Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2014, 02:19:58 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004  (Read 10744 times)
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« on: November 16, 2003, 02:24:57 pm »
Ignore

Well its over, the four big elections of the year are done and its a GOP advantage 3 to 1.

How will it affect the race for the White House in 2004?? I'm sure there are as many opinions as members here so let start hearing em.......... Cheesy
Logged

Quote
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2003, 04:08:29 pm »
Ignore

Basically it confirms that a "multiple south" exists and that CA is not as Democrat as some Democrats(and Republicans for that matter) would like to belive.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Clay
GWBFan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3617


Political Matrix
E: 1.03, S: -6.61

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 16, 2003, 10:19:42 pm »
Ignore

I'm not sure these elections have as much impact on 2004 as some people say.  A lot can change between now and then.  Who knows though; not me.  I'm not a political scientist or anything, so I could be totally wrong.  I do think it confirms that Bush will win most, if not all, of the south.

But if they *are* any indication of how 2004 will go, it's a sure good sign for Bush.  Here's hoping Arnold can fix all of California's problems and be a huge improvement from Gray Davis--by Nov. 2004--so that he can possibly be able to deliver California's 55 electoral votes for Bush next year?  Stranger things have happened...
Logged

Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2003, 05:47:57 am »
Ignore

My take is that the results confirm that the nation is still close to being as evenly divided between the parties as 2000 (with perhaps a slight GOP improvement.)

Do the gubernatorial victories make up a good predictor of Presidential elections? Of course not!! State elections are primarily decided on state issues.

To decide upon indicators to the Presidential race, we need to look at how the White House and mention of the White House influenced trends.

In Kentucky and Mississippi, GWB campaigned for his party nominees and they moved up in the polls after each visit.

Even more useful, democratic strategy of tying GOP candidates to Bush failed to have the desired effect.
In Kentucky it was a clear case of pro-Bush (Fletcher) and anti-Bush (Chandler). You all know who won. Furthur more in all four states, democrats tried to campaign on opposition to the President (not so much in Miss.) and all four Republican candidates endorsed the President's leadership though they connected themselves to him to varying extents. In no case did these hurt republican candidates (the La. defeat had other factors)

To sum up, there is no evidence that GWB has lost any of the support he had in 2000 in his "base" states and if California is an indication, he is not as weak as made out to be in left-tending states. (Otherwise Arnold would not have done so well after clearly stating that he supported the President and in fact recd. a muted endorsement from him.)
Logged

Quote
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2003, 10:04:02 pm »
Ignore

Mississippi and Kentucky will undoubtedly vote Republican in 2004. Lousiana has a 97% chance of voting Republican. So Kentucky, Mississippi, and Lousiana are pretty much set. But just because Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, won the Gubernatorial election, doesn't  mean that California has ANY chance to vote for Bush. California only elects moderate Republicans as best. Which Arnold pretty much is. And this has mostly been seen more at just the state level. Bush will not win California in 2004.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2003, 10:05:06 pm by Demrepdan »Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2003, 12:09:31 am »
Ignore

Sorry to say, but I don't think the 2003 elections will have any impact on 2004.

Going into 2004, the Dems simply don't have any trump cards to play - since they don't hold the reigns of power.

But the GOP was two HUGE trumps cards: 1) gay marriage, and 2) the possible retirement of a SCOTUS justice & a Hispanic nominee.....put these two together and they could very well propel Bush to a 45+ state sweep!
Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15159
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: November 18, 2003, 02:25:18 am »
Ignore

As for those 2 trump cards, I believe that number 1 would only marginally play in the GOP's favor, and number 2 would be no advantage at all, possibly a loss for the GOP. I know it's just a matter of opinion and it's been discussed many times before, but I just don't see swing voters flocking to Bush over banning gay marriage. Even if swing voters may be uneasy about the idea of legalized gay marriage, Bush needs to be very careful not to be viewed as anti-gay, which would turn off swing voters and hurt the inclusive image the GOP is trying to cultivate. I think the Dems can be successful on this issue with the position that it should be left up to the individual states to decide for themselves. Even Dean, who is supposedly far left on this issue, takes that stance. None of the candidates is proposing forcing gay marriage to be performed nationally. And Bush hasn't endorsed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage either, so I don't see Bush's position necessarily firing up GOP activists. If Bush thought that was a winning position, I think he would have adopted it. He knows he has to appear inclusive.
As for the possibility of a SCOTUS retirement, the religious right would demand a very conservative nominee, especially on abortion. This would also hurt Bush with swing voters. Nominating a Hispanic isn't going to overcome that, and cause swing voters and Hispanics to ignore the person's position simply because of their race. Again, it's just my opinion, and no one knows for sure what would happen. I know you're convinced that large numbers of Hispanics will base their vote solely on the issue of a Hispanic nominee to the SCOTUS, even if he doesn't agree with their views, but I just don't see the evidence for it. If Bush nominated a moderate Hispanic like Alberto Gonzales (not a conservative like Miguel Estrada) then it would play marginally in Bush's favor, (since the nomination would be popular across the board) but the Dems would also almost certainly approve Gonzales nearly unanimously so that would minimize any political damage.
The Dems don't have the reigns of power, but it doesn't mean they don't have issues they can use. What do you think of the WMD report that was issued the other day stating that the WMDs weren't moved out of Iraq? Maybe it was wrong, but I'd say Bush needs to find at least the WMDs or Saddam or Bin Laden, at least 1 and probably 2 of those 3 before the election, otherwise foreign policy is not going to be viewed as a strength for Bush. It also won't be a strength if the rate of deaths in Iraq doesn't start decreasing.
The budget deficit is also a big issue that can be used against Bush, and the economy needs a couple more quarters of strong growth before that becomes a real positive for Bush. Certainly, Bush could win 45 states...anything is possible, but I highly doubt that would happen. A 45 state victory for Bush would basically mean that he would have to win states like Connecticut (if Lieberman isn't the nominee), New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, and California (add Vermont if Dean isn't the nominee). Right now Gallup has Bush's approval rating at 50 approve/47 disapprove, the lowest of his presidency (actually equal to where he was about 2 months ago). Certainly things could turn around, but until they actually do start turning around politically for Bush, it's a bit premature to suggest that he's going to win any kind of landslide reelection.
Logged
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15634


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2003, 02:50:04 am »
Ignore

I don't think Democrats are going to win just on the back of even a few hundred casualties in Iraq or Bush's inability to justify his war, or the inability to find Saddam or bin Laden, even if none of this happens. I am a strong Democrat but I have to admit, next year looks very bad. Bush could win California, Delaware, and even maybe Illinois.

The reason for all this is that the Democrats seem to be trying to emphasize Bush's faults rather than what they can do for the country that is both different and better. Ideally they should subsume Bush's percieved strength on national security with a more moderate domestic policy, with attention to popular issues such as controlling corporate corruption and corporate power and protecting the environment. The debate should never be about how hard to fight terrorism but simply how to fight terrorism. That is the key distinction that could change the dynamics of the debate away from the 1980's style "tough on Communism" or "tough on crime" advantages for Republicans. Unfortunately I find a hard time seeing how Dean is going to alter the debate in that direction.

In some ways it is actually good for the Democrats in the long term if the economy did well this season, because it may help the Democratic leadership to see that they are missing the boat by not adequately developing their own platform. That is another thing I like about Edwards: he has deep ideas and he is willing to articulate them well. Unlike Dean who just issues hollow platitudes, and whose strength is based on an issue (opposition to the war) which is both unpopular, and no longer an issue. One thing Democrats should remind votes of is that they were the ones who first championed the Department of Homeland Security.

What will likely happen next year is the economy continues to grow strongly on the back of strong productivity growth (which has more to do with 1990's investment payoffs and the loosest monetary policy in decades than Bush policies) and the U.S. will hand over domestic control of Iraq to the IGC in June 2004. Around that time the administration also hopes to hold elections in Afghanistan; the Afghan constitution requires that elections be held by June 2004. This may draw attention to the fact that 1/2 of the country is owned by warlords, but it isn't strong enough of a criticism to seriously hurt Bush. And in any case the I see the administrating buying off the warlords to hold elections in their controlled territories with the promise that the new government will only have real power in Kabul and the surrounding areas. The Democrats will hold their convention in Boston and will be seen as out of touch; the Republicans will hold their convention in New York on Sept. 11. The only thing that might disturb that are large protests, but they are not likely to take the shine off the event if successful, or even acceptable elections are held in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the potential PR windfall to Bush from the success of elections in both those countries, I'm pretty sure Bremer and whomever is the U.S. liason to Afghanistan will work like a Nazi to make sure things go well.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2003, 02:58:39 am by Beet »Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15634


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: November 18, 2003, 03:05:56 am »
Ignore

A 45 state victory for Bush would basically mean that he would have to win states like Connecticut (if Lieberman isn't the nominee), New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Illinois, and California (add Vermont if Dean isn't the nominee). Right now Gallup has Bush's approval rating at 50 approve/47 disapprove, the lowest of his presidency (actually equal to where he was about 2 months ago). Certainly things could turn around, but until they actually do start turning around politically for Bush, it's a bit premature to suggest that he's going to win any kind of landslide reelection.

The polls are usually taken among registered voters, but Republicans have higher turnout historically, so a poll parity of 50-47 suggests a voting advantage of up to 55-42. I doubt Bush could win 45 states unless everything goes as planned for him, which is not impossible but probably the worst case scenario for Democrats. It will take a real leader coming out of the primaries next spring to develop a forceful enough platform that middle Americans can start to embrace.
Logged

Brian Schweitzer '16
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2003, 03:40:23 am »
Ignore

Wow aheckva lotta issues to address but I'm realllly pressed for time so I will mention only one.

Whoever mentioned that Hispanics would not support a conservative Hispanic nominee should have qualified that statement a bit. Unlike the black community, which is now (for the most part) solidly liberal and thus certain to oppose another Clarence Thomas, the Hispanic community is way to the right on social issues. I would guess that a clear majority is pro-life and pro-school prayer and would probably oppose gay marriage among others.

Where the Hispanic community tends left is on economic issues and most of those are not decided by SCOTUS.

There a few exceptions like Affirmative Action (most Hispanics in favor) and if Bush were able to find the "right" nominee, he can have best of both worlds- energize the religious right and attract a large segment of Hispanic voters who are socially conservative but still vote democratic!!
Logged

Quote
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2003, 03:45:25 am »
Ignore

Well ok maybe time for one more comment :-)

I also agree witht he sentiment expressed here that Democrats will not win on the back of Bush's faults. They have to have a clear (and acceptable) alternative vision and program.

Remember the 1972 election was not a blowout because Nixon was especially popular. There were also a huge number of mistakes and failings to point to, far more than Bush has now.
He won anyway becuase he was seen as an effective President and the democrats as a bunch of idealistic nutcases!!

If we dont see some sense in the Democratic party soon, look for History to repeat itself. Cheesy
Logged

Quote
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2003, 04:07:46 am »
Ignore

Has Cheney bugged the DNC?Huh
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2003, 04:19:31 am »
Ignore

Has Cheney bugged the DNC?Huh

hahahahahah, Realpolitik U will take any excuse to justify a democratic defeat Smiley
Get over it buddy, sometimes they just run bad campaigns and lose. But don't feel bad, the GOP does it too, rem. 1964?? Cheesy

I'm don't know that it was the entire campaign plan that they got from the DNC headquarters but even if it was, so what?
Election campaigns are not military campaigns. It doesn't make that much of a difference that you know the opposing campaign strategy.
You can figure out upto 90% of it anyway if you have half a brain.

But just for fun can you expand on your thesis that McGovern would have won if Nixon didn't know what his "plan" was?? Cheesy







Logged

Quote
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2003, 04:46:58 am »
Ignore

I'm no expert on 1972... but I had always thought that bugging your opponent gave you an unfair advantage Wink
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Ryan
ryanmasc
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 332


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: November 18, 2003, 08:06:06 am »
Ignore

Lol .......yeah generally does in both love and war Wink

Only this kinda war its moot cause you can SEE what ur opponent is upto, no real need to bug him Smiley (doesnt hurt anyway tho) Cheesy
Logged

Quote
emergingDmajority1
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: November 20, 2003, 06:58:17 pm »
Ignore

it means Louisiana is now a tossup, nothing else.

Miss. and Ky. are still GOP strongholds, Ca. will still go to the Dems.
Logged

Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2003, 12:02:06 pm »
Ignore

1. All 4 states voted out the incumbent party
2. Race is still the no. 1 factor in Mississippi
3. The Dems seem to have recovered in Appalachia.
4. Poor whites propelled a Democrat to power in Lousiana
5. The electorate of California can be very stupid at times.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
dazzleman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13821
Political Matrix
E: 1.88, S: 1.59

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2003, 12:43:35 pm »
Ignore

I don't think the 2003 state elections are that much of an indicator of what will happen next year, good or bad, for President Bush.

Many states that voted for Gore had Republican governors.  New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Michigan (and maybe some others -- I'm going from memory) had Republican governors in 2000, but voted for Gore, some overwhelmingly.

As a previous poster said, local elections are decided on local issues.  A person running nationally has to take a consistent position, but on the local level, party definitions vary widely in different regions of the country.  Most Republicans in the northeast are more liberal than a lot of southern Democrats.

An important indicator could be how the electorate in each state responded to an endorsement of a candidate by the president.  Even that is not foolproof, but it gives some indication.  The fact that Pres. Bush did not actively campaign for Schwarzenegger in California is an indicator that victory will be difficult for him there despite the Schwarzenegger victory.  I agree that the south should be solidly for Bush -- if not, he might as well throw in the towel now, because he can't possibly win without picking all almost all the electoral votes of southern states.

I have found it interesting that a pretty good percentage of the candidates that President Bush has campaigned for have won, while it seems that most of the candidates that Clinton has campaigned for have lost.  The media loves Clinton, and keeps trumpeting his popularity and influence, so they aren't emphasizing his track record, but it doesn't seem too good.  Bush's relatively good track record is a good indicator of his re-election prospects.

I think the bottom line is that the party with the positive message almost always wins.  Right now, the Democrats don't have a positive message.  If they don't get one, I don't see how they can win.
Logged
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2003, 12:55:48 pm »
Ignore

The one over-riding trend is anti-incumbency and voter anger, however this may have calmed down by November 2004.

Gubernatorial elections can be a bad indicator for nationwide elections, at least on a state level.

On a county level they can be both very misleading and very accurate of broader trends etc.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18306
United States


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2003, 01:21:05 pm »
Ignore

The one over-riding trend is anti-incumbency and voter anger

I don't see how 2003 can be characterized as anti-incumbent, except in the case of CA.  

The only other incumbent thrown out of office was the governor of Mississippi, and he was a Dem running in a very GOP state that is only trending more GOP....so his loss only confirms the growing GOP trend MS, not anti-incumbency.

The seats were open in Kent and LA, no incumbent was on the ballot.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 01:21:58 pm by jmfcst »Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning.  I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave.  It is what I want.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9Y_GLT4_9I

I looked over Jordan, and what did I see?
Coming for to carry me home,
A band of angels coming after me,
Coming for to carry me home.

Swing low, sweet chariot,
Coming for to carry me home.
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 22, 2003, 03:29:15 pm »
Ignore

...But Chandler lost because of Patton.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
emergingDmajority1
Full Member
***
Posts: 245


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: November 22, 2003, 05:11:53 pm »
Ignore

We have a Dem governor here in NJ, Jim Mcgreevy. He's extremely unpopular, but Democrats still won control of NJ state senate a few weeks ago.

I remember last year Bush came to NJ to support Doug Forrester (gump) for senate, we even got recorded messages from George and Laura daily.

Lautenberg still won very easily.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 05:15:04 pm by emergingDmajority1 »Logged

agcatter
agcat
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3751


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 22, 2003, 07:27:18 pm »
Ignore

The four state races mean nothing as far as 2004 is concerned.
Logged
Demrepdan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1320


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 22, 2003, 09:53:59 pm »
Ignore

The four state races mean nothing as far as 2004 is concerned.
Actually, the 36 Gubernatorial elections in 2002 don't say anything as to how the 2004 elections will go either.
Logged

Moderately-Liberal Progressive Populist Libertarian Democrat.
Comrade Sibboleth
Realpolitik
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 55454
Saint Helena


View Profile WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 23, 2003, 06:06:37 am »
Ignore

The only thing that might have a(small) effect on the Presidential election is the recovery of the Dems in Appalachia(which won't have an effect on the outcome of the election).
Their poor showing in Appalachia in 2000 was forshadowed by there poor showing there in 1999.

However as very few people actually live in Appalachia the Dems improved showing there is only of interest to political junkies.

If then.
Logged



Richard Hoggart 1918-2014
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines