My 2008 prediction.... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 11:54:45 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  My 2008 prediction.... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: My 2008 prediction....  (Read 45741 times)
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« on: February 16, 2004, 02:27:37 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 14, 2004, 10:09:32 PM
Bushalva had a strange prediction....the Dems won't nominate barnes when they have big names like Hillary, Gore, and Edwards on the table.

yeah, especially the fact that his EV count goes from 544 to 551... Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2004, 03:14:44 PM »
Quote from: NHPolitico on February 16, 2004, 02:59:40 PM
Quote from: NickG on February 16, 2004, 01:54:40 PM
Quote from: tractarian on February 16, 2004, 01:04:23 AM

2012

Dole/Owens (R) - 56%, 326 EVs
Clinton/Warner (D) - 43% 212 EVs

Elizabeth Dole will be 76 in 2012!  It strikes me that most people who are projecting the race into 2012 are picking candidates who are influential NOW, not who will be influential in eight years.

Consider this: Eight years ago, it would not have been a stretch to imagine John Kerry as the Dem nominee.  But his chief opponents were Edwards, Dean, and Clark.  Who could have guessed in 1996 that any of those three would be contenders in 2004?   Most of the 2012 candidates will be people who do not currently have national recognition.

So maybe a more interesting question is: Who will be a contender for a major party nomination in 2012 who is NOT currently a Governor or Senator?

My guesses on the Dem side:
Emanual (IL)
Herseth (SD)
Spitzer (NY)

Not sure about GOP.


And for 2020? Adam Putnam.

Lol...any guesses on 2040? Or 2060? Or why not 3004, wjile we're at it... Tongue

This is getting out of hand...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2004, 03:49:03 PM »
Quote from: opebo on February 16, 2004, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 16, 2004, 10:33:52 AM
Quote from: opebo on February 16, 2004, 04:51:09 AM
The Dems are not going to pick up Missouri or Arizona in 2004, in fact NV is a long shot.
Opebo, You ALWAYS overestimate Bush's support.  The thing is, if bush will hold on, it will be because of Kerry, not because of bush.  If edwards was the nominee, Bush would have NO chance.  I mean, none.  Kerry is a weak candidate, can Bush, who is up to his lip in slime, might hang on by a thread.

I'm not so much overestimating Bush's support as assuming a high degree (at least 47.9%) of Republican support.  Its somewhat incidental that Bush is such a likable guy - the base of support is not about liking Bush, its about favoring the GOP and disfavouring the Democrats.  I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who find left-wingers like Kerry repugnant.  Certainly this applies in places like MO and AZ.

Edwards seems stronger than Kerry, but he has his weaknesses as well - trial lawyer (which most Americans realize are the scum of the earth), who is also rather ill-informed and shallow.  Amoral like Clinton, but lacking his intelligence.  I think Bush would defeat Edwards but it would be closer.    Bush/Kerry 290/248 compared with Bush/Edwards 273/265.  

Btw, what 'slime' are you talking about?

I do think you overestimate the level of conservatism in the South-West, Bush only got around 50-51% in AZ, CO and NV.

What state(s) would Edwards get that Kerry wouldn't, I'm just curious?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #3 on: February 17, 2004, 12:37:10 PM »
Quote from: Ben on February 17, 2004, 06:41:51 AM
On the subject of the changing demographics of the South West I hear that the majority of Texans will be Spanish speaking by 2010... and it will be similar in the whole of the south west...interesting...

With a voter turnout of, say, 40% or so, it won't matter that much, I'm afraid. Sad
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2004, 12:39:19 PM »
Quote from: opebo on February 17, 2004, 05:36:18 AM
Quote from: Gustaf on February 16, 2004, 03:49:03 PM
Quote from: opebo on February 16, 2004, 01:47:58 PM
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 16, 2004, 10:33:52 AM
Quote from: opebo on February 16, 2004, 04:51:09 AM
The Dems are not going to pick up Missouri or Arizona in 2004, in fact NV is a long shot.
Opebo, You ALWAYS overestimate Bush's support.  The thing is, if bush will hold on, it will be because of Kerry, not because of bush.  If edwards was the nominee, Bush would have NO chance.  I mean, none.  Kerry is a weak candidate, can Bush, who is up to his lip in slime, might hang on by a thread.

I'm not so much overestimating Bush's support as assuming a high degree (at least 47.9%) of Republican support.  Its somewhat incidental that Bush is such a likable guy - the base of support is not about liking Bush, its about favoring the GOP and disfavouring the Democrats.  I think you're underestimating the numbers of people who find left-wingers like Kerry repugnant.  Certainly this applies in places like MO and AZ.

Edwards seems stronger than Kerry, but he has his weaknesses as well - trial lawyer (which most Americans realize are the scum of the earth), who is also rather ill-informed and shallow.  Amoral like Clinton, but lacking his intelligence.  I think Bush would defeat Edwards but it would be closer.    Bush/Kerry 290/248 compared with Bush/Edwards 273/265.  

Btw, what 'slime' are you talking about?

I do think you overestimate the level of conservatism in the South-West, Bush only got around 50-51% in AZ, CO and NV.

What state(s) would Edwards get that Kerry wouldn't, I'm just curious?

I don't think I overestimate the conservatism of Republican voters in the Southwest - they're very conservative.  Its possible I'm out of date in assuming the're still a definitely majority of the voters, as the've been for so many years.  We'll see if all these new people swamp them.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards would win Arizona, Nevada, or Colorado, but because I think NM will be so close, I would shift it to Bush against Kerry, and to Edwards over Bush.  Other than that the only thing Edwards gains over Kerry is West Virginia - very likely, and Iowa, possibly.  Three states, and he'd still lose.   And not get a single Southern state unless you count WV as southern.

I never talked about the level of conservatism among Republicans, but among the population as a whole...and I'm basing it on the numbers from the 2000 election.

I'm not sure if Edwards would do better than Kerry in the south-west and mid-west, but he would have made a stronger candidate imo, so you might be right, I guess.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2004, 02:20:45 PM »
Quote from: opebo on February 17, 2004, 02:14:22 PM
Quote from: of_thisnation on February 17, 2004, 01:49:48 PM
You guys are right, not a rat. More like a hag trying to look 25 instead of 43.


Even without the eyeshadow, it's still bad.


But the main point of the discussion, she will never become a candidate for President, and I highly doubt she'd win in the Senate.

Very ungallant posting.  Why not make fun of the appearance of Republican male candidates?


B/c we're much more vulnerable for counter-attacks there....*KERRY* Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2004, 04:51:47 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 04:47:22 PM
I would take Jennifer Granholm over her anyday.

Yep, you're right. Smiley
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #7 on: February 17, 2004, 04:53:28 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 04:52:49 PM
Whoever NHPOlitico just posted isn't really that attractive.

No, not really. Smiley
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #8 on: February 17, 2004, 05:33:23 PM »
Which one is Murkowski and which is Lincoln?
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #9 on: February 17, 2004, 05:40:12 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:33:23 PM
Which one is Murkowski and which is Lincoln?
The one on the top is Murkowski.

Then Lincoln is better, though she seems younger.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #10 on: February 17, 2004, 05:46:36 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 05:40:10 PM
Quote from: Reaganfan on February 17, 2004, 05:37:54 PM
Deocratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington.... wow, she is attractive. Why can't SHE BE a Republican LOL
Not really.



She's OK.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2004, 05:46:57 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 05:42:21 PM
Quote from: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:40:12 PM
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 17, 2004, 05:34:05 PM
Quote from: Gustaf on February 17, 2004, 05:33:23 PM
Which one is Murkowski and which is Lincoln?
The one on the top is Murkowski.

Then Lincoln is better, though she seems younger.
But Lincoln's hair is like a rag.

Who cares about the hair... Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2004, 03:44:23 PM »

What? Smiley
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2004, 05:00:42 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 18, 2004, 04:57:46 PM
I thought you were trying to say something.

Saying what?

I am not that interested in hair, that's all... Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #14 on: February 18, 2004, 05:02:26 PM »
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 18, 2004, 05:01:10 PM
Quote from: Gustaf on February 18, 2004, 05:00:42 PM
Quote from: Miamiu1027 on February 18, 2004, 04:57:46 PM
I thought you were trying to say something.

Saying what?

I am not that interested in hair, that's all... Wink


Never mind. Smiley

OK...but I'm still curious...I wasn't making some kind of suggestion about, shall we say, otehr physical features of the politician in question, if that's what you thought... Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2004, 05:03:49 PM »

OK...
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2004, 05:07:27 PM »

No.............

Wink
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,779


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70
« Reply #17 on: February 18, 2004, 05:12:08 PM »

OK.......

Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 13 queries.