2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Gustaf]

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

In 1992 Clinton did abot 10% better in Arkansas than he did nationally. In 1996 the difference was about 4.5% (Arkansas stayed the same, whereas Clinton's national vote went up from 43% to 49%).

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

[Siege40]

That's a good idea Gustaf, have Clinton campaign in Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee and Louisiana see if he can grab more votes for the Democrats.

Siege

[© Tweed the Younger]

Here is my 'pre-bounce' projection:


Kerry 274
Bush 264

[freedomburns]

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar.  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

[Reignman]

This is an outstanding and unbiased site:

http://home.comcast.net/~gerrydal/

[khirkhib]

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar.  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

Having Clinton Campaign in the gravy states is a good idea. The gravy states are the ones that he has an off-chance of winning and doesn't need to count on.  Even if Clinton can help make them competive increases the  number of toss up states and makes Bush have to spread his attention thinner.

[Siege40]

Shouldn't Clinton, if he campaigns a lot, be able to win Arkansas for Kerry?

Now, I know it isn't the same when he runs as compared to when he endorses, etc. But still, he's a fairly recent ex-president and favourite son. If he could knock up Arkansas by a few % that could well be enough.

Well, what I have heard recently is that that has become exactly the plan.  Kerry has embraced Clinton and asked him to spend the next three months campaigning around the southern swing states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Tennessee, Missouri and such.  

I think it's a great idea.  Clinton still has the same old Elvis magic.  He gives a speech better than Monika Lewinski smokes a cigar.  There are a lot of Monday Morning quarterbacks who say that this was one of Gore's (many) big errors.  The Lewinski/Jones debacle was still fresh and Gore thought that Clinton was too tainted by it to be much use as a campaigner.  I think that was a poor decision, but hindsight is 20-20.

Clinton is going to stump for Kerry, and I think it can only help.  The polls still show everything very tight.  The race is a close one and people are sticking to their guns.  It's too close to call right now.  I don't expect a big bump from the conventions, either.

freedomburns

That's odd... those are the states I specifically name.... I'm not suppose to be good at politics.... wierd

Siege

[AuH2O]

Clinton can't win anything for Kerry.

In fact, I can't think of a single example of someone out of office delivering a state via campaigning.

[??????????]

Clinton and the DNC hurt McBride in Florida vs JEB Bush back in 2002. You know the one where JEB won by 13% and somehow it's all irrevelant to 2004.

[freedomburns]

I think Dazzleman said it best:  The very presence of a Perot-type candidate illustrated Bush's weaknesses.

In that case, the very presence of a Ralph Nader-type candidate should illustrate Kerry's weaknesses.  

If it weren't for the reality of the five states that were so close in 2000 that Nader's votes arguably made the difference, more people would vote for him this time.  Also, he would be given a greater forum to expound his policies, like he should be.  The two-party system is rigged to maintain power stays with the two parties.  They have a virutal lock-hold on power in the US.

freedomburns

[© Tweed the Younger]

Current Snapshot:


Kerry/Edwards 312
Bush/Cheney 226

Kerry has been up since he picked Edwards (mid-July) on my map.  I'm trying my best not to get excited, because I learned my lesson in 1992 when Perot dropped out.

[Siege40]

Current Snapshot:


Kerry/Edwards 312
Bush/Cheney 226

Kerry has been up since he picked Edwards (mid-July) on my map.  I'm trying my best not to get excited, because I learned my lesson in 1992 when Perot dropped out.

Well I don't know. I agree with 96% with your prediction. However, the most recent poles I've seen have Bush winning Nevada. Also, in most poles I've seen Missouri is a dead die. But in the end it'll go Bush. Making Missouri the incorrect Bellweather state only twice in its history (Adlai Stephenson I think was the other).

Siege

[??????????]

Here is a map from the realm of impossible :

[True Federalist]

Agreed.  There is no way that Bush would win Alabama and lose Mississippi.  Put Mississippi into the Bush column and that map would be merely very extremely improbable.

[Democratic Hawk]

Kerry 296 / Bush 242

Dave

[Shira]

Kerry 296 / Bush 242

Dave

I wish the Brits and the Canadians could participate in the US elections.

[??????????]

Kerry 296 / Bush 242

Dave

I wish the Brits and the Canadians could participate in the US elections.

I wish England would take New England back.

[elcorazon]

I wish Texas was still in Mexico.

[??????????]

I wish Texas was still in Mexico.

Me too.

[Siege40]

The tide seems to have shifted, for me at least it's a predicted Bush win.... sadly.

Siege

[© Tweed the Younger]

I wish Texas was still in Mexico.

Me too.

I wish Spain had kept Florida.

[amkbailey]

I think that the current predictions are making this site irrelevant except for historical election information.  We all have to admit that there are only 2 possible winner to this election.  No, one of them is not Badnarik as the perdictions would have you think, but it is Bush and Kerry.  I think that people should be a little more realistic about who they think will win.  It is a perdiction page not a fantasy page.  My last perdiction was made in protest to the obvisously skewed picks.

[ATFFL]

I think that the current predictions are making this site irrelevant except for historical election information.  We all have to admit that there are only 2 possible winner to this election.  No, one of them is not Badnarik as the perdictions would have you think, but it is Bush and Kerry.  I think that people should be a little more realistic about who they think will win.  It is a perdiction page not a fantasy page.  My last perdiction was made in protest to the obvisously skewed picks.

You have the predictions and the mok elections confused.  You can't pick anyone but Bush and Kerry on the prediction page.

[© Tweed the Younger]

New Prediction


332-206...or 336-202, can't remember.

[Hitchabrut]

I guess I think the Dutch should've kept NY and the English can keep MA and RI.