2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Ryan]

There is a modify option which you can use. Comes in handy

[Sibboleth]

Not a bad example at all.  I don't know where you get that.  It is entirely reflective of  the weakness of every other Northern lib Dem running in Tenn since then.  As a matter of fact, 68  was CLOSE compared to elections since.  McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis got drubbed worse.

I'm getting at the presence of a certain George Corley Wallace running as an independent.

[agcatter]

For many Southern whites who had never until then voted for a Republican, Wallace was a temporary way station in their migration from the national Democratic Party.  By 72, those Southern whites had gone all the way over to the Republicans.  It is interesting that Nixon's 72 vote almost exactly equaled the sum of the 68 Nixon plus Wallace percentages in southern state after state.

[Sibboleth]

Not true... in the Upper South areas that went for Wallace in '68 now usually go Dem, and in the Deep South... well most of the Deep South went VERY strongly for Goldwater in '64...

[Saratoga2DM]

Don't forget, the main reason why the Deep South went to Goldwater in 1964 was Johnson signing the Civil Rights acts earlier in the year.

[jravnsbo]

I thought the civil rights acts were signed in 1965, that is the ones you always hear about.

[Nym90]

That was the Voting Rights Act that you are thinking of that was passed in 1965. The main Civil Rights bill was passed in 1964.

[agcatter]

In 64 the Civil Rights Bill was pushed thru Congess by Johnson.  Whites in the deep South responded by voting against Johnson and for Goldwater who had voted against it in the Senate.

Johnson in 64 was still able to carry enough whites in the rest of the South to still carry Tennessee, NC, Va, Fla, Ark, Louisiana.

However, by 68 the white vote came undone even in those states and the Dem national ticket lost all those states.  Many of those whites got their first taste of voting for someone other than the Dem nominee for the first time in their life.  While they were not able to pull the Republican lever, many whites pulled the lever for Wallace and thus broke the habit of voting straight Democratic.  The next election in 72 saw the migration complete as Wallace was not on the ballot and studies show the Wallace voters broke around 85% Nixon, 15% McGovern.  Realignment was complete in the South and the white vote in the South has since gone overwhelmingly Republican.  In fact, even native southerner Carter lost the white vote (it was closer in 76) in the South even though he won all Southern states due to carrying 90% of the black vote.  Even HIS white % declined significantly in 80 after it became apparent after his first term that he was no conservative.

The Dem. Party can count on between 25 and 30% of the Southern white vote in a Presidential election.  Look for Dean to fall short of 25% in the South if he's nominated in 04.  They can expect to garner enough white votes to win some Senate and governor's races PROVIDING they run as moderates or moderate conservatives (eg. Gov. Warner in Va or former governor Hodges in SC).  Unfortnately for Democrats, the national Democratic Party has moved so far to the left that any of these 9 guys running against W will get buried in the old confederacy.  In other words, wave bye bye to 153 electoral votes.

[Beet]

The national Democratic party has only moved to the left if you assume that Dean will win the nomination as well as total control of the party. Not all of the "9 guys" are really so far to the left. Obviously there is Lieberman, if he is so far to the left that he would "get buried" in the South, the South is truly finished as a competitive electoral region, and future elections will be decided in the Midwest and West. Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all very moderate; supporting the war is at right-wing if not moderate position.

And it's not true that Democrats can win in the South just by being moderate. Look at Ronnie Musgrove-- he campaigned as conservatively as possible and emphasized his support of Bush, but he lost anyway. And Blanco would have lost in Louisiana if not for the racist white vote in Northern Louisiana which went heavily for Bush in 2000 but voted 52% against Jindal.

[Nym90]

Actually Goldwater won Louisiana in 1964.
Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.

[Demrepdan]

Also, I don't think that Clark would lose Arkansas if he were nominated.

Neither do I. Arkansas isn't THAT Republican. It is one of the few southern states that could very well go Democratic. Gore could have even carried Arkansas, as well as his home state of Tennessee, if he didn't distant himself so much from President Clinton.

[jravnsbo]

AR is not that republican but it is a socially conservative state.

Hutchinson lost last year not b/c Pryor was trong or that he was GOp but b/c Hutchinson treated his ex wife poorly and people hated that.

Also Lincoln is moderate as is Huckabee, mod -right.

So a liberal can scratch AR from the list.  Clark as a fov son coud be competitive, but don't se ehim getting nomination.

[agcatter]

<Gephardt, Edwards, and Clark are all VERY moderate>

Oh please.  Very moderate?  You haven't been watching the same Democratic debates I have.

<And it's not true that Dems can win the South just by being moderate.>

I didn't say they could.  I was simply saying they nave NO chance at all running as a liberal.

However, here is a fact you may want to consider before you stick Arkansas and Louisiana in the Dem column.  No NON-Southern Dem nominee has carried a single Southern state since 1968 and that includes Arkansas and Louisiana.  In fact, "buried" is a perfect description of how those candidates fared in those states.

But hey, pour the resources in down there boys if you think you can win.  The more money Dems divert from say Ohio and Pa. to the South, the better.  

I think you aren't being very realistic.  I'd love to say Bush is competitive in Mass and Rhode Island.  Damned reality keeps getting in the way though.

[jravnsbo]

Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

The poll, conducted before and after the president’s trip, found "substantial immediate" improvement in Mr. Bush’s job approval (up from 56 percent to 61 percent), disapproval (down from 41 percent to 36 percent) and likability (up from 65 percent to 72 percent).

[Lt. Gov. Immy]

I just added my map today.  It's nothing special, just the 2000 results with NH, WV, and NV switiching to the Ds.  I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.

[Nym90]

And the same poll shows that by a 51-41 margin people feel things are on the wrong track rather than the right direction.
And another poll shows the generic Dem nominee beating Bush 48-42.
The polls are all over the place right now.

[Saratoga2DM]

Is That A Smile, Andy? President Bush's Baghdad sojourn seems to have worked perfectly in one regard: his poll numbers jumped across the board in the days following the secret trip, the National Annenberg Election Survey has found.

The poll, conducted before and after the president’s trip, found "substantial immediate" improvement in Mr. Bush’s job approval (up from 56 percent to 61 percent), disapproval (down from 41 percent to 36 percent) and likability (up from 65 percent to 72 percent).

 

I see you have done your research but my question is whether or not this organization has partisan leanings.  

[jravnsbo]

Well got the report from CBS and that polling group has been used many times in the past.  It showed Bush's numbers when down at 52 and now on the up swing, with the improving economy; signing of Medicare Bill, and trip to Iraq to see the troops.

[Nym90]

Indeed, it did. And as I pointed out, the same poll still has a majority saying that things are on the wrong track. So I guess the question is which way will people vote who approve of Bush's performance but feel that things are on the wrong track?

[WONK]

CBS PARTISAN???   NO WAY!!!

[jravnsbo]

I know that would be very hard to believe, but it MAY be true

CBS PARTISAN???   NO WAY!!!

[Nym90]

I don't see any evidence to suggest that they are, or at the very least to suggest that they would put media bias over ratings and thus advertising revenue. The media are businesses like any other and ratings are number 1 priority to them, with any political bias clearly being less important...you have to do that to stay in business.

[MSUfan]

I assumed Dean would be the nominee, but I'm personally pulling for Gephardt.

Your not alone im pulling for gephardt to. But dont give up hope dean is not the nomminee just yet

[jravnsbo]

The kkey is IA, if Gep wins there it could even be a convention nomination with Dean/Kerry in NH, and Edwards/Clark and dare I say sharpton in SC ( 12% and 2d in latest poll, got to mention him I GUESS, sigh) and Lieberman, Clark etc in other Feb 3 contests.

It could be wide open after Feb 3

OR Dean sweeps and it is over.

[John]

Kerry will Lose in NH & Gepthart will lose in Iowa
Dean will win & Be the Nommie & Lose to Bush
49 to 41