal jobs. A survey released today noted that only 35% of Americans think there have been job growth in the last 6 months. American views on the economy is like turning the Titanic, Bush is in a race for his life that the people on Main Street in towns across Wis., Mich., OH., W.VA., the big Mo., they are the ones that have to see REAL jobs come back that aren't of the flip a burger type.

For the first time since we invaded Iraq, the American people, by 6-9% margins are now saying that the Iraq War was not worth the cost. Even if, like you say, our troops take less casualties, again it wil take time for the American electorate to shift its views again.

I would'nt take too much stock in Nader getting anything near what he got in 2000. People just aren't that stupid to waste their vote twice and get exactly opposite what they would like in a president.

Right Track/Wrong Track numbers for this President have been against him for more than a year. Consumer Confidence, despite the percieved pocket change in peoples pockets, have not risen to the levels of before this guy was handed the office. Expected interest rate hikes this summer along with still high gas prices won't help.

You also must have missed the Democratic primaries. There were record turnouts in most states until it was obvious Kery would take it, ....and....., in the Open Primary states record numbers of Independents were voting in the Democratic camp.

I would not take too much comfort in the "Flowers in the Hair" image of Kerry....Bush has done more for energizing the left, the youth vote, and Independents than you think.

Kerry 321 - Bush 217

[mddem2004]

One more thing to chew on before I lite up again.....Gore was only polling 39% against Bush this time in 2000. Kerry is, by most polls, even or slightly ahead of Bush.

The difference....Gore couldn't spend a dime from April thru the convention because he took the public money, while Bush slandered him. Kerry, as of last months fundraising numbers, is now outraising Bush by 2 to 1 and can't spend it fast enough....

puff.....

[millwx]

Yes, jobs are thankfully coming back in raw numbers, don't be too quick to think Bush is out of the woods on the job front. 1/4 of those jobs are temp/seasonal jobs.

Also, a critically important point I made in another thread, and something no analysis takes account of... An average of ROUGHLY 3 million new job-seekers enter the market annually.  Thus, job growth needs to keep pace.  In the past three decades it has only done so under two presidents... Reagan and Clinton.  While the upturn in jobs is certainly positive, the rate over the past six months (since job creation began in earnest) is running an average of 50,000 jobs per month too few to keep up with the influx of new job seekers.  And, as new job seekers, these people don't show up in unemployment numbers either.  So, in theory, it gives Bush some numbers to tout.  But, in reality, the percentage of job-seekers employed is decreasing and, as such, the economic situation is not improving... though it is degrading at a slower rate.

[mddem2004]

Yes, jobs are thankfully coming back in raw numbers, don't be too quick to think Bush is out of the woods on the job front. 1/4 of those jobs are temp/seasonal jobs.

Also, a critically important point I made in another thread, and something no analysis takes account of... An average of ROUGHLY 3 million new job-seekers enter the market annually.  Thus, job growth needs to keep pace.  In the past three decades it has only done so under two presidents... Reagan and Clinton.  While the upturn in jobs is certainly positive, the rate over the past six months (since job creation began in earnest) is running an average of 50,000 jobs per month too few to keep up with the influx of new job seekers.  And, as new job seekers, these people don't show up in unemployment numbers either.  So, in theory, it gives Bush some numbers to tout.  But, in reality, the percentage of job-seekers employed is decreasing and, as such, the economic situation is not improving... though it is degrading at a slower rate.

Precisely....Bush is racing to erase the number of jobs "lost" on his watch yet thats really a race to get to the 2001 job level. Without job creation at much higher levels (unlikely) the man in the street may not feel any more optimistic about his job prospects than 3 years ago. Your point also reflects why even with 250,000 new jobs last month, the unemployment rate of 5.6% didn't budge....

[Fritz]

The 346-192 prediction is an ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO for Bush.  If Bush wins every state he possibly could, in his wildest wet dreams.  In fact, I think it's 1 EV too heavy, I don't know where you think Bush is gonna pick up an EV in Maine.

Well, ok, fine.  Here is the absolute best case scenario for Kerry.  Not that I really think this will happen, mind you, but its just as likely as the prediction that started this thread.



Kerry 357
Bush 181

[mddem2004]

Don't forget Louisianna....Donna Braziles home state!!!

[they don't love you like i love you]

I'd add Virginia and NC too (remember, ABSOLUTE BEST case scenario)

[Fritz]

Yeah well, Mort from New Yawk didn't take Minnesota and Washington for Bush, so I left Virginia, NC, and Louisiana.

[they don't love you like i love you]

and actually, Mort does have a good point about Minnesota and Michigan.

Even though Michigan had more Gore voters, your average Minnesota Gore voter is far more liberal than your average Michigan one. Therefore, they're less likely to be swayed. Plus a lot of that Nader vote will come home. Remember, Nader was at 2% in the latest poll.

Still, I say Kerry wins both Minnesota and Michigan.

[millwx]

Your point also reflects why even with 250,000 new jobs last month, the unemployment rate of 5.6% didn't budge....

And, look, I always try to make the point of my non-partisanism.  There's a lot of partisanship on most boards (including this one... though I must commend even the partisans on this board - it's one of the most civil around!), so people twist the facts however they like.  Let me be clear, I'm no fan of Kerry.  I have no subversive desire to slam Bush.  I'll vote for Kerry, but only to get a "checks and balances" system back in place with a split govt.  My point is, I'm not making this stuff up!  I'm sure most on the "right" love pointing out the recent job creation.  But it's very simple... 2000 Census data shows 19 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 24.  If we assume that 50% will enter the workforce (or attemp to)... and that's a VERY low estimate in our double-income household world... that's 9.5 million.  On an annual basis (not everyone would enter at the same time, but most would enter at a given year within the five year period) that's 1.9 million annually.

You could argue that my 3 million/yr estimate is high, but I seriously doubt it... The 50% assumption is likely VERY low.  The population will have increased slightly since 2000.  The male population (slightly more likely to enter the workforce) in this age group is somewhat larger than the female population.  Both the 15-19 year old and 25-29 year old ranges have a higher population in the 2000 census.

Using the 15-19 year olds (since it's the 2000 census) using a gross assumption of 100% of males and 33% of females entering the workforce gives us an annual workforce entry of 2.7 million.  That is still a bit lower than my 3 million estimate, but I was estimating... and 33% of females may still be low.

So, there is no possible way that 1.2 million new jobs in the past 6 months means higher employment as a percentage of the workforce.  It is simply impossible.  The workforce would have increased by, on average, at least 1.35 million workers.  Adding 1.2 million jobs means leaving 150,000 out of 1.35 million unemployed... or about 12%... which is higher than the present unemployment rate.  In short, the economy, at least in terms of employment, simply is not improving... period.  It is getting worse at a slower rate, but is not improving.

[ATFFL]

You are forgetting that people also leave the workforce.

I'm not going to go mine the data to see how many leave, but it is a factor in the job market.

Also, some people create their own jobs, its called entrepreneurship.  It is a fairly small amount, but it does reduce the number of people entering the workforce.

[millwx]

You are forgetting that people also leave the workforce.

Good point.  And I did bother to mine the data.  Those who hit retirement age annually make up less than 50% of those entering the workforce.  And, of course, not all of them actually WILL retire.

That will help out the data, you are correct (I suspect the entrepreneurship issue you raise is statistically insignificant).  In fact, I'd bet it'll help out the data enough such that the recent job creation in the past six months might be just enough to keep employment steady... if not improved.  In that regard, I stand corrected.

But I would also point out that this is a mere 6 month period and in the last few months the job creation rate has been decreasing.  Moreover, since the data do still show far more people entering than exiting the workforce, imagine the other 30+ months in which the official data - which fails to even account for the workforce size - showed job losses.  Ugh!

Anyway, your point is well taken, and it DOES make a difference in the numbers.  Does it make enough of a difference?  Maybe just barely for the past 4-6 months, but just barely... And my general point remains... more people enter than exit the workforce (and the simple nature of population growth makes this obvious), so modest job growth is the equivalent of job loss... and job losses are far worse than the raw numbers indicate (there's a reason only two modern era presidents have seen job losses under their tenure - Hoover and Bush II).