Atlas Forum

Election Archive => 2004 U.S. Presidential Election => Topic started by: Dave Leip on October 28, 2003, 03:43:21 pm



Title: 2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Dave Leip on October 28, 2003, 03:43:21 pm
With the caucuses and primaries about to kick off in a little over two months, whom do you support for the Democratic party's Presidential Nomination and why?  In many states, independents and even Republicans may vote in the democratic primaries.  (sorry, only eight options are available in this poll)

Dave


Title: Page Width!
Post by: Dave Leip on October 28, 2003, 06:08:28 pm
I'm curious to know how wide your web browsers are when you visit the site.  I have kept the layout rather narrow to accomodate the 640 x 480 monitor resolution.  However, a wider format provides more information in a cleaner table layout.  Feedback Welcome.

Dave


Title: UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on October 28, 2003, 09:04:22 pm
It is likely that within 17 hours of this post, the Conservative leadership may be vacant.  But who do you think should lead the party?


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Canadian observer on October 29, 2003, 12:07:46 am
Except Hague, I don't know any of the candidates.  Would you provide a short bio of them :-)


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 05:49:31 am
Here's what the Guardian says:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/page/0,9067,823067,00.html (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives/page/0,9067,823067,00.html)


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 06:03:33 am
Naturally as I'm a Labour supporter, I'm delighted that the Tories have decided to rip themselves into tiny little pieces in front of the Media.
It's a shame that IDS looks to be on the way out, as he was a great electoral asset for us.
If it's Howard or Davis I'm going to have so much fun!

The following possible candidates are on the LibDems "decapitation list":

Michael Howard
David Davis
Oliver Letwin
Theresa May

Wonderfull!
Of course IDS could still suvive the Vote.


Title: Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 06:06:23 am
I'm re-starting some of the discussions from the old forum.


Title: Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 06:06:59 am
I'm re-starting some of the discussions from the old forum.


Title: Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 06:07:39 am
I'm re-starting some of the discussions from the old forum.


Title: Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 06:12:37 am
I thought I'd start this again over here.
The Districts are listed by Name and by Number.

PENNSYLVANIA
01. Philadelphia South=Robert Brady D
02. Philadelphia North=Chaka Fattah D
03. Erie-Butler=Philip English R
04. Allegheny=Melissa Hart R
05. Susquehanna West=John Peterson R
06. Chester-Berks=Jim Gerlach R
07. Chester=Curt Weldon R
08. Bucks=Jim Greenwood R
09. Tuscarora=Bill Shuster R
10. Susquehanna East=Donald Sherwood R
11. Wilkes-Barr=Paul Kanjorski D
12. Johnstown=John Murtha D
13. Philadelphia-Mifflin=Joseph Hoeffel D
14. Pittsburgh=Micheal Doyle D
15. Allentown=Patrick Toomey R
16. West Chester=Joseph Pitts R
17. Harrisburg=Tim Holden D
18. Westmoreland=Tim Murphey R
19. Gettysburg=Todd Platts R

ILLINOIS
01. Chicago-Southside=Bobby Rush D
02. Chicago Heights=Jesse Jackson Jr D
03. Chicago West=William Lipinski D
04. Chicago-Cicero=Luis Gutierrez D
05. Chicago-Northside=Rahm Emanuel D
06. DuPage=Henry Hyde R
07. Chicago Central=Danny Davis D/DSA
08. McHenry-Lake=Phillip Crane R
09. Chicago Northside=Janice Schakowsky D
10. North Chicago=Mark Steven Kirk R
11. Joliet=Gerald Weller R
12. East St Louis and the Valleys=Jerry Costello D
13. Will-DuPage=Judy Biggert R
14. Batavia-Henry=Dennis Hastert R*
15. Wabash=Timothy Johnson R
16. Rockford=Donald Manzullo R
17. Springfield-Moline=Lane Evans D
18. Springfield-Peoria-Illinois River=Ray Lahood R
19. Kaskakia-Lincon=John Shimkus R

GEORGIA
01. Okefenokee-Atlantic=Jack Kingston R
02. Cherokee and Seminole=Sanford Bishop D
03. Jefferson Long=Jim Marshall D
04. Stone Mountain=Denise Majette D
05. Atlanta=John Lewis D
06. Fulton-Cobb=Johnny Isakson R
07. Dahlonega=John Linder R
08. Peachtree=Michael Collins R
09. Egmont=Charles Norwood R
10. John Ross=Nathen Deal R
11. Berry=Phil Gingrey R
12. Savannah=Max Burns R
13. Luther King=David Scott D


Title: States after 2004.
Post by: English on October 29, 2003, 07:12:42 am
I would predict a narrow Democrat Victory.

Alaska- Rep
Hawaii- Dem
Washington- Dem
Oregon- Dem
California- Dem
Nevada- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Idaho- Dem (only joking!) Rep
Arizona- Rep
New Mexico- Dem
Utah- Rep
Montana- Rep
Wyoming- Rep
Colorado- Rep
North Dakota- Rep
South Dakota- Rep
Nebraska- Rep
Kansas- Rep
Oklahoma- Rep
Texas- Rep
Minnesota- Dem
Wisconsin- Dem
Iowa- Dem
Illinois- Dem
Missouri- Rep
Arkansas- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Louisiana- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Michigan- Dem
Indiana- Rep
Ohio- Rep
Kentucky- Rep
Tennesee- Rep
Mississippi- Rep
Alabama- Rep
Georgia- Rep
Florida- Dem (Gain from Rep)
South Carolina- Rep
North Carolina- Rep
Virginia- Rep
West Virginia- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Maryland- Dem
Pennsylvania- Rep (Gain from Dem)
Delaware- Dem
New York- Dem
Connecticut- Dem
New Jersey- Dem
Vermont- Dem
New Hampshire- Dem (Gain from Rep)
RI- Dem
Massachusetts- Dem
Maine- Dem


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: English on October 29, 2003, 07:30:56 am
If Davis, Howard, Redwood, Widdecombe or Ancram wins, look forward to another Labour Landslide. In fact if Widdecombe wins look foward to the Tories winning just 2 seats, Huntingdon and Chelsea!!
If Ken Clarke, Portillo or Oliver Letwin wins Labour will be in serious trouble. Clarke especially is extremely popular with non-tories (therefore exactly the sort of leader they need) and was an excellent chancellor in the 90's. Portillo is very cultured, charismatic and popular with younger voters. Letwin is also a strong speaker and definately leader material. Unfortunately, non of these is popular amongst Tory's, therefore have no chance of being picked. I would go for Howard and another substantial victory for Labour in 2005/06.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: English on October 29, 2003, 07:35:37 am
Hopefully the Alliance will crash and burn! I'm sure they'll cling on in redneck rural Alberta however!


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on October 29, 2003, 12:39:21 pm
Certainly Clarke, Portillo or Letwin would be formidable foes to the Labour party. Letwin nots running and hes said so, also I think his time may well be in 6 or 7 years..

If Howard wins, expect Blair to call the General election early, maybe next May? Redwood simply isnt in the running and i have heard nothing about him from friends within the party. David Davies may be right wing, but he is certainly charismatic, dont right him off so eagerly. Michael Ancram could never be leader hes too much of a toff. Ann Widdecombe, whilst I love her honesty, is not representative of the party enough to successfully unite them.

If Portillo and Clarke dont run, expect the left wing candidate to be Tim Yeo or David Willetts, although I think the latter is a massive longshot. It is more likely Ken will run with an endorsement from Portillo, who would then serve in the Cabinet. Theresa May isnt exactly up to it, somebody (i cant remember who) was quoted as saying that she wouldnt have been a junior minister in the Thatcher years.

Peter


Title: Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on October 29, 2003, 01:02:22 pm
Who will be Blair's successor?
To be honest I think the outlook for Labour after Tony Blair is rather bleak.
Gordon Brown or Peter Hain are probably about the best. Jack Straw has too much of a silly name  to ever be elected, Geoff Hoon is now very unpopular over the Iraq war, Blunkett is too right wing, Clair Short is too left wing and John Prescott is a complete liability! No-one really stands out to me.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: English on October 29, 2003, 01:07:36 pm
Davis is actually MP for my constituency of Haltemprice! Yes, the seat of the infamous fictional right-wing MP Alan B'stard!
I can tell you he isn't popular in my area, in fact his majority was slashed to ribbons in 2001 from over 7,000 to about 1,500. Hopefully the Lib Dems will unseat Davis at the next election if we can persuade enough Labour voters to switch.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 01:20:45 pm
Brown is by far the most popular politician in the U.K at the moment.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 01:26:40 pm
IDS might still pull it off you know...
My ideal result would be IDS winning by about 2 votes.
Result: A leader with no authority, who is also spitefull and vindictive, thus leading to expulsions and splinter groups.

But I'm not making a prediction. Ah no...You're not foolin' me...


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 02:23:50 pm
From the Guardian website:

Quote
LATEST NEWS: IDS loses confidence vote 90 to 75, sparking a Conservative leadership battle. More details soon...


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 04:18:43 pm
English, your M.P(Davis) has pulled out in favour of Howard, as have Letwin, Fox and Dorrell.

Make way for a "Stop Howard" campaign...
BBC political correspondent says that Labour probably relish the possiblity of Howard as he has a hell of a lot of baggage.

The Guardian has profiled two new possibles:

Quote
Tim Yeo
On the left, libertarian, wing of the party, Mr Yeo stands to pick up votes that might have gone to Kenneth Clarke and Michael Portillo, who are both thought unlikely to stand. A doctor's son, he had a career in the City and the charity world before winning safe Suffolk South in 1983. An environment minister in John Major's government he came under fire during the backlash over "back to basics" and resigned. Yeo wants to stand as a unity candidate. Not a brilliant orator but good at probing the government with searching questions

John Redwood
Famously "Vulcan" rightwinger and former Thatcher thinktank head, he surprised MPs when he left his wife this year. Twice defeated for leader, his media appearances have aroused suspicion that he may have one last try as the most ideological rightwinger on offer. A loner, he was dropped by William Hague and stays dropped. Politically passionate, his brains and energy need to be used. But how? Colleagues predict "he'll only get two votes".


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 04:29:32 pm
Go Michael Go!
An unreconstructed thatcherite who opposes the minimum wage.
Woo Hoo! It's a Labour/Liberal dream come true!

He's also a HUGE Hypocrite:
For all his extremist anti-asylum rhetoric, he is actually the son of a Romanian refugee and his real name is Michael Hecht.

Go Michael Go!


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 29, 2003, 04:39:11 pm
Yeo seems to have pulled out.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on October 29, 2003, 06:25:54 pm
Dont bet against the house, somebody on the liberal wing of the party will run, even if as a protest candidate. Ken Clarke is presently uncontactable, I havent heard for sure that Yeo is pulling out, and Redwood is sly as a fox.

There is always opportunity for the best laid plans to go awry and dont forget Murphy's Law.

Pete


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Peter on October 29, 2003, 06:31:50 pm
Peter Hain isnt exactly viable as he negoitiated the European Constitution, good job their Peter.

This country would never elect David Blunkett and you would have to be blind not to see it.

Prescott or Short would be a disaster for this country, perhaps worse than Michael Howard.

Jack Straw doesnt exactly have any good credentials after Iraq, neither does Geoff Hoon who will probably lose his job when Hutton reports.

A couple of names I often heard banded around are Yvette Cooper and personally I think Alan Milburn will be back.

Still, Gordon Brown has done wonders with the economy considering global trends, I am a natural Conservative voter, but I won't vote Tory unless they give me a radical social agenda that stops living in the last century. Blair/Brown still looks to be the most attractive ticket around.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: TomC on October 29, 2003, 07:35:14 pm
In the most recent debate (FOX), Dean made the argument against his nomination very clear when he said he isn't afraid to take a stance that 70% of the country doesn't agree with. The number one job of the major nominees is to get a plurality of votes and a majority of electoral votes.

Kerry, Gephardt, and Clark on the other hand have positioned themselves in a place where they can win moderates and be truly competitive with Bush. Lieberman is too far right to appease the Dem primary voters and Edwards is just too far down in the polls.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: TomC on October 29, 2003, 07:42:47 pm
I predict a narrow Dem victory, but slightly different state results. Differences w/ English marked *:


Alaska- Rep
Hawaii- Dem
Washington- Dem
Oregon- Dem
California- Dem
Nevada- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Idaho- Rep
Arizona- Dem*
New Mexico- Dem
Utah- Rep
Montana- Rep
Wyoming- Rep
Colorado- Rep
North Dakota- Rep
South Dakota- Rep
Nebraska- Rep
Kansas- Rep
Oklahoma- Rep
Texas- Rep
Minnesota- Dem
Wisconsin- Dem
Iowa- Rep*
Illinois- Dem
Missouri- Rep
Arkansas- Dem (Gain from Rep)
Louisiana- Rep*
Michigan- Dem
Indiana- Rep
Ohio- Dem*
Kentucky- Rep
Tennesee- Rep
Mississippi- Rep
Alabama- Rep
Georgia- Rep
Florida- Rep*
South Carolina- Rep
North Carolina- Rep
Virginia- Rep
West Virginia- Dem
Maryland- Dem
Pennsylvania- Dem*
Delaware- Dem
New York- Dem
Connecticut- Dem
New Jersey- Dem
Vermont- Dem
New Hampshire- Dem (Gain from Rep)
RI- Dem
Massachusetts- Dem
Maine- Dem

I think that gives the Dem 299 to Bushie's 239

()()()()()()()()

quote author=Governor Mordac link=topic=29109.msg649626#msg649626 date=1127724784]
The worst public schools function, the better.
[/quote]

This is no more than a land grab.
If they want federal land they should pay market price for it.

I find it incredibly ironic that a federal official makes this "land grab" claim. My counter offer would be that we pay what the feds paid, multipled by inflation.

1. Are you aware how much the federal government paid for these lands to  begin with?
2. Are you aware how much state and local tax revenues we have lost because of federal seizure of these lands?
3.  Are you aware how much the bloated federal government spends maintaining these lands? We'd be saving you money by taking these lands back.

Come up with these three figures and then we'll start talking about market value.

Al, when this was originally proposed as an initiative in the SE, I asked for a similar list. (Semi-) Senator-elect Bono proposed the initiative, so IMO, he should provide this list unless the sponsoring senator wishes to.

Also, to add to the debate, here's an interesting editorial on federal lands:

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/01-18-99/landcontrol.htm



Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Peter on October 29, 2003, 08:39:25 pm
After reading something about Illinois being one of the most carried states in Presidential elections, I decided to check it out:
Illinois has only failed to be carried by five Presidents:
William Harrison (1840)
Grover Cleveland (1884)
Woodrow Wilson (1916)
James Carter (1976)
George W Bush (2000)
The first four didnt win the next election, and neither did their party. Not to say that we should use history as any guide, but the last son of  a President to become President was elected after not winning the popular vote and then lost the next election. Also, it couldn't be coincidence that the last man to be elected President direct from the Senate was a Democrat from the state of Massachusetts with the initials JFK.

By the way, I think that your apportioning of the states is probably a little early as we have no idea who the Democrat ticket is. If Gephardt is on it, I would imagine they will carry Missouri!! What about DC, do you think theres any chance of an 80% swing and the Republicans winning it!!!!

Peter


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 01:07:30 am
Time remaining: 7 Hours 23 Minutes

tick...tick...tick...tick...


Title: 2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 01:22:05 am
Quote
Quote: from brandon20 on 1:26 pm on Sep. 4, 2003..Old Forum, 2004 U.S. Presidential Election, 2003 Gubernatorial Races
Mississippi will  be a cakewalk for Musgrove. Barbour doesn't have a chance.

Poll shows Barbour with lead

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0310/26/m01.html

tick...tick...tick...tick...


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 04:04:31 am
Mississippi's electoral laws make a close race even more interesting:
If no candidate gets over 50% it goes to the Democrat dominated State House.
In other words, Barbour could end up ahead of Musgrove by a decent margin, but still lose.

Lousiania is also very close.
The GOP seem to have the advantage in Kentucky...but only just.

All three are worth a watch.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 04:15:15 am
Actually I want Michael Howard(nee Hecht) against Micheal Kerr(the Earl of Ancram).

A hypocrite against an Earl?
Wonderful!

May is worth a watch, as are several of the newer M.P's, and some of the old bastard brigade...

Watch for an IDS loyalist candidate.
Maybe Owen Paterson.

Also watch out for Conway. He's apparently not pleased with Davis jacking it in.

Remember...a week to go yet...


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 04:21:26 am
Maybe some of the newer M.P's?

Chris Bryant(Rhondda) perhaps? Tom Watson(West Bromwich East)?


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: English on October 30, 2003, 05:40:13 am
If Howard gets it I predict the Tories will slip into third place behind the Liberal Democrats. He will never appeal to young wavering Labour voters such as myself. For one thing he is too old, secondly, he is too right wing and a social conservative which will turn off anyone under 40 in droves. He is also a relic from the 1980's Thatcher government, people don't want taking back to those days. They should elect a fresh face such as Oliver Letwin or Boris Johnson, not harped back to the 80's.


Title: UK Election Result 2005
Post by: English on October 30, 2003, 06:02:32 am
I know it's a bit early, but I would give the major parties the following

Labour 345
Conservative 150
Liberal Democrat 125

I think Labour will loose seats in Kent, Essex and Herts to the Tories. I predict they may also loose some urban seats in the north to the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems will do extremely well, stealing many marginal seats off the Tories esp. in the West Country. I think Olly Letwin and David Davis will loose their seats to the LD's. Labour will do well in Scotland and London in particular, but will suffer in the south east and in some Northern cities such as Liverpool and Newcastle where the LD's will be resurgent. In the cities the Tories will drop into 3rd or 4th place.
Howard will be forced to resign and the Tories will be forced into another leadership contest. Shortly into Labour's 3rd term, Blair will step down and be replaced by Brown.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 10:00:07 am
US ECONOMY GROWS 7.2% in Q3, fastest pace in 19 YEARS!!!!!

Nonresidential fixed investment rose at a 11.1-percent annual rate, following the second quarter's 7.3-percent pace, a sign of continuing strength in BUSINESS SPENDING.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

---

tick...tick...tick...tick...KABOOOOOOOOOM!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 10:17:51 am
Realpolitik:<<jmfcst can spin things anyway he want's.
The fact's are simple: the U.S economy is in a mess.
Finis. >> (6:03 am on July 26, 2003 (about midway thru 2003Q3)

jmfcst: <<2003Q3 GDP is released this Thursday (10/30)....we're all about to find out just how "simple" Realpolitik's facts are!  LOL!>>

US ECONOMY GROWS 7.2% in Q3, fastest pace in 19 YEARS!!!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

---

Realpolitik,

How should I put this?....Your grasp of reality......SUCKS!

Finis.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 10:52:38 am
A cruel responce to that would be Bush's poor polling numbers.
But I'm not a bastard and won't.


Title: Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 10:58:25 am
US Senator Zell Miller (Dem, GA) Endorses BUSH in 2004

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA said he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 11:08:40 am
Howard *is* a dream opposition leader from Labour's point of view. The Tories seem to want to replace an uncharismatic, unpopular right-winger, with an uncharismatic, hated right-winger.
Who is also on the Liberals "decapitation" list...

Who hoo!


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 11:47:18 am
Labour 420-380
Conservative 200-100
Liberal Democrat 130-20
SNP 8-1
PC   5-0
Independent 1(Dr Taylor if he runs again)

Lab 48-36
Con 24-34
LD   18-30


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: English on October 30, 2003, 11:55:53 am
Quite! Howard was very authoritarian when Home Secretary in the 90's and he upset a lot of people. I recall him overruling judges on many occassions. I cannot see him being very popular with the voters, not unless they're manufacturers of CCTV cameras! I must admit he is a good speaker, but not a particularly endearing one, I personally find him rather frightening. No, the Tories have made a serious error in picking Howard.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 12:05:10 pm
The LibDems are not even close to being a threat to Labour in the Northern Cities.
They are no-where in Newcastle, have been seriously hurt by council cock-ups/corruption in Sheffield and Liverpool, and them holding a seat in L'Pool prior to '97 was only because of the "Alton Factor".

I have not a clue why they harp on about N.U.T, they did finish second in N.U.T Central and N.U.T East-Wallsend, but they need to topple majorities of 33.2% and 43.4%
It is not going to happen.

Very few Labour seats are actually under threat from the LibDems, and they would be better off decapitating the Tories(which is actually their official policy).

Howard, May, Davis and Letwin are all in *serious* trouble next time round.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 12:07:14 pm
Paxman(the "Evil Jeremy") repeated a question to him *14 times* in 1997...and he still couldn't give a straight answer!


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 30, 2003, 12:10:04 pm
Don't you mean "democrat"?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 12:23:55 pm
<<A cruel responce to that would be Bush's poor polling numbers.>>

I think you meant a cruel "addition"  to that would be Bush's poor yet winning poll numbers:

Bush has a lead of 6 percentage points over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.)

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/9494.htm (http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/9494.htm)

----

jmfcst: <<The economy turned around in June and is beginning to pick up steam.  Solid job creation should begin to show up by early Q42003.  In the meantime, Bush's approval numbers may creep down into the high 40's>> (quoted from Old Forum, 2004 US Presidential Election, What's that hissing sound? 5:37 pm on July 18, 2003)

As you can see, Bush's approval rating is slightly better than I predicted 3 months ago.

The difference between you and me (besides your total ignorance of economic reality) is that I am a very good judge of political undercurrents (things affecting public opinion going FORWARD)...And the political undercurrents (both economically and socially) for Bush in the next 12 months are EXTREMELY POSITIVE.

Barring another major terrorist attack on the US mainland, Bush's reelection is a given.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 12:32:37 pm
Senate GOPers Fail to Break Pickering Filibuster

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101698,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101698,00.html)

This will certainly help Barbour.

tick...tick...tick...tick...


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 01:47:13 pm
Here's what is really important about the GDP figures just released:

--Business spending increased by 11.1% in Q3...meaning, contrary to media spin that Q3 growth was "led by consumer spending", business spending increased at TWICE the rate of consumer spending.  

--Despite business spending increasing by 11.1%, inventories continued to be depleted.  Without the decline in inventories, final sales rose at a 7.8 percent pace in the third quarter, the strongest rate since the second quarter of 1978....meaning, with inventories already at or near historic lows, business will have to replenish their stocks which will support the hard-hit manufacturing sector.   The 0.6% difference between sales (7.8%) and GDP growth (7.2%) will be added to GDP growth in the next 6 months as manufacturing ramps up to meet demand.

--Government spending, which contributed mightily to the second quarter's 3.3% growth rate, slowed down. Defense spending, which grew at a 45.8% pace in the second quarter, driven by spending on the war in Iraq, was flat in the third quarter...meaning, the 7.2% growth in GDP is the TRUE reflection of the private sector of the US economy.

--Despite growth in consumer spending, the savings rate actually INCREASED in Q3....meaning the 7.2% growth didn't come at the expense of the consumer's debt burden.

--Inflation is still historically very low....meaning, interest rates will remain low, thus spurring even more GDP growth.

---

Conclusion....this report is about as good as it gets, the private sector increased sales (without decreasing savings) at the fastest pace in 25 years!  Furthermore, there is a BUTT LOAD of momentum in this report that will carry the economy forward thru 2004.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on October 30, 2003, 02:38:17 pm
Senate GOPers Fail to Break Pickering Filibuster

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101698,00.html

This will certainly help Barbour.

tick...tick...tick...tick...

It will definitely help the white vote go for Barbour.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: DarthKosh on October 30, 2003, 02:39:24 pm
Pennsylvania 10th could also be named anthracite because of the coal was mined here.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: TomC on October 30, 2003, 05:13:07 pm

By the way, I think that your apportioning of the states is probably a little early as we have no idea who the Democrat ticket is.

Geez, what a buzzkill!

And actually, for the record, here's an invitation to research the matter:

ask my brother the name of the principal at the Elementary School he teaches at. Ask him the gym teacher who mentored him. Ask him the school he was mentored at.

He knows it all, and it can be looked up.

Elimination of VP will lead to appointed Presidents, of our history of resignations and declarations of inactivity continue.

One proposal I'd like for us to consider is eliminating what I've stricken below:
{quote]
The Regions may elect a Governor as chief executive officer, and may establish other executive posts as they wish, however no executive member may be elected for a term of more than six months.
[/quote]

I'm not against term limits, but I don't believe it's appropriate for the federal to mandate limits on the regions.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: TomC on October 30, 2003, 05:16:02 pm
If I take a cash advance on my credit card, put it in my checking account and brag about how the balance of my checking account was growing, would anyone have any praise for my management of my household budget?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 05:47:55 pm
TCash,

I fail to grasp how your analogy has anything to do with Bush cutting taxes by 1% of GDP and the GDP increasing 7.2%.

Are you saying that Bush turned a 1% GDP tax cut into 7.2% GDP growth?!  If so...then YEAH, I would consider that very much worthy of praise.

PLUS, consider that the Fed taxes 20% of GDP, 0.2 x .072 = 0.0144....in other words, Fed rax receipts would increase by 1.44% of GDP.....meaning that Bush turned a 1% of GDP tax cut into a tax revenue stream amounting to 1.44% of GDP.....that would be a 44% return.

But, then again, Bush does hold degress from Yale and Harvard...so we shouldn't be shocked.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on October 30, 2003, 06:38:22 pm
Im praying that somebody will decide that it is necessary to intervene, I think Bill Cash may be doing the rounds and considering a run, not that he is any better than Michael Howard. Hopefully a liberal conservative will throw his hat into the ring.

Unfortunately all the liberal conservatives seem to be backing Howard: Yeo, Letwin, Dorrell. Many others arent running: Portillo, Clarke probably wont. This could work to Howard's advantage if puts together a shadow cabinet that actually packs a punch with all sections of the electorate.

My prediction of the Top Posts in Howard Shadow Cabinet:

Chancellor: Portillo (if he ll agree to it)
Foreign: Hague
Home Affairs: Letwin
Chairman and Deputy Leader: David Davis

Likely absences: IDS (hes already said hell return to the back benches), Clarke, Widdecombe, Theresa May, Michael Ancram

Peter

*I would like to point out that within minutes of me posting this, Portillo declared for Clark and the morning after Clarke said he wouldnt run....oh well.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on October 30, 2003, 08:58:37 pm
I'd say that it's a bit premature to say that Bush's reelection is a given. For one thing, the Q3 growth will have to be sustained for a couple more quarters such that we actually start to see an increase in jobs, which we have not yet seen. Also, even if the economy starts to turn it around, it'll still almost certainly be worse in Nov. 2004 than it was in Nov. 2000, so the old "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" argument still holds. The deficit is still a problem for Bush, as is Iraq. While a turn around in the economy is definitely good for Bush, by no means does it guarantee his reelection.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 10:10:56 pm
<<For one thing, the Q3 growth will have to be sustained for a couple more quarters such that we actually start to see an increase in jobs, which we have not yet seen.>>

you just don't get it, do you?

1st)  >4% GDP growth is already baked into 2003Q4 and 2004Q1.

2nd) GDP growth precedes Job growth.

3rd) We have ALREADY started to see an increase in jobs,  +57k were created in Sept2003.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg...Also that employer survey is pretty lame, it does NOT count jobs held by the self-employed, like myself, nor does it count jobs created by small businesses.  The governments household survey, which DOES track ALL jobs, shows +130k have been created since Bush took office, in contrast to the -2.7M jobs loss according to the employer survey.  

---

<<Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? still holds true>>

If things are so bad, then why is home-ownership at an all-time high?

Also, as the stock market recovers (50% of American's own stock), wealth is being built back up.

---

tick...tick...tick...tick...


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 30, 2003, 10:27:55 pm
Jobless claims fall

The Labor Department said 386,000 people filed for benefits in the week ended Oct. 25, compared with a revised reading of 391,000 in the prior week.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/jobless/index.htm


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2003, 04:13:12 am
jmf... What matter isn't what the economy is doing, it's what voters think the economy is doing.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2003, 04:19:13 am
Oddly enough all three Gubernatorial Elections are looking very close this year.
No landslides in the offing at all.

My "guesses":

Mississippi:
54% chance of Barbour winning the most votes BUT a 60% chance of the election being decided in the State House.

Kentucky:
55% chance of a GOP win, 45% chance of Dem win.

Louisiana:
51% chance of a Dem win, 49% chance of a GOP win.

In otherwords, I'm not making any definate predictions, as all three look close.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2003, 05:23:09 am
So could 11, 12 and 14.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 31, 2003, 10:43:00 am
<<What matter isn't what the economy is doing, it's what voters think the economy is doing.>>

I beg to differ with you...What matters isn't what the voters think the economy is doing NOW, rather it is what the voters think the economy is doing in Nov 2004.

Those Nov 2004 opinions will be formed by today's "undercurrents" - the underlying progress that is being made but not yet reflected in the current headlines (surface conditions).

For example:  Reagan trailed Mondale by 30% in 1983, but the undercurrents would bring Reagan a 49 state sweep in 1984.

Economic undercurrents:  Rebounding business spending, Interest rates at 40 year low, inflation at 35 year low, well above average GDP growth, more tax cuts (already passed) phasing in....Dean is proposing raising everyone's taxes - a sure LOSER of a position.

Social undercurrents: "under God" Pledge, partial birth abortion, gay marriage....all strongly in Bush's favor and gay marriage remains a ticking time bomb threatening to turn 2004 into a blood bath for the Dems.

Geopolitical undercurrents:  Good progress *IS* being made in Iraq and Iraqi public opinion is swinging against the terrorists and toward the US.  Iraq's WMD will be traced to Syria....the Dems are offering no alternatives except retreat.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on October 31, 2003, 11:58:34 am
For some Interesting stuff on Howard see http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/archives/001071.htm (http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/archives/001071.htm) and http://the-thinker.blogspot.com (http://the-thinker.blogspot.com)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on October 31, 2003, 12:03:52 pm
Reagan trailed Mondale by 30% in 1983? I had no idea Mondale was that far ahead in the polls. 65-35? Wow.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 31, 2003, 12:25:27 pm
I can only find links to sites stating Reagan trailed Mondale by 9 points in 1983.  Im not sure where I heard the 30% figure (maybe I was thinking of Clinton trailing Dole in 95, or maybe Im thinking Reagan in late 82).  

But, even trailing by 9% in 83 and winning by 18% in 84, shows that the undercurrrents during 83 were tilted heavily toward Reagan.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 31, 2003, 12:58:05 pm
Michigan sentiment index rises
 
Closely watched measure of consumer confidence revised slightly higher in October.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/michigan/index.htm

---

Chicago PMI gains
 
Closely watched index of manufacturing activity in the Chicago region gains in October

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/chicago_pmi/index.htm

---

Consumer income rises, spending dips in September

(note: these numbers are for Sept, so they're very stale)

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/personal_income/index.htm


Title: Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:19:12 pm
Import from the old forum


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:22:04 pm
Here’s my original suggestion list for all 435 elected representatives from the old forum.  Their names are inspired by localities, counties and historical events or people.  I even suggest names for some at-large districts. :-).  The list consists in a series of post, the new forum doen't seem to accept long posts.

ALABAMA (7)
1. La Mobile (Former Spanish name of Alabama’s oldest city)
2. Montgomery-Dothan
3. Montgomery-Tuskegee
4. Pinckney (1795 Treaty name that gave most of Alabama’s territory to the US)
5. Hunts
6. Jefferson-Shelby
7. Birmingham-Tuscaloosa

ALASKA (1)
1. Bering


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:22:34 pm
ARIZONA (8)
1. Apache and Navajo
2. Mohave
3. Maricopa-North Phoenix
4. Phoenix
5. Northeast Maricopa
6. Maricopa-Mesa
7. Tucson-Yuma
8. Cochise

ARKANSAS (4)
1. Arkansas Post (1st Arkansas state capital)
2. Little Rock
3. Fayetteville
4. Quapaw (Indian people living in Arkansas until the early 19th century)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:23:03 pm
CALIFORNIA (53)

1. Eureka-Napa and West Sacramento
2. Yuba
3. Sacramento-Solano
4. Lake Tahoe
5. Sacramento
6. Marin
7. San Pablo Bay
8. San Francisco
9. Oakland
10. Solano-Fairfield
11. Alameda-San Joaquim
12. South San Francisco
13. Alameda-San Francisco Bay
14. Palo Alto
15. Santa Clara
16. San Jose
17. Monterey
18. Merced and Modesto
19. Yosemite
20. Fresno-Kings
21. Sequoia
22. Kern
23. Santa Barbara-San Luis
24. Ventura
25. Death Valley
26. Pacheco (1st Native Californian governor)
27. Northridge
28. San Fernando
29. Burbank
30. Beverly-Malibu
31. Hollywood
32. Northeast Los Angeles
33. Culver-Northwest Los Angeles
34. Central Los Angeles
35. Inglewood-West Los Angeles
36. Santa Monica Bay
37. South Los Angeles
38. East Los Angeles
39. Southeast Los Angeles
40. Orange-Stanton
41. Bernardino Heights
42. Orange-Yorba Linda
43. San Bernardino
44. Orange-Corona
45. Joshua
46. Long Beach
47. Anaheim
48. West Orange
49. San Diego-East Riverside
50. East San Diego
51. South San Diego-Imperial
52. West San Diego
53. San Diego Bay


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:23:27 pm
COLORADO (7)
1. Denver
2. Boulder-Summit
3. Upper Colorado
4. Gilpin (1st territorial governor in 1861)
5. Colorado Springs
6. South Denver-Arapahoe
7. North Denver

CONNECTICUT (5)
1. Hartford
2. New London
3. New Haven
4. Trumbull (CT Governor during the American Revolution)
5. Litchfield

DELAWARE (1)
1. Delaware


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:23:54 pm
FLORIDA (25)
1. Pensacola
2. Tallahassee-Gulf
3. Jacksonville-St. Johns
4. DuVal (2nd FL territorial governor (1822-1834), after Andrew Jackson)
5. Citrus
6. Bradford-Clay-Marion
7. St. Augustine (Florida’s oldest City)
8. Orlando
9. North Hillsborough
10. West Tampa
11. Tampa
12. East Hillsborough
13. De Soto (16th Century Spanish explorator who landed in Tampa)
14. Fort Myers
15. Brevard-Osceola
16. Okeechobee
17. North Miami
18. Dade-Key West
19. Broward-Palm Beach
20. Broward-Lauderdale
21. Miami Heights
22. Broward-West Palm Beach
23. Hart (1st FL Native Governor)
24. Canaveral
25. Glades


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:24:16 pm
GEORGIA (13)
1. Okefenokee (Name of a marsh area located in the district)
2. Cherokee and Seminole
3. Jefferson Long (1st Georgian black congressman in the 19th Century)
4. Stone Mountain
5. Atlanta
6. Fulton-Cobb
7. Dahlonega (Name of the heights located in the district)
8. Peachtree
9. Egmont (James Oglethorpe, Earl of Egmont, 1st Georgia colonial governor)
10. John Ross (19th Century Cherokee leader)
11. Berry (Martha Berry, famous educator and social worker 1866-1942)
12. Savannah
13. Luther King

HAWAII (2)
1. Honolulu
2. Hawaii

IDAHO (2)
1. Boise-Alene
2. Idaho Falls


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:24:51 pm
ILLINOIS (19)
1. Cook
2. Chicago Heights
3. West Cook
4. Ogden (1st Chicago mayor, 1837)
5. McCormick (Inventor of the mechanic harvester, died in Chicago)
6. Dupage
7. Chicago
8. McHenry-Lake
9. North Cook
10. North Chicago
11. Joliet
12. East St. Louis and the Valleys (i.e. Ohio & Mississippi valleys)
13. Will
14. Batavia-Henry
15. Wabash
16. Rockford
17. Springfield-Moline
18. Springfield-Illinois River
19. Kaskakia (River located in the area)

INDIANA (9)
1. Gary-Newton
2. La Porte-St. Joseph
3. Maumee (River located in the area)
4. Wallace (IN governor from 1837-1840, author)
5. Jennings (1st IN state governor)
6. Miamies (Indian tribe living in IN until the 19th Century)
7. Indianapolis-Marion
8. Evans-Vincennes (Vincennes: former territorial capital)
9. Hendricks (former VP under Cleveland first term, died in office)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:25:18 pm
IOWA (5)
1. Dubuque (1st European settler living in Iowa)
2. Iowa (Iowa City, 1st state capital)
3. Des Moines-Meskwaki (Meskwaki, Indian tribe living in the area)
4. Winnebago
5. Sioux

KANSAS (4)
1. Robinson (1st KS state governor)
2. Topeka-Leavenworth
3. Kansas City-Lawrence
4. Wichita-Sedgwick

KENTUCKY (6)
1. Lincoln (US president 1861-1865)
2. Shelby (1st TN state governor)
3. Louisville
4. Taylor (12th US president)
5. Davis (Confederacy president)
6. Frankfort-Boone

LOUISIANA (7)
1. Pontchartrain
2. New Orleans
3. Bayou-Delta
4. King Louis (Louis XIV, King of France who inspired the name Louisiana)
5. La Salle (Cavelier de La Salle, French explorer)
6. Baton Rouge
7. Acadia-Lafayette


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:25:49 pm
MAINE (2)
1. Augusta-Portland
2. Madawaska (Northern area located in the district, near Presque Isle)

MARYLAND (8)
1. Annapolis-Chesapeake
2. Baltimore-Harford
3. Baltimore-Anne Arundel
4. Prince George
5. Calvert (17th Century MD colonial governor)
6. Mason-Dixon
7. Baltimore-Howard
8. Potomac

MASSACHUSSETTS (10)
1. Hancock (1st MA state governor)
2. Hampden-Worcester
3. Worcester-Bristol
4. Brookline-Plymouth
5. North Middlesex
6. Salem-Essex
7. South Middlesex
8. Boston-Cambridge
9. Boston Bay
10. Adams (2nd US president)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:26:12 pm
MICHIGAN (15)
1. Lake Superior
2. Muskegon
3. Kent-Iona-Barry
4. Midland-Traverse
5. Flint-Bay
6. Kalamazoo
7. Eaton and Washtenaw
8. Lansing
9. Pontiac (18th Century Indian chief)
10. Huron
11. North Wayne
12. St. Clair
13. Detroit
14. Dearborn
15. South Wayne

MINNESOTA (8)
1. Sibley (1st MN state governor)
2. Scott
3. Hennepin
4. St. Paul
5. Minneapolis
6. Anoka-Benton
7. Thousand Lakes
8. Duluth-Sources (i.e., sources of the Mississippi River)

MISSISSIPPI (4)
1. Tupelo
2. West Jackson-Vicksburg
3. East Jackson-Natchez
4. Biloxi


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:26:40 pm
MISSOURI (9)
1. St. Louis
2. West St. Louis
3. South St. Louis
4. McNair (MO governor who designated Jefferson City as state capital)
5. Kansas City
6. Chillicothe
7. Greene-Jasper and Newton
8. Scott
9. Twain (19th Century American writer, apparently born in the area)

MONTANA (1)
1. Montana

NEBRASKA (3)
1. Butler (1st NE state governor)
2. Omaha
3. Platte

NEVADA (3)
1. Las Vegas
2. Nye (Former NV territorial governor)
3. South Las Vegas

NEW HAMPSHIRE (2)
1. Manchester
2. Concord-Granite


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:27:04 pm
NEW JERSEY (13)
1. Camden
2. Atlantic
3. Burlington
4. Trenton-Ocean
5. Bergenfield and Sussex
6. Monmouth-Somerset
7. Union-Somerset
8. Passaic
9. Bergen
10. Newark-Union
11. Morris
12. Trenton-Mercer
13. Newark-Bayonne

NEW MEXICO (3)
1. Albuquerque
2. Rio Grande
3. Santa Fe


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:27:31 pm
NEW YORK (29)
1. Long Island
2. Suffolk
3. East Nassau
4. South Nassau
5. Queens-Nassau
6. Southeast Queens
7. La Guardia
8. Holland-Brooklyn
9. Jamaica Bay
10. Brooklyn-Bays (i.e. Upper Bay & Jamaica Bay)
11. Central Brooklyn
12. Upper Bay-Bridges
13. Staten Island-Verrazano
14. East River
15. Harlem
16. South Bronx
17. Bronx-Rockland
18. Westchester-Rochelle
19. Hudson
20. Saratoga
21. Albany
22. Catskill
23. Adirondack
24. Finger Lakes
25. Syracuse
26. Roosevelt
27. Buffalo
28. Niagara-Rochester
29. Clinton and Jay (The two first NY state governors, late 18th Century)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:28:08 pm
NORTH CAROLINA (13)
1. Roanoke Rapids
2. Raleigh-Johnson (Andrew Johnson, 17th US president)
3. Dare (Virginia Dare, first baby of European origin to be born in America)
4. Durham
5. Blue Ridge
6. Randolph-Moore
7. Cape Fear
8. Morrow
9. Andrew Jackson (7th US president)
10. Dudley (1st NC elected state governor)
11. Walton Fields
12. Charlotte-Polk
13. Raleigh-Greensboro

NORTH DAKOTA (1)
1. Dakota

OHIO (18)
1. Cincinnati
2. Belle River (inspired by the former French name of the Ohio river: Belle rivière)
3. Dayton
4. Harding (former US president born in the area)
5. Bowling Green
6. Grant (Ulysse S. Grant, US president)
7. Clark-Pickaway-Perry
8. Butler-Preble
9. Toledo
10. Cuyahoga
11. Cleveland
12. Colombus-Hayes (Rutherford B. Hayes, US president born in the area)
13. Akron-Lorain
14. Ashtabula
15. Colombus-Franklin
16. Ashland-Stark
17. Portage-Youngstown
18. Harrison (Named after former US president William H. Harrison)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:28:40 pm
OKLAHOMA (5)
1. Tulsa
2. Wachita (Mountains located in the area)
3. Cimmaron (River located in the area)
4. Midwest-Comanche
5. Oklahoma-Shawnee

OREGON (5)
1. Portland-Clatsop
2. Trail (i.e., Oregon Trail)
3. Multnomah
4. Lane and Douglas
5. Whitaker (1st OR state governor)

PENNSYLVANIA (19)
1. Philadelphia
2. North Philadelphia
3. Erie
4. Allegheny
5. West Susquehanna
6. Chester-Berks
7. Chester
8. Bucks
9. Tuscarora
10. East Susquehanna
11. Wilkes-Barre
12. Geary (former PA state governor, born in the area)
13. Philadelphia-Mifflin (Mifflin, 1st PA state governor)
14. Pittsburgh
15. Allentown
16. West Chester
17. Harrisburg
18. Westmoreland
19. Gettysburg

RHODE ISLAND (2)
1. Providence-Newport
2. Providence Plantations (from the former colonial name of the state “Rhode Island & Providence Plantations)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:29:01 pm
SOUTH CAROLINA (6)
1. Charleston-Sumter
2. King Charles (England King Charles II, granted the Carolina territories to Lord proprietors)
3. Anderson-Greenwood
4. Greenville-Spartanburg
5. Rock Hill
6. Florence-Orangeburg

SOUTH DAKOTA (1)
1. Rushmore

TENNESSEE (9)
1. Smokey Mountains
2. Knoxville
3. Chattanooga-Oak Ridge
4. Blount (1st and only TN territorial governor) or Upper Tennessee
5. Nashville
6. Sevier (1st TN state governor)
7. Henderson and Williamson
8. Lower Tennessee
9. Memphis


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:29:36 pm
TEXAS (32)
1. Texarkana
2. Huntsville
3. Collin
4. Gregg-Cooke and Grayson
5. Dallas-Anderson
6. Tarrant-Ellis
7. West Harris
8. North Harris
9. Beaumont-Galveston
10. Austin
11. Bell-McLennan
12. Tarrant-Parker
13. Red River
14. Henry Smith (1st American governor of TX)
15. Mission
16. El Paso
17. Abilene
18. Houston
19. Lubbock-Midland
20. San Antonio
21. Travis
22. Brazoria
23. Del Rio
24. Dallas-Fort Worth
25. South Harris
26. Denton
27. Cameron and Nueces
28. Hogg (1st native born TX state governor
29. Houston-Harris
30. Dallas
31. Brazos-Waller-Williamson
32. North Dallas

UTAH (3)
1. Salt Lake
2. Uintah-Wasatch (Indian tribes who live in the area)
3. Young

VERMONT (1)
1. Champlain


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on October 31, 2003, 01:30:09 pm
VIRGINIA (11)
1. Fredericksburg and Jamestown
2. Queen Elizabeth (Elizabeth I, who inspired the name “Virginia”)
3. Richmond-Norfolk
4. Suffolk-Chesapeake
5. Pocahontas
6. Roanoke-Wilson
7. Richmond-Poe
8. Arlington
9. Appalachians
10. Loudoun
11. Fairfax

WASHINGTON (9)
1. Seattle-Puget
2. Straits
3. Olympia-Vancouver
4. Yakima
5. Columbia River
6. Tacoma-Harbours
7. Seattle
8. King-Pierce
9. Olympia-Pierce

WEST VIRGINIA (3)
1. Boreman (1st WV state governor)
2. Lederer (1st European to explore WV)
3. Coal Mountains

WISCONSIN (8)
1. Milwaukee-Racine
2. Madison
3. Eau Claire-La Crosse
4. Milwaukee
5. Milwaukee-Waukesha
6. Dodge-Fond du Lac
7. La Folette (1st WI born state governor)
8. Green Bay

WYOMING (1)
1. Yellowstone


Title: Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on October 31, 2003, 02:27:04 pm
There has been speculation by Dick Morris and others that Al Sharpton will run as an independent, but the topic hasn't been talked about much since.

But checking out what Al has been up to lately, one has to wonder what he is up to.

Al attacked Jesse Jackson Jr for his endorsement of Dean.  Now he is calling black supporters of white candidates "Uncle Toms" while receiving standing ovations.

http://msnbc.com/news/952445.asp?0cv=CB20



Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: migrendel on October 31, 2003, 03:52:08 pm
I've just voted in the poll to support Michael Portillo. A man of such erudition and electoral saavy would make an excellent leader and a better PM than Phoney Tony Blair. The only person I would even consider as a better PM in 2005 would be Charles Kennedy.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: © tweed on October 31, 2003, 03:54:49 pm
I doubt Sharpton would run as an independent, but, who knows?  He would run for anything-I think he ran for Mayor of the city a few times.  Personally-I just think he is in there for the fun of it.

Sharpton's a jerk, but you can't tell me that he isn't funny.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: migrendel on October 31, 2003, 03:55:34 pm
Clare Short would be an excellent PM, in my opinion. She has an impressive resume as a Secretary for International Development, and is a progressive in both political and sexual affairs.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: © tweed on October 31, 2003, 03:58:37 pm
Mississippi: Barbour beats out Musgrove by 2-10%.  But, I really don't care.

Louisiana: 50% chance of either a GOP or a DEM win.  Again, I don't care.

Kentucky: GOP wins.  Period.

I don't care, because, well, none of these states are relatively close to me, and none of them are battlegrounds for 2004 with the unlikely exception of Louisiana.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: migrendel on October 31, 2003, 04:08:55 pm
I would like to announce a change of opinion. I officially consider myself a supporter of Howard Dean. While I was previously a supporter of John Kerry, I now support the former governor of Vermont, because I am assauged that he is equally cultured and well-bred compared with the Massachusetts senator, and has a more progressive viewpoint.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on October 31, 2003, 04:26:15 pm
I cannot emphasise enough how much of a disaster the election of the Liberal Democrats would be. Charles Keneddy doesnt work too hard, nor have any economists ever gotten a Lib Dem budget to balance, but that doesnt matter too much because they never get elected.

As for Michael Portillo, time is slipping fast for the Wonder Boy, my bet is Ken Clarke has arranged for him to become Shadow Chancellor and that could hopefully set him up for the succession he so richly deserves after all he has overcome; He did however miss his chance in 1995 when Major stepped aside.

A more likely outcome is in about 6 years, Howard stands down, he'll be 68, and we have the ultimate fight between Letwin and Davis who already have the look of prodigal sons about them. However I fear that Davis may already have missed his chance, I dont think he will get another one as good.

Peter


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Peter on October 31, 2003, 04:36:04 pm
This country abandoned socialism a long time ago, Clare Short has a much chance of becoming Labour Leader as IDS does of returning to be Tory leader.

No, the obvious option is still Gordon Brown, with the dark horses of Milburn and Cook up there as the main challengers. Straw is irrelevant and Blunkett sits too far right to be elected by his party.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: migrendel on October 31, 2003, 04:51:03 pm
You make your comment about the Liberal Democrats with an utter failure to see the alternative. I don't see how Charles Kennedy could be any worse than the recent PMs which were a harpy with ice water running through her veins, a do-nothing silly billy-goat, and the current PM, a functionary of the inimical trades unions.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: migrendel on October 31, 2003, 04:53:53 pm
Perhaps Labour should restore its commitment to the disadvantaged by selecting a champion of the interests of everyone, such as the tight-lipped but tenacious MP from Birmingham Ladywood, Clare Short.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on October 31, 2003, 07:13:23 pm
Mississippi: Barbour beats out Musgrove by 2-10%.  But, I really don't care.

Louisiana: 50% chance of either a GOP or a DEM win.  Again, I don't care.

Kentucky: GOP wins.  Period.

I don't care, because, well, none of these states are relatively close to me, and none of them are battlegrounds for 2004 with the unlikely exception of Louisiana.

I'm nowhere them too, but it the only elections for a while.  I don't lousiana will be battleground next year.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: DarthKosh on October 31, 2003, 07:15:17 pm
If Al is pissed off enough at Dean he will run as an independent.  If nader runs too that will be big trouble for the Dems.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: DarthKosh on October 31, 2003, 07:20:05 pm
WEST VIRGINIA (3)
1. Boreman (1st WV state governor)
2. Lederer (1st European to explore WV)
3. Coal Mountains

Coal Hills would sound better then Coal Mountains.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: DarthKosh on October 31, 2003, 07:23:30 pm
I hope it is drawn out and not over in a few weeks.  Because it will be more interesting and entertaining if it is drawn out.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on November 01, 2003, 03:33:07 am
If job growth is understated by the employer survey, than how many jobs were created in the Clinton years? Maybe it was even more than the official figures of about 20 million from the employer survey. Even if Bush has created 130k jobs in 3 years, that's still pretty bad compared to 20 million in 8 years under a Democratic administration.
The deficit is still a problem for Bush. The budget is about $600 billion or so behind where it was when Bush took office ($200 billion surplus or so to $400 billion deficit). Thus it's costing us more than $4 million per job created. So unless these are all CEO positions being created here, it seems like that's not too efficient. Supply-side economics does not work, never has. It may give the economy a small short-term boost, but that is more than offset in the long run by the negative effects of higher budget deficits (greater amount of budget spend on interest payments, higher interest rates as the government competes with businesses for loans, etc). Demand creates supply much more than supply creates demand.
Things are getting better in Iraq? How so? The pace of casualties among American troops hasn't slowed. Your opinion of the situation is definitely more optimistic than Donald Rumsfeld's.
The WMDs will be traced to Syria? I suppose anything is possible, but I don't see any evidence to support that as of yet. If the WMDs, Saddam, and Bin Laden are all still at-large next year at this time, that's a problem for Bush.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on November 01, 2003, 01:08:50 pm
I mostly agree with Pete Bell here. Barring a catastrophe, Gordon Brown is the favourite to succeed Blair. However, Robin Cook may be the backbenchers' choice, especially after his dignified exit over Iraq (also bearing in mind that his views on the war reflected those of the Party at large).

Claire Short would make a great foreign secretary in my opinion, but there's no way the electorate, or even the Labour Party in its current state, would accept a socialist PM.

I'll emigrate if David Blunkett becomes PM.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Michael Z on November 01, 2003, 01:23:59 pm
Sorry for breaking the flow of the conversation, but I think it speaks volumes that the only two senior Conservatives capable of winning a general election, Michael Portillo and Kenneth Clarke, are completely estranged from their own Party.

The "coronation" of Michael Howard also proves that the Tories haven't learned a thing. This is a man who symbolises the pomposity, arrogance, contempt and cynical populism of the Major era which made the Tories so despised in the first place.

As for the Lib Dems, I would be much more comfortable with Menzies Campbell as their leader. He truly looks like a Prime Minister in the making.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 01, 2003, 01:44:04 pm
Short is about as popular as the bubonic plauge  amoung Labour voters/members/MP's.
Cook is hated as well.

Brown is the most popular political figure in the U.K by some distance.

Watch Bryant and Watson.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 01, 2003, 02:20:47 pm
Here's some posts I imported from the old forum...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 01, 2003, 02:21:26 pm
Here are the Léger Marketing surveys ( http://www.legermarketing.com ).  These are the only one I know I could get by the web.  The documents are in pdf files

Federal voting intentions in Canada at large
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedcaeng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in the Maritimes
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedmaeng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in Quebec
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedqceng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in Ontario
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedoneng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in the Prairies
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedpreng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in Alberta
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedaleng.pdf

Federal voting intentions in BC
http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/pol/ivfc/fedbceng.pdf


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 01, 2003, 02:22:24 pm
The Canadian Alliance (CA) is the only major federal party that would ideologically be the closest to American conservatives.  In Canada, CA is considered as right wing, but I think this party might be considered as centrist in the US.

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) and the Conservative Party (PC) should be considered as liberal leaning, although PC's considered here in Canada to be centre-right, while LPC's viewed as centre-left.  However, the ideological position of the Liberals is highly debated, as their policies might be centre-right, centre-left, and centrist as well.

The Bloc Québécois (BQ), minus their separatist agenda, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) are definitely left-wing by American standards and I'm sure that if Pat Buchanan ever knew their existence, he would have castigated these parties as "being even more socialistic than the Commies".

Generally speaking in the media and political discussions, Canadian federal electoral analyses consist of grouping the electoral dynamics of six large regions :

1. The Atlantic, which comprises New Brunswick (NB), Prince Edward Island (PEI), Nova Scotia (NS), and Newfoundland (NF)

2. Quebec (i.e. the Province of Quebec)

3. Ontario

4. The Prairies, which comprises Manitoba and Saskatchewan

5. Alberta

6. British Columbia

Each of these broad regions has parties which perform better than other and issues that tends to be more important than in any other areas.

1. In the Atlantic, high unemployment and fisheries are continuously the biggest issues.  At the provincial level, especially in NB and NS, the issues of car inssurance gained prominence as voters complain of hikes in their prenium payment.  The LPC is very strong federally in each of the four provinces.  PC was traditionally strong in southern NB and NS, but now, this is the only region where PC can elect its candidates.  NDP has surprisingly surged in the Atlantic since the 1997 election, and succeed in a couple of ridings since, the party is strong in NS, especially in Halifax, one of the few cities that's not entirely devoted electorally to the Liberals.

2. In Quebec, the issue has always been about the province's constitutional place in Canada.  There is not yet a "right-left political polarization", the polarization is "federalism-sovereignty" (or remaining in Canada or separate from Canada).  Needless to say that the BQ is the party of the Quebec sovereignty (advocating Quebec independance or secession from Canada).  Since the last 2000 election, the LPC has succeeded in regrouping almost all the Quebec federalist voters under its banner.  A startling case concerns the fact that the two other federalist parties, NDP & CA, have only single-digit support from voters and are in no position to make a breakthrough.  The LPC tends to do well in urban areas such as Quebec City and Montreal; southern regions of the province, such as the Outaouais and the Eastern Townships are Liberal strongholds.  BQ performs well in rural areas, especially on the St.Lawrence valley, and the northern and eastern regions.  The BQ has nevertheless succeeded at electing candidates in surburban ridings of Montreal and Quebec City.

3. In Ontario, everything currently seems going well.  Despite the SARS scare in Toronto, the biggest province and economic powerhouse of the country look far from being in crisis.  In provincial elections, Ontario tends Conservative, but federally it's Liberal and it's even more since the PC collapse that occured in the last decade.  Rural regions are the areas from which the PC and CA get most of their support in Ontario.  The Liberals are in a hegomonic position as all cities tend to vote for their party.  Since 1993, you can count on your fingers how many elected Ontarian MP were not Liberal...

1993: only one from the Reform Party
1997: only one Conservative and an independent
2000: two from the CA, and one from the NDP

4. In the Prairies, agricultural issues do have prominence.  This is the region where there's an almost perfect three-way race between the LPC, AC, and the NDP.  All three consistently succeeds at getting candidates elected.  The NDP is succesful in rural areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and makes good showing in Winnipeg.  The Liberals do well in Winnipeg too.  The CA was particularly strong in the rural areas too since 1993, let's see how it's going to be in the next election.

5. Alberta is the craddle of the CA party, and the province the most supportive of the Alliance.  Mismanagement cases of Taxpayers' money from the federal government seem getting an stronger echo in their electorate than it would be the case in other regions.  Distrust of big government is another characteristic.  The only place that is usually less supportive of the CA is the city of Edmonton, where the only Liberal MP's have been elected since 1993.

6. In British Columbia, 1993 was quite a big swing, most federal MP's were elected under the banner of the Reform Party (which changed its name for the Canadian Alliance).  In 1988, most were from the NDP, that's what I'd call "ideological gymnastic".  Since then, the CA has made strong showing in the province, the party attracts support mainly from Vancouver suburb and the BC interior.  The NDP and the LPC get most of their support from urban and coastal areas, especially in Vancouver.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 01, 2003, 02:24:19 pm
()
Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis (1890-1959)[/i]

Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis (simply called Duplessis, or nicknamed "Le Cheuf" [French slang for "Chief"]) was born in Trois-Rivières in 1890.  After his legal practice, in 1927, he got elected MLA in Trois-Rivières for the waning Quebec provincial Conservative Party (PC).  He became PC leader in 1932.

During the last term of Quebec Liberal Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, a group of Liberal MLA, led by Paul Gouin, broke out from the Liberal caucus and then create a party named "Action Libérale Nationale" (ALN).  Meanwhile, the Duplessis-led PC was morphing and changed its name to "Union Nationale" (UN).  The ALN and UN began cooperating and made a deal for the 1935 provincial election, which consisted to oppose only one candidate, from the ALN or UN, to every QLP incumbent.  The two parties almost succeeded to prevent a Liberal legislature majority.

1935 QC ELECTION
QLP: 46.5% (47 seats)
ALN: 29.5% (25 seats)
PC: 19.0% (17 seats)
Ind. Liberals: 4.0% (1 seat)

()
Louis-Alexandre Taschereau (1867-1952)[/i]

After the election, the ALN merged with the UN, the new party kept the latter name.  Duplessis quickly took over the leadership and push out the last ALN remaining people from the party power centres.  Meanwhile, scandals plagued the Liberal government and legislative inquiries over government dealings on a host of issues mushroomed.  This led Taschereau, Premier since 1920, to resign in June 1936 and let Adélard Godbout to succeed him at the helm of the QLP and the provincial government.  Election is rapidly declared and Godbout Liberals suffered a crushing defeat.

1936 QC ELECTION
UN: 56.9% (76 seats)
QLP: 39.4% (14 seats)

()
Joseph-Adélard Godbout (1892-1956)[/i]

During his first term, Duplessis began showing the features of his personality that will make him known for generations to come.  He reneged on his promises to nationalize electricity utilities; and as a staunch anti-communist and anti-socialist, the Legislative Assembly enacted the "Loi du cadenas" (Padlock Act, it's my tentative English translation), which is meant to curb and eliminate communist propaganda.  Notice that "communist activity" had a very large definition that included almost any activities the Duplessis government didn't like, that was like McCarthy's witch hunt.  Paradoxically, the Duplessis governement implemented the earliest features of the Quebec social democratic state, such as the minimum wage, financial support for mothers in need, and insurance credit for farmers.

In September 1939, right after the outbreak of the Second World War, Duplessis declared an anticipated provincial election, sensing he would need a strong mandate to oppose the federal Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King if the latter would ever implement conscription of men for war effort (the idea of conscription was always deeply opposed among Quebecers, especially among French speakers; that was even the case in 1917).  During the campaign, King promised not to establish conscription, thus preventing Duplessis from having a horse to do war with.  Other issues during the campaign concerned Duplessis' quite chaotic term, so chaotic that some UN MLA's went back to the QLP fold they had quit a couple of years before.  The King promises helped Godbout-led Liberals to win back a strong majority.

1939 QC ELECTION
QLP: 53.5% (69 seats)
UN: 38.6% (15 seats)
Ind.: 1.1% (2 seats)

()
William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874-1950)[/i]

Adélard Godbout regained the Premiership he lost three years before.  Ironically, King did implement conscription in 1942, that didn't help Godbout, who faced the electorate in 1944.  During Godbout's Premiership, Duplessis kept his official opposition leader post, that period was seen as Duplessis' desert crossing, a desert the latter seemed to have gone through in 1944.

1944 QC ELECTION
UN: 38.0% (48 seats)
QLP: 39.4% (37 seats)
Oth.&Ind.: (6 seats)

Duplessis' victory was the start of a 15-year reign as Quebec provincial Premier.  During his second tenure, his administration oversaw the construction of electrical utilities in rural areas.  In 1948, Duplessis introduced the Quebec provincial flag, confirming again his nationalist credentials.

()
Quebec provincial flag[/i]

In 1954, the provincial income tax is established, thus making Quebec the only province where tax payers have to fill two income tax declarations.  Most of the Quebec hospitals were founded during Duplessis' Premiership tenure.  Those achievements were Duplessis' brightest.  However, he is better remembered for darker deeds.  He was business friendly like…

… like preventing the establishment of independent workers' unions, except Catholic unions (Catholic unions were means to spy on various labour sectors, as Duplessis' government had connections with the Quebec Catholic clergy).

… like crushing workers' strikes harshly, and accuse strikers of sedition.  The figure case is the 1949 Asbestos strike, police came, then violence, shooting and killings erupted (that was a Quebec-style Pullman strike).  Of historical interest, the future Canadian PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau witnessed the 1949 strike as a journalist, he vilified Duplessis.  Duplessis declared having known nothing about the police intervention, assertion not viewed as credible…

()
1949 strike in the city of Asbestos, Eastern Townships, Qc[/i]

… and Duplessis was business friendly like giving away access to natural resources at ridiculous prices, but not for a ridiculous period of time.  Exhibit A, the UN government, in 1946, granted access to iron minerals in northern Quebec to companies at one cent per ton produced, the access was granted for 99 years.  The once again Liberal opposition leader Godbout quoted, "Ce n'est pas le scandale du siècle, mais bien le scandale d'un siècle." (This isn't the scandal of the Century, this is the one-Century scandal).

Premier Duplessis was a deeply religious conservative.  In those years, that wouldn't cause any electoral problem, as French Quebec society was as conservative.  He let hospitals, elementary and high schools, and other social services entirely under the management of the Catholic clergy.  That surely saved moneys in salaries, but let orphanages and asylum totally under religious control, in those years, and then 40 years later, you get sexual abuse scandals.  The same happened in other Canadian provinces such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, BC, etc.

Duplessis may have been intolerant too.  In the 50's, his government constantly prevented a Jehova's witness bar owner to obtain a permit to sell alcohol.  The case went in courts and the bar owner won his case.  Censure was pervasive in education as many books or other pieces of art were put in the index.  Of them figured the French movie "Les enfants du paradis", and the book "Le deuxième sexe" from Simone de Beauvoir, who's Jean-Paul Sartres' wife.

Needless to say the Duplessis' administration quicly came corrupted.  From the 40's, the UN devised a sheme by which any company that wins a government contract bid must give an amount of money, equaling 10% of the contract value, to the UN campaign coffers.  The UN party was consequently flushed with money and Duplessis succeedingly won provincial elections in 1948, 1952 and 1956.

In September 1959, while visiting northern Quebec, Maurice Duplessis died.  His death marked the end of a 15-year period later called "La Grande Noirceur" (The Great Blackout), period generally marked by a bossy Premier and the conservative social pressure.  Today, in Quebec, calling a politician or candidate a "Duplessis" is one of the biggest insults, it means he or she is bossy, dictatorial and close-minded.  In 1978, Radio-Canada aired a biographical TV series, based on a play, simply called "Duplessis", the show was prematurely withdrawn after complaints from viewers who were old enough to remember Duplessis.  The series was aired again in reruns more than a decade after.  It's one of the best political historical series ever done in Quebec.  The picture looks like in the series "Me, Claudius, Emperor".  I've never watched the entire "Duplessis" series, though I viewed some of them in reruns a couple of years ago and even some my high school history class.

I hope that helps you, but I still can't figure out what Duplessis has got to do with your cousin's thinking on the NDP's fortunes in Quebec.

Cheers, and here are famous quotes from Duplessis, enjoy :-)

La Cour supreme c'est comme la Tour de Pise, elle est toujours penchée du même bord

"The Supreme Court [of Canada] is like the leaning tower of Pisa, it always leans toward the same side."
-Maurice Duplessis in 1936 referring to the 1927 Supreme Court decision that didn't give Labrador to Quebec, but to the Newfoundland British Colony-


Chers électeurs, électrices et électricité…

"Dear electors (voters) and electricity…"
-Maurice Duplessis introducing one of his speeches during an electoral campaign by referring to his achievements in the construction of electrical utilities in rural areas-


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 01, 2003, 02:28:32 pm
nym90

Posts like your last one are aggravating because I don’t feel like explaining clear and recent history to you!

---

The Economy:  

Bush’s economic policies did NOT take effect until 2001Q3, the PRECEDING four quarters saw GDP growth at +0.6% (2000Q3), +1.1% (2000Q4), -0.6% (2001Q1), and -1.6% (2001Q2).  Therefore, it is DISHONEST of you to blame Bush for the recession since there were no changes in policy; rather Bush inherited an economy in decline following a boom (which Bush was warning about in during the Fall of 2000).

In contrast to the liberals blaming Bush, I do NOT blame Clinton for the recession because I am HONEST.  There is STILL something called the “business cycle.”  The economy was simply extremely overextended by the summer of 2000.

Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3 and were followed by an attack worse than Pearl Harbor (Sept 2001), corporate scandal (Summer 2002), and a long lead up to war (June 02 – April 03).

In retrospect, any HONEST (key word) person would have to say that the economy has held up remarkably well giving everything that has come against it.

Also, Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3, every single quarter of GDP growth after 2001Q3 has outperformed every one of the four quarters prior to 2001Q3.



The Deficit:

During the boom years of the stock market, Capital Gain taxes were generating between $200B-$400B PER YEAR of tax revenue.  With the bursting of the stock bubble, a bubble that simply was NOT sustainable, we’ve lost that tax revenue.

And that revenue will NOT be coming back anytime soon since losses are carried forward each tax year.  I, myself, still have $120k in losses that I carry forward, since I am only able to deduct $3k in capital gains losses per year on my tax returns.  Meaning…I will have to generate $120k in additional stock market gains to even begin to start paying taxes on Capital Gains again!!!

The economic slowdown that Bush inherited (though NOT Clinton’s fault, but simply a function of the normal business cycle) has drained other tax revenue from the Fed, stemming from lower corporate profits and personal income.

The events of 9/11 and the war on terror have meant an 80% increase in defense related spending, amounting to an addition cost $200B per year!

The tax cuts account for only $100B of the deficit.

…but, it takes HONESTY to view the deficit in this manner.


Iraq:

Success in Iraq is NOT measured by the number of US combat causalities.  If that were the case, victory could have been “won” by not fighting in the first place. Instead, true and honest progress is measured by the US ability to build better lives for the Iraqi people.  

HONESTY dictates the realization that terrorists’ attacks in Iraq are NOT stopping the US from restoring electricity, water, and basic economical functions to the Iraqi people.  And the Iraqi people are realizing that the terrorists are the enemies of Iraq, not the Americans.

But, the success of the terrorism in Iraq is measured at home, because certain liberal “Metrosexuals” are trying to use images of the attacks to weaken the American resolve, in order to gain political power.  

Albert Einstein reportedly once said that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, thinking they will get a different result, is insane...The voters saw through the Dem geopolitical weakness in 2002, and they will see through it again in 2004.

As far as Iraqi WMD ending up in Syria, google the topic.  Israel had given the US heads up as early as last Spring, and the US has come around to the same conclusion.  But, Bush doesn’t have to go after Syria, all he has to do is give the green light to Israel, which is why we just saw Israel strike deep into Syrian soil for the first time in 30 years.

---

The Liberal motivation:

There are two ways to deal with the shame of sin:  

…One can repent, which requires effort and humility…

or,…One can try to outlaw morality so that everyone is morally corrupt.  Therefore, instead of coming to terms with one’s shame, the person can merely pass it off to someone else.




Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Peter on November 01, 2003, 02:29:21 pm
I shall also point out that Clare Short has commited crimes against the British Constitution and lost a lot of respect amongst fellow socialists and certainly respect she had for being consistent with her opponents.

After saying she would resign and vote against any Iraq war without the UN, she did a U-turn and didnt resign. Later she did resign over the issue but by then her reputation was in tatters.

As to her Constitutional Crimes: in the vote over Foundation Hospitals, she did not take part despite there being a three-line whip. She said that she "forgot". No, failure to obey collective cabinet responsiblity means that you should resign on grounds of principle, not abstain. For this reason she commited a Crime against the Constitution.

Peter



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 01, 2003, 02:29:58 pm
Quote
Quote: from nclib on 6:34 pm on Aug. 8, 2003
Canadian Observer,
 I was just wondering what parts of Canada (cities, provinces, etc.) were liberal and which ones were conservative. What are the top political issues in Canada?
Just click on the Natural Resources Canada web site (http://atlas.gc.ca/site/english/maps/reference/elections/election2000)[/u].  They feature a map showing the results of the 2000 federal election; the riding colors are based on their winning party.

Here's another map showing the 1997 results.  By the results, you may see that Canadian politics is highly regionalized.
()

KEY

Liberal Party of Canada (LPC)
Reform Party (RP)
which later became the Canadian Alliance (CA)
Bloc Québécois (BQ)
New Democratic Party (NDP)
Progessive Conservative Party(PC)


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Peter on November 01, 2003, 02:31:49 pm
There are constantly health worries surrounding Menzies Campbell, so he couldnt be leader. If anybody looks cut out to lead the Lib Dems its Simon Hughes, but it looks like they are sending him into the four horse fight for control of London, now that will be the most contested election in the country come May.

Peter


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 01, 2003, 03:05:37 pm
<<Don't you mean "democrat"?>>


No, rather Im talking about a large portion of Southern Dems that reject the national Democrats.

You really need to read Zell Miller's book.  He compares the modern Dem party with the Whigs.

here is an excerpt:

"...I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer who was elected that state's governor in 1862. He opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig" and many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South.

When he was approached to do so in 1865, Vance was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."

Like that Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party of today has become dangerously fragmented, and considering the present leadership it can only get worse. Compromise will become increasingly difficult and no leader's goal will be to reach consensus or common ground. Instead, they will more than ever blindly champion this group and that group...."

Sounds a lot like the Cal recall, doesn't it?!

---

Zell continued...

"...A demagogue is defined by Webster as "a political leader who gains power by arousing people's emotions and prejudices." Isn't that exactly what some of them are doing? Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt! Its demagogy, pure and simple.

Howard Dean, while not alone, is the worst offender, and it says a lot about the current Democratic base that he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. He likes to say he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but I say he belongs to the whining wing of the Democratic Party...."


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/02miller.html



Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Michael Z on November 01, 2003, 05:43:14 pm
It's a shame Paddy Ashdown is no longer party leader; if he was I wouldn't hesitate putting money on the Lib Dems being the official opposition in 2005. A well-spoken, articulate man, and one of the few politicians I genuinely respect.

The London election next year will definitely be interesting. If I'm honest Simon Hughes doesn't really look "mayoral" to me (though of course it's early days so a well-organised campaign could still change my mind), but if Labour can come up with a credible candidate (Glenda Jackson perhaps) as opposed to a dead duck then they will get my vote. If not then I'll just have to hesitatingly vote Livingstone again.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 06:00:45 am
Jmf... LOTS of Dems in the South have voted GOP in Presidential elections for about 40 years.
It's not exactly new.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 06:13:28 am
Blunkett is a classic Sheffield Labourite(left on economics, centre-right socially), and has said he would "love to be Chancellor in a Brown government".

Cook is an adulterer(very bad for a political figure over here), and is hated by the rank and file.

Short is facing possible de-selection in Birmingham Ladywood, and is hated more than Cook.
And ignoring a three line whip is NOT a good idea if you want to be P.M(ask IDS).

It's worth remembering that most Labour members(and voters) supported the war on Iraq.

All senior Labour members regard themselves a Socialists(Blair mentioned in the conference speech for example), although until recently they had been playing it down a little.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 06:15:27 am
I've just voted in the poll to support Michael Portillo. A man of such erudition and electoral saavy would make an excellent leader and a better PM than Phoney Tony Blair. The only person I would even consider as a better PM in 2005 would be Charles Kennedy.

Sorry to disapoint you, but Portillo ain't reknowned for "electoral savvy".
He went down in 1997 if you remember.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 06:21:57 am
You make your comment about the Liberal Democrats with an utter failure to see the alternative. I don't see how Charles Kennedy could be any worse than the recent PMs which were a harpy with ice water running through her veins, a do-nothing silly billy-goat, and the current PM, a functionary of the inimical trades unions.

Blair is a member of the TGWU,  but does disagree with them a bit... although by U.S standards Labour do take a lot of money from the Unions.
But the giveaway is the word "Labour".


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: migrendel on November 02, 2003, 09:38:02 am
I'll remind RealPolitik of the scores of Tory MPs that lost in 1997, the only ones remaining were those in seats resembling Kensington & Chelsea, Huntingdon, and Maidstone and the Weald. His loss in Enfield Southgate was, from an electoral standpoint, inevitable.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 11:15:47 am
Not quite true.
Heathcoat-Amory and Gill managed to hold on to seats that were considered more vunerable than Enfield-Southgate(Wells, Ludlow, although when Gill retired in 2001, the local Tories selected someone even more right-wing than Gill(!), and lost to the Liberals in the biggest upset of the night).

However Portillo was a very different person then(he was basically a right-winger living in denial of his Spanish roots and his Homosexual past), and for most people seeing him go down in Enfield was the highlight of the night.
He was also a crap constituancy MP, which was almost certainly what got him in the end.

After defeat he utterly re-invented himself, and became far more acceptible to the electorate...
Which meant he stood no chance of becoming Tory leader.

Portillo is nowadays a "wet". And the last wet to be Tory leader was Ted Heath...


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Michael Z on November 02, 2003, 12:41:00 pm
That's exactly right, RP. Though it's somewhat ironic that Portillo, who (alongside people like Redwood, Howard, Bottomley, etc) was regarded as the source of anti-Tory contempt back in 1997 is now seen by many as the party's potential saviour.

But then his post-97 transformation did seem very sincere. It's obvious that he was quite shocked by what happened in Enfield, so much so he changed his entire political outlook. As opposed to other senior Tories he realised that the country had changed, the world had changed, and that far right politics no longer won elections.

Or maybe we're now seeing the 'real' Portillo, what went before having been a denial of his past like you mentioned. In a way there is something grimly Oedipal about the son of immigrants acting like a tough mean xenophobe. (Not dissimilar to a certain Tory MP with Romanian-Jewish heritage, come to think of it...)

Anyway, as I said before, it's telling that modernisers like Portillo do not stand a chance of leading the Conservatives. Try as they might, they just can't stop acting like a bunch of mean-spirited contemptous toffs. It's a culture the likes of Thatcher, Tebbitt, Powell et al drilled into the party thirty years ago and it may take another thirty years for them to get rid of it completely.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 02, 2003, 03:29:50 pm
Latest polling shows Musgrove just ahead in Mississipi, Jindal widening his lead in Louisiana and the Dems closing the gap in Kentucky.

It's all in play.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: © tweed on November 02, 2003, 03:42:52 pm
Darthkosh-did you catch the line "unlikely exception?  Lol...

Jindal and Balco should be an interesting race, Kentucky is GOP, and Musgrove may actually stand a chance in Mississippi?

I won't stay up on election night waiting to hear the results, that's for sure.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: © tweed on November 02, 2003, 03:46:56 pm
The conservative southern dem has lived for a long time.  George wallace, Zell Miller, Ralph Hall, and to a lesser extent John Breaux and such.

They are just segregation-times hangover that refuse to call themselves Republicans, I guess, I'm not really an expert on the south.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 02, 2003, 04:00:39 pm
I think the Jindal and Blanco race will be the only close one,  with the republicans picking up to other two.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: NorthernDog on November 02, 2003, 11:04:18 pm
There are not many white Southern Democrats left, and I believe that is Z.Miller's point.  The Democrats are ignoring the situation at their own peril.  It's  difficult to attain 270 electoral votes while losing all southern states - possible but very difficult.  


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 02, 2003, 11:05:07 pm
Finally, former Conservative Ontario Premier, Mike Harris, won't bid for leadership position of the upcoming Conservative Party of Canada.

()
Mike Harris, former Conservative Ontario Premier (1995-2002)
From the Globe & Mail (http://www.http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031102.wharris1102/BNStory/Front/)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on November 03, 2003, 03:02:32 am
Well, I don't much care for explaining clear and recent history to you either.
Unemployment started going up dramatically after Bush's tax cuts took effect. Unemployment had not been above 4.5% for 3 years before June 2001, and it hasn't been as low as 4.5% since June of 2001. Jobs are what matter to most people, not GDP growth. GDP growth indicates how well corporations are doing, but unemployment indicates how well the middle class and poor are doing since they need jobs, not corporate profits. Corporate profits that don't lead to hiring don't help the poor and middle class much. True, as more people own stocks the effect becomes greater than it once was, but most of the poor and middle class still don't own stocks, or if they do, they don't own very large quantities.
Now, it's true that Clinton doesn't deserve all the credit for the boom, nor does Bush deserve all the blame for the recession. Yes, there are factors in the economy which are out of control of the President. However, when you look at the economic records of the past 25 years, it is obvious (to any honest person, as you would like to say) that the economy has performed better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations. You are correct that the very strong economy of the Clinton years wasn't sustainable forever, and to a certain extent things were bound to slow down a little bit, since they had been so good for so long. Percentage GDP growth is somewhat misleading, since the larger the economy gets, the more difficult it is to have high percentage growth, and likewise large increases in GDP percentage growth are more likely if the economy has been poor. Total growth independent of percentage would also be a useful number to look at. Even in the summer of 2001, after 2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage, the economy was still doing decently well (still much better than it had been when Clinton took office). Unemployment had crept up slightly but was still, as I noted, lower than it has been at any time since Bush's tax cuts took effect. As for the other reasons that you state for the poor economy, if the long lead up to war is to blame for the economy, that's still Bush's fault since this is his war. As for corporate scandals, Enron had close ties to Bush and the GOP. As for 9/11, yes, obviously that hurt the economy, but the large increases in defense spending are helping the economy.
As for the deficit, yes, when the economy slows down the budget surplus is bound to shrink as a result, and likewise the strong growth of the 90's created the surplus. But yet, at the same time that Bush was warning that the economy might slow down, as you say, he was saying we could afford a tax cut because of the surplus. Then, when the economy became poor, he argued that we needed a tax cut to spur the economy...it seems as though Republicans want tax cuts for the wealthy no matter what, and are willing to change the justification to meet the circumstances. Bush has used entitlement theory, supply-side economics, and Keyensian economics as his justifications at different times, depending on the situation. If Bush really believes that people are entitled to keep their money and shouldn't give it to the government, that's a reasonable moral argument to make, but this old saw about how tax cuts pay for themselves and balance the budget has been clearly proven to be bogus, both under this administration and under Reagan. The large surpluses that we had in the Clinton years were not entirely sustainable, but that's all the more reason not to cut taxes so that we can at least maintain as much fiscal responsibility as possible. Yes, 9/11 and the increase in defense spending hurt the deficit, but again, all the more reason not to cut taxes if you are going to have to increase government spending. Tax cuts need to be accompanied by spending cuts, which Bush and the Republican congress have not been willing to do. At least the Contract with America Republicans had a consistent philosophy...Bush wants the best of both worlds, fiscal responsibility be damned.
As for the war, indeed, combat deaths are not the only way to measure success, but, it is still a situation where benefit to Iraqis is weighed against a loss to Americans. If Bush's argument all along had been a humanitarian one, that this was the right thing to do for the people of Iraq and for the world to bring democracy to Iraq, I, and many others I suspect, would have been much more willing to go along with it. But Bush's alientation of most of the rest of the world has a lot to do with our current troubles. Other countries would be much more willing to help us now if we hadn't antagonized them earlier this year. There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and although I applaud any effort to humanitarianly aid the Iraqi people, the reality is that we can't afford it at this time when we have our own pressing needs at home (and once again, if we hadn't had massive tax cuts, we would be much more able to afford the costs of the war).
Certainly, there is some progress being made, but stopping or at least significantly slowing the killings of Americans should be our first priority, followed by helping build the Iraqi infrastructure.
And, of course, the Dems are only playing politics with this whole thing, while Bush only has the nation's best interests at heart...please. Almost all politicians desire power, of course, if they didn't they would be in a much higher paying profession, which almost all of them could be. But, the great majority of them also care about people and the country as well, and see aspiring to higher office as a way to fulfill their obligation to society. It is far too simplistic to paint the character of politicans or certain interest groups in such black and white terms.
And I don't know what your last statement is supposed to mean...I don't see any liberals out there trying to make morality illegal.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 04:10:34 am
Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 04:13:19 am
Harris isn't a fool... If you think Howard has baggage...

Nice look of shock on his face.
Was it taken when his old riding of Nipissing went red ;)


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 04:16:23 am
No...no... There are plenty of of 'em left...
Problem for the Dems is that they only seem to vote Democrat at state and local level...


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: English on November 03, 2003, 04:56:17 am
I agree the loss of Enfield Southgate was inevitable. It may have been theoretically 'safer' than places like Ludlow, however it is a London seat and therefore susceptible to much larger swings. Another London seat, Harrow West suffered an even greater swing than southgate! Labour overturned a majority of something like 17,000!
As for Portillo, I believe he would make a fantastic PM. Even his name shouts 'Prime Minister'! He would also do well with the voters, he is suave, sophisticated, well-spoken and cultured. He would definately appeal to voters in their 20's/30's. Howard is a disaster for the Tories, the only people he will appeal to are die-hard tory voters, which makes him a pretty stupid choice! He was perhaps the most hated politician of the Major years, quite how they think he will appeal to the centre ground I don't know.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on November 03, 2003, 05:15:20 am

I'll emigrate if David Blunkett becomes PM.

Agree absolutely. David Blunkett would be by far the worse choice. Even a Blunkett chancellor would be a scary prospect.  I actually quite admire Cook, however he would be a disaster in the polls. Like it or not, image is important and Cook has about the worst image in the Labour Party.


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 06:16:23 am
It may have been inevitible... but it was still great!

Portillo has re-invented himself, he had to unless he wanted the Tories to lose Kensignton and Chelsea(O.K maybe not...)

Howard is a relic and both Blair and Kennedy are probably loving every moment of this farce.

Conway and Forth are pretty pissed off about Davis dropping out.
We shall see...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 06:30:04 am
My versions(only PA, IL and GA at present):

PENNSYLVANIA
01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia North
03. Erie-Butler
04. Allegheny
05. West Susquehanna  
06. Chester-Berks
07. Chester
08. Bucks
09. Tuscarora
10. East Susquehanna  
11. Wilkes-Barr
12. Johnstown
13. Philadelphia-Mifflin
14. Pittsburgh
15. Allentown
16. West Chester
17. Harrisburg
18. Westmoreland
19. Gettysburg

ILLINOIS
01. Chicago-Southside
02. Chicago Heights
03. Chicago West
04. Chicago-Cicero
05. Chicago-Northside
06. DuPage
07. Chicago Central
08. McHenry-Lake
09. Chicago Northside
10. North Chicago
11. Joliet
12. East St Louis and the Valleys
13. Will-DuPage
14. Batavia-Henry
15. Wabash
16. Rockford
17. Springfield-Moline
18. Springfield-Peoria-Illinois River
19. Kaskakia-Lincon

GEORGIA
01. Okefenokee-Atlantic
02. Cherokee and Seminole
03. Jefferson Long
04. Stone Mountain
05. Atlanta
06. Fulton-Cobb
07. Dahlonega
08. Peachtree
09. Egmont
10. John Ross
11. Berry
12. Savannah
13. Luther King


The base for most of them was Canadian Observers version, but modified where I thought appropriate.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 08:19:06 am
SOUTH CAROLINA
01. Charleston-Atlantic
02. King Charles
03. Anderson-Greenwood-Aitken
04. Greenville-Spartanburg
05. Rock Hill
06. Florence-Orangeburg

Only minor changes


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 08:41:01 am
INDIANA
01. Gary-Hammond
02. La Porte-St. Joseph
03. Fort Wayne-Maumee
04. Wallace-Greenwood
05. Shelbyville-Carmel
06. Muncie-Anderson
07. Indianapolis
08. Evans-Vincennes  
09. Jeffersonville-New Albany


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 03, 2003, 09:44:31 am
Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

I'd like to see them give it to the dem if gets less votes.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 09:44:33 am
Something to remember is Mississippi's majority law:

If no candidate gets 50% +1, the election goes to the State House.

Interesting! Y'know the same applies for Presidential elections. If no one gets a majority of electoral votes it goes to the house of reps. However I understand its not a simple vote. Each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the will of the majority of the delegation.

I'm not 100% sure about this but if its true its throws up some interesting possibilities. In the 2000 election if the House decided it (and all party members voted for their party&#8217;s candidate) then Gore would have won Texas, Mississippi and North Dakota while Bush would have won Connecticut & Delaware among others. :)Incidentally in such an election Bush would have won as the GOP holds most state delegations.

Still not 100% on the whole thing though. Will post an inquiry on the qt/Ans forum.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 09:46:38 am
Btw I forgot to ask you Realpolitik, as you mentioned this rule, I assume that there are other candidates running who can be expected to win at least 1% of the votes??? Could you provide a bit more info on that?? thanks


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 10:53:59 am
I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 10:57:09 am
Nor do I like explaining Economics 101 to you.

<<Unemployment started going up dramatically after Bush's tax cuts took effect.>>

I love how you only point to lagging indicators.  Did it ever occur to you that rising unemployment FOLLOWS poor GDP performance?  

If not, look at a historical chart plotting GDP growth against Unemployment.  Even a liberal like you should be able to see the correlation!

And, while you're at it, chart GDP and Job growth after the major tax cuts of Kennedy (3% GDP tax cut) and Reagan (2% GDP tax cut)

---

<<Jobs are what matter to most people, not GDP growth.>>

That's about as dumb as saying, "Harvest is what matters to most farmers, not planting."

Where are the jobs if there is no growth?

---  

<<Corporate profits that don't lead to hiring don't help the poor and middle class much>>

Are you 12 years old or something?

Again, find a historical chart plotting corporate profits against employment gains.

The real scary thing about you is that most people understand, WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE IT EXPLAINED TO THEM, that businesses are more likely to hire when business is good (good in business means making money) and more likely to fire when business is bad (bad means profits are dropping).

---
 
<<when you look at the economic records of the past 25 years, it is obvious (to any honest person, as you would like to say) that the economy has performed better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations>>

I guess you are 12 years old!

Carter left us in a absolute chaos that is not comparable to ANYTHING since he left office!  

Reagan's deregulation (credited by even Clinton)  led the economy from double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates to the longest boom in American peace time.

Bush41 walked away from Reagan's tax policies and a recession began in August 1990, 18 months AFTER Regan left office.  The economy started growing again in March 1991, two years BEFORE Bush41 left office.  1992 GDP growth was +3.0% and in 1992Q4 GDP growth was +6.0%.

Clinton inherited an economy two years into expansion.  And 1993 & 1995 saw GDP growth BELOW 1992 (Bush41's last full year).   Although the economy broke Reagan's record for the longest expansion, it was also declining into recession when Clinton left office.  

Of these four presidents, Reagan made by far the most fundamental changes.  In fact, aside from Bush41's and Clinton's tax increases, one could easily make the argument that Bush41 and Clinton followed Reagan's lead.

Even Clinton, in a brief moment of honesty, attributed much of the credit of the 90's boom to Reagan's free market policies.

---

<<Even in the summer of 2001, after 2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage, the economy was still doing decently well (still much better than it had been when Clinton took office).>>

2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage is definition of a RECESSION.  Clinton did NOT take office in a recession.

---

<<As for the other reasons that you state for the poor economy, if the long lead up to war is to blame for the economy, that's still Bush's fault since this is his war.>>

In all reality, the US has been continually at war with Iraq since August1990.  Bush simply finally chose to try to bring it to a close due to the realization that the middle east had to be overthrown.

But, I do blame Bush taking 9 months in the lead up to invading Iraq.  Bush41 took only 5 months and moved twice as many troops into position.

---

<<As for corporate scandals, Enron had close ties to Bush and the GOP.>>

I had even closer ties, before and after, since I work in the Energy Trading industry and wrote some of their trading systems.  I was even working in Enron's headquarters for 7 months.

But, having a relationship with Enron does NOT mean that I had anything to do with their decisions to break the law.

Truth be known, it&#8217;s the accounting companies that dream up these schemes.

And Enron had very close ties to a lot of Dems also.  Enron was smart and gave huge sums to BOTH parties.  

You're a HACK!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 11:22:21 am
ISM index surges
 
Closely watched measure of manufacturing activity stronger than expected in October.
 
"This is the best report that we have seen in quite some time in terms of the overall strength of manufacturing," said Norbert Ore, chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. "The picture continues to improve, and it appears that manufacturing will finish 2003 on a very positive note, assuming the recent trend continues."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/ism/index.htm

---

Construction spending hits record

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/construction.reut/index.htm


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 11:29:36 am
I would caution against using bellwethers that didn&#8217;t work in 2000. For example Delaware has voted for the winning candidate for the TEN elections from 1960 through 1996. In 2000 it voted for the loser and by a huge margin. Proponents of its bell-weather status failed to note it had become increasingly democratic and only retained bellwether status in the 90's because the democrats happened to win both the elections held that decade.  

The exact same applies for Illinois. It is competitive only if there is a republican landslide. I don&#8217;t rule out that happening but until there is a definite sign of it, Il. Remains in the solid democrat column.



After reading something about Illinois being one of the most carried states in Presidential elections, I decided to check it out:
Illinois has only failed to be carried by five Presidents:
William Harrison (1840)
Grover Cleveland (1884)
Woodrow Wilson (1916)
James Carter (1976)
George W Bush (2000)
The first four didnt win the next election, and neither did their party. Not to say that we should use history as any guide, but the last son of  a President to become President was elected after not winning the popular vote and then lost the next election. Also, it couldn't be coincidence that the last man to be elected President direct from the Senate was a Democrat from the state of Massachusetts with the initials JFK.

By the way, I think that your apportioning of the states is probably a little early as we have no idea who the Democrat ticket is. If Gephardt is on it, I would imagine they will carry Missouri!! What about DC, do you think theres any chance of an 80% swing and the Republicans winning it!!!!

Peter


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 11:30:22 am
Basically Labour are Democratic Socialists and the Liberal Democrats are Social Liberals.

The LibDems are to Labour's left on much social issues(eg. Drugs, immigration), but Labour are way to the LibDems left on economics(Labour's economic policy is Kenysian and very interventionalist, the LibDems economic policy is more centrist).

The LibDems were formed from a merger of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party(who had broken off from Labour).

Labour's core constituancy is obvious from the name; Lower income and blue collar voters.

The LibDems do best amoung the liberal wing of the middle classes("Hampstead Liberals"), and in rural areas.

"Old Labour" never really existed... If you mean the "Bennites" the LibDems are nothing like them at all... in America the Bennites would be liked to communists.

Most LibDem voters vote on social issues, most Labour voters with their wallets.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 11:33:25 am
In an election as close as Mississippi looks like, a few thousand votes would do...

And yes the Democrat dominated State House would almost certainly give it to Musgrove if it comes to that.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 11:35:29 am
from http://www.politicalwire.com (http://www.politicalwire.com):

Quote
In Mississippi, House May Decide Race
In Mississippi, tight polls fuel a growing belief that neither Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) nor challenger Haley Barbour (R) "will win more than 50 percent of the vote and thus send the election to the state House has forced both campaigns to concentrate on get-out-to-vote efforts," the Jackson Clarion-Ledger reports.

Meanwhile, the Biloxi Sun Herald says Barbour's "expensive race for governor is delaying President Bush's efforts to raise money from Mississippi Republicans."


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 11:37:39 am
Illionois looks unwinnible for the GOP at present, though I won't rule out an upset.
But people there are still pissed off with Ryan.

WV is being treating by all sides a Dem auto-gain, Bush has done nothing for the coal industry and has wrecked the education system and the states budget.


I agree with the Illinois conclusion (refer last post) However I note that you attribute this to the unpopularity of the last Republican Governor who was thoroughly repudiated by his own party the GOP.
In West Virginia's case however the mess you attribute entirely to Bush despite the fact that a generally unsuccessful and unpopular DEMOCRATIC Governor rules the state.

Anyhows just pointing that out, .........as to the auto-gain part as pete pointed out it depends entirely upon the dem. nominee. If its someone like Gephardt then I may agree its a likely dem gain (though not auto). However if its Dean or the like then the cultural differences which sunk Gore will again deliver the state to Bush.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 11:46:21 am
I am among the growing group of people observing the economy who believe that the Bush tax cuts have worked as did Reagans before them. However what political dividends it may or may not pay are still far from certain. This is because of the so-called "Jobless Recovery".
I am enlosing an article by Charlie Cook which gives a simple but useful overview of the problem.

When we get the first look at economic growth numbers for the third
quarter of this year on Thursday, those Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
figures may well show impressive economic growth -- a sign that
President Bush's tax cut-oriented economic growth package did in fact
stimulate the economy. History has shown that economic growth through
the second quarter of the election year usually results in re-election
for incumbent presidents. But the question today is whether that
relationship will remain as strong in 2004 as it has been in the past.
                     
Despite the fact that the economic downturn "officially" began in March
2001 and ended in November 2001, there has been a net loss of 2.6
million jobs since the president took office, giving weight to the term
"jobless recovery." A recent paper by two economists with the Federal
Reserve Board of New York show quite clearly that the most recent
economic downturn and recovery is very different from past ones.
Furthermore, they suggest that economic growth figures in the near term
may not be accompanied by the same kind of net job growth in the future.
           
Writing in the August issue of "Current Issues in Economics and
Finance," Erica L. Groshen and Simon Potter looked at the pattern of
layoffs and job creation during and after the last six economic
downturns. Observing that "recessions mix cyclical (temporary) and
structural (permanent) adjustments," Groshen and Potter found that 49
percent of the job losses were cyclical in the economic downturns of
both the mid-1970s and the early 1980s. These are temporary layoffs
whereby an employer "suspends" an employee's job because of reduced
demand for goods or services, and then recalls that employee when the
economy turns around, fueling fast payroll growth. In those two
downturns, the other 51 percent of job losses were more structural, or
permanent, layoffs -- where an employee's job is simply eliminated and
he or she is forced to seek a new job. Given that new job creation takes
much longer than simply recalling former workers, structural losses are
far more serious.
                           
That 49 percent cyclical/51 percent structural mix of the 1970s and 80s
changed to 43 percent cyclical and 57 percent structural in the economic
downturn of the early 1990s, as more jobs were either relocated to other
countries or eliminated completely. For the most part, this shift went
unnoticed.

In the current economic downturn and recovery, however, Groshen and
Potter found that 79 percent of job losses were structural and only 21
percent were cyclical. Jobs in the fields of communications, electronic
equipment and securities and commodities brokers were largely
eliminated. Indeed the only field that has truly prospered through this
period is in the standard industrial code of "non-depository
institutions" -- a group that notably includes mortgage brokers, who
have benefited greatly from historically low interest rates and strong
home buying and refinancing.
                           
Equally alarming but more anecdotal are stories of high technology or
other "knowledge-based" jobs increasingly shifting abroad, whether it is
call centers handling customer service and technical support or computer
programming and other highly skilled jobs. I recently heard of some
corporate legal departments shifting more rudimentary legal work --
drafting contracts and the like -- to India, an English-speaking country
that uses the same English common-law legal system as the United States.
       
No doubt some of these structural job losses are the result of the
impressive productivity gains that American corporations have enjoyed in
recent years due to automation and more efficient processes. But it is
also clear that many of these losses are trade-related. As long as
trade-related job losses were confined largely to relatively low-skilled
manufacturing jobs, many thought it was unfortunate but inevitable.
Low-skill jobs like producing pencils could be done abroad more cheaply
and efficiently than by higher-paid Americans under more strict
environmental and safety standards. But as the job losses have shifted
to higher-skill sectors -- the very jobs for which displaced workers
were told they should retrain -- this becomes a far more serious
problem.
                         
While few believe the solution is to construct trade barriers in this
country, the latest round of structural job losses is a far different
and greater problem than we have experienced in the past. And it isn't
just an economic or trade problem. It also is a political problem.
Sooner or later, voters will demand answers from their elected officials
or candidates for Congress and president.



Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 11:48:07 am
In many states, independents and even Republicans may vote in the democratic primaries.
Dave

Does anyone have a list of the states where members of the other party and/or independents can vote in either or both parties primaries??


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 11:49:37 am
***IMPORTANT NOTE***

Notice that the Economic Cycle Research Institute's US Weekly Leading Index (the first chart on post #1 of this thread) had reported a 20-year high in August.

When the 3Q GDP was reported Oct 30, it also showed a 20 year high!

In other words, this is *THE* index to watch.  It accurately told us what was going on MONTHS before the official reports came out.

It also has, by far, the best track record of any other index.

---

Currently, the rate of growth in the index has slowed from it's 20-year high of +13.2% (8/21/2003) to +10.3% (10/24/2003).

To give you an idea of how fast the economy is currently growing, the index never went above +8.2% during the 90's boom.

http://www.businesscycle.com/freedata.php (http://www.businesscycle.com/freedata.php)

So, although we may not see 7.2% GDP growth in Q4 like we did in Q3,  >4.5% GDP growth in certainly in the cards for Q4, and 6% GDP growth for Q4 is NOT out of the question.



Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 11:54:04 am
When is the deadline for Independent candidates to get into the race? I understand that some states have their own deadlines to get on the ballot.

I ask so as to know how much time Sharpton has after the dem. primaries are over to decide to run on his own.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 11:56:46 am
Semiconductor Industry Association said chip sales rose 6.5 percent in September from a year earlier, the biggest gain in about 13 years. Sales in the third quarter rose 17.5 percent from the same point a year earlier.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on November 03, 2003, 02:10:34 pm
No, I'm not 12 years old, I'm actually twice that, and I don't understand why you feel it necessary to resort to such inane tactics as insulting me personally and assuming that I must be stupid because I am liberal. Educated people can have differences of opinion and hopefully still respect each other's views even if they disagree.
Yes, I realize that growth is necessary for jobs, but growth does not necessarily automatically lead to jobs...corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need. Or, as Ryan pointed out in the article he cited, corporations could be moving factories overseas where labor is cheaper. Yes, the only thing that matters to the farmer is the harvest, not the planting. Planting is needed for harvesting, but ultimately, all that matters to the farmer is how many crops he harvests, not how many he plants. I understand that GDP growth is more likely to lead to hiring, but it isn't necessarily always going to lead to it. There are other factors to consider. How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?
Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term, until the last 3 months when it has dipped down from 6.4% to 6.1% If this trend continues, it will help Bush's reelection chance immensely, no doubt. But despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.
Supply-side economics doesn't work. Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand. (Or, to the extent that it does create demand for a particular product, it takes away demand from other products). Why would corporations invest the money they get from a tax cut into producing more goods and hiring more workers unless they could be assured that there would be sufficient demand? It wouldn't make good business sense; if the economy is poor, it would make more sense for corporations to use the money in some other way. Unemployment is a lagging indicator because demand creates supply; the economy has to get moving first before businesses will start producing more goods and hiring more workers. Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving. Corporations won't produce supply unless there is demand because it's not in their best interests. And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.
Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect, and the recession had already begun before Bush raised taxes. What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recoving fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high, the record budget deficits, and the abandonment of him by conservatives who were angry about the tax increases. Another key factor was that Bush appeared to be out of touch with the nation's problems, a perception which was probably not entirely correct, but this perception hurt consumer confidence (which is partly fueled by such perceptions). Bush, by choosing to attack Clinton as a potential tax raiser in order to try to regain his base was unable to defend his own economic policies.
As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well. The economy didn't start to go south until Vietnam started sapping away much of our resources, and then the Arab oil embargo hit in the mid 1970's which had a devastating effect. Granted, the economy was poor under Carter, but it was also pretty bad under Nixon and Ford, as well.
Clinton did not take office in a recession, true, but unemployment was much higher when Clinton took office then it was in June 2001. (I realize that we have fundamental disagreements about which is more important, you favoring GDP growth, me favoring unemployment). Yes, I know it's a lagging indicator, but unemployment went continually down throughout Clinton's entire term, and has gone up throughout Bush's entire term, in both cases extending well after the lag effect from the previous administrations would have worn off.
Yes, I know that Bush isn't entirely responsible for Enron's troubles. And of course, we'll never find out just how much of a relationship there was, since the meetings of Dick Cheney's energy task force will be kept secret.
As for the war in Iraq, part of the reason that it took Bush longer than his father was probably because he didn't have nearly as much international backing from the UN. (Certainly, one could argue that he should have moved faster and not even bothered trying to get the UN's support) It's also worth noting that Bush 41 delayed a vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq until after the 1990 midterm elections because he didn't want to make it a partisan wedge-issue, he wanted the nation to come together around the war effort, while Bush 43 did the exact opposite. There could have been a much better united national and international consensus on fighting the war against terrorism if Bush hadn't been so eager to use it for political gain (i.e., saying that Dems are unpatriotic for actually expecting airport security employees to have the fair employment protections of a union). And if Bush really is going to clean house and dispose every Middle Eastern government, that's a process that will use an enormous amount of our government's time and resources (and is it going to continue to be payed for by borrowing from our future?).
I find the article you cited very interesting, Ryan. The comparison between cyclical and structural job losses is not one that I had been familiar with, but it makes sense in context and further serves to illustrate one of the key differences between this recession and those of the 1970's and early 80's (and even that of the early 90's, in which the trend toward more structural losses had begun but not nearly to the extent it is now).


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Ryan on November 03, 2003, 02:22:50 pm
Its a good idea to name the districts and you guys have obviously put in a great deal of effort on it and though I havent read em closely, it looks like you have done a good job.

However I want to ask whether you have found any districts which really cant be given any single name as due to gerrymandering they stretch over large areas, many counties or cities. How do you deal with these?

Also you would have had to make many changes if you had done this before the post  2000 redistricting. Which congressional districts are these?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 04:14:15 pm
<<corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need>>

That's called increasing productivity and that is the ONLY free lunch the economy has.

Productivity is the engine for real economic growth, and productivity increased in 2002 at a 6% rate, the fastest since 1950.  In 2003, productivity is growing even FASTER.

Increased productivity is a sign of America's economic might and lays the foundation for much higher living standards in the future.  It is not an accident that the US has BOTH the highest standard of living AND the highest productivity of any major country.

---

<<Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term...despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.>>

That's because from 2002Q2-2003Q1, the economy had three quarters of <1.5% GDP growth (due largely to the Iraq war).  That hardly covers population growth, much less the growth of productivity.  The economy will have to string together multiple back-to-back >3% growth quarters in order to create jobs.

So, even though you CLAIM to understand that employment is a lagging indicator, you keep complaining about job growth when we are just NOW producing constistent > 3% growth.

---

<<Supply-side economics doesn't work>>

LOL!  Throwing cash into the hands of CONSUMERS is not what I would call "supply-side" economics.  Neither is increasing government spending.

The cut in dividend taxes are supply-side...so Bush has included a mix of supply-side and demand-side stimulus.

---

<<Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand.>>

The idea behind supply-side economics is that government has artificially restrained the ability to generate opportunity (supply).  If you give someone the opportunity to find a better, more productive solution, then he can bring a completive product to market (increasing supply).   In turn, that will lead to lower prices, higher productivity&#8230;and ultimately, a higher standard of living.

As far as demand goes&#8230;.there are only so many hamburgers one can eat, and so many shoes one can wear.  What the modern public &#8220;DEMANDS&#8221; is a supply of products that can make life more productive and/or enjoyable &#8211; A.K.A. &#8220;innovation&#8221;.  

Without innovation (supply of new and better products), demand will stagnate at the rate of population growth.  And since the demand for innovation is ALWAYS present, regardless of economic conditions, allowing people the freedom to create innovations is the whole idea behind &#8220;supply-side&#8221; economics.

&#8220;Supply-side&#8221; does NOT mean to increase the supply of the same quality of good; rather it means to increase the supply of INOVATION by allowing people the opportunity to succeed to their ability.  

The motivation to innovate is belief in the ability to be awarded according to one&#8217;s productivity.  For example:  Bill Gates has built a company selling products that have greatly increased economic productivity.  In turn, he has been rewarded proportionately.

---

<<Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving>>

Well, if that&#8217;s the case, Bush is engaged in the largest Keyensian experiment ever dreamed up.

---

<<And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.>>

You misunderstood my comments&#8230;.granted tax cuts reduce revenues in the short term.  But the idea is to plant a seed that will produce a harvest many more times than what was planted.

---

<<How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?>>

I&#8217;d rather allow companies to spend the tax cut in the manner in which they see best.  Some companies may be in a position to hire, but others may be in a competitive disadvantage and need investment in productivity in order to SAVE EXISTING JOBS.
 
---

<<Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect&#8230;What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recovering fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high&#8230;>>

Maybe there was a correlation between the slow recovery and tax increases.

---

<<As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well>>

The Fed government took in a MUCH lover % of GDP in taxes than it does today.  

Also, go and look at the countries around the world that have the most &#8220;progressive&#8221; income tax rates, with top rates of 50 percent or more.  You&#8217;ll find that their income taxes bring in very little money.  In contrast, the US top rate is 40% and those taxes generate 55% of Federal revenue.  Why the difference?  Because the US system is extremely good at generating WEALTH.  And where there is wealth, there is tax revenue.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 04:44:13 pm
Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 03, 2003, 04:51:30 pm
Point is that the media in WV are blaming Bush, while in IL it still seems to be blaming Ryan.



Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: © tweed on November 03, 2003, 05:19:28 pm
Key battlegrounds:

Minnesota-GOP made big gains in the 2002 midterms but the DFL usually churns out narrow Dem victories in presidential elections.  Lean Democrat.

Florida-Lean Bush.

Arkansas-A fairly liberal state, but a northerner couldn't carry it.  Edwards would, though.

California-This state is the biggest battleground in 2004.  62% of the votes in the Recall went to Republicans, so this poses a problem for my party.  Lean Democrat.

New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania-lean Bush.

Illinois is solid Dem.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 03, 2003, 06:03:10 pm
Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close

You should remove your LA prediction, the election isn't until Nov 15th, so there is no need yet to post a prediction.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: NorthernDog on November 03, 2003, 08:37:25 pm
A Republican win in Kentucky would be significant since the Democrats have held the governer's office for 30+ years.  More evidence of re-alignment in the Border States.
In Mississippi, I've heard that Republicans are experimenting with their Get Out the Vote operation planned for '04.  We'll see if it works well enough to get Barbour over the 50% mark.
 


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Flying Dog on November 03, 2003, 08:39:20 pm
Kentucky:narrow GOP gain
Misssisipi:DEM win
Lousiana:as of write now dem victory


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 03, 2003, 09:09:15 pm

Latest poll has Fletcher up 8 points.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on November 04, 2003, 12:33:10 am
I based my list on the printable maps of the congressional districts (108th Congress), available at nationalatlas.gov (http://nationalatlas.gov/congdistprint.html)
()

I assume that the Texas districting from which I based the naming is the one implemented by the courts in 2001.

Gerrymandered district are quite hard to name. In theses cases, I tried as far as I can to put a name that wouldn't be geographical, but would refer to a historical event or person.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 04, 2003, 12:40:16 am
I don't know, maybe he was trying to make his announcement in French. ;)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 04, 2003, 05:02:42 am
Key battlegrounds:

Minnesota-GOP made big gains in the 2002 midterms but the DFL usually churns out narrow Dem victories in presidential elections.  Lean Democrat.

Florida-Lean Bush.

Arkansas-A fairly liberal state, but a northerner couldn't carry it.  Edwards would, though.

California-This state is the biggest battleground in 2004.  62% of the votes in the Recall went to Republicans, so this poses a problem for my party.  Lean Democrat.

New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania-lean Bush.

Illinois is solid Dem.

I think Nevada will eventually trend towards the Democrats due to the rapidly growing population of Las Vegas. I also think Pennsylvania may be a gain for the GOP as both Philly and Pittsburgh are losing population and therefore the Dem influence will decrease.
I can't see the Republicans winning California, it was safely Democrat in 2000 and demographic changes are not in the GOP's favour. As for New Hamphire, this was a knife edge last time, I think the Democrats may just swing it.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: English on November 04, 2003, 05:27:37 am
I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??

Generally I would say the Liberal Democrats are socially to the left of the Labour party, economically slightly to the right. I would disagree that economically Labour and the Liberals are hugely different. Fiscally Labour has shifted enormously to the right since the 1980's when they were beholden to the unions. The voter base however is very different, although the LD's are usually the party of protest for both disillutioned Tories and Labourites. Labour voters are traditionally white working class and ethnic minorities. These groups are usually not very liberal and vote Labour merely out of economic interest. Liberal Democrat voters however are usually middle class and liberal. Doctors, teachers and people in the Arts often vote LD. The LD's however also attract a lot of votes from poor rural voters in areas such as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Scottish Highlands and Herefordshire. These people wouldn't dream of voting Labour in a million years, however they also dislike the Tories so tend to plump for the LD's.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: English on November 04, 2003, 05:40:17 am
The LibDems are not even close to being a threat to Labour in the Northern Cities.
They are no-where in Newcastle, have been seriously hurt by council cock-ups/corruption in Sheffield and Liverpool, and them holding a seat in L'Pool prior to '97 was only because of the "Alton Factor".

I have not a clue why they harp on about N.U.T, they did finish second in N.U.T Central and N.U.T East-Wallsend, but they need to topple majorities of 33.2% and 43.4%
It is not going to happen.

Very few Labour seats are actually under threat from the LibDems, and they would be better off decapitating the Tories(which is actually their official policy).

Howard, May, Davis and Letwin are all in *serious* trouble next time round.

In local elections the LD's do very well in Northern Cities. I agree they have lost seats here recently, however in General Elections they have increased their vote hugely in places like Sheffield, Hull and Newcastle overtaking the Tories. I predict at least 5 northern urban seats will follow Chesterfield's example and switch to the LD's in 2005/06. Watch for Olham West (Maj LD), Hull North (Maj LD), Sheffield Hillsborough(Maj LD), Manchester Gorton (LD's hold all the council seats here) and Rochdale (held by LD until 97).


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 06:17:44 am
More on WV: Wise got into trouble because of he had an affair. He has since decided not to seek re-election in 2004.
He is not being blamed for WV's budget problems, Bush's education policy is. There was a long article on it in the Washington Post a bit ago.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 06:37:28 am
This is what he actually said:

Harris: "Bonjewer, Jeemaple en Godfather IV, et moy je'detestey le loosing et la election to le Liberele merdey Paul Martin.
Soo Jai will not beecoom le capitain of le Titanic(le CPC).
Oil Resivoir!"

Crowd booes and starts riot etc.

Harris: "Whadya know... I've still got it!

exit stage right, pursued by a bear


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 06:44:41 am
I'm curious as to the ideological differences between the Lib Dems and Labour. They do seem quite alike in General (actually Lib Dems and "Old" Labour seemed quite alike)

Even better I would like to know about differences in the voter base or the two parties. Granted both have left-leaning voters but are there demographic differences??
Would appreciate any insight you guys have on this??

Generally I would say the Liberal Democrats are socially to the left of the Labour party, economically slightly to the right. I would disagree that economically Labour and the Liberals are hugely different. Fiscally Labour has shifted enormously to the right since the 1980's when they were beholden to the unions. The voter base however is very different, although the LD's are usually the party of protest for both disillutioned Tories and Labourites. Labour voters are traditionally white working class and ethnic minorities. These groups are usually not very liberal and vote Labour merely out of economic interest. Liberal Democrat voters however are usually middle class and liberal. Doctors, teachers and people in the Arts often vote LD. The LD's however also attract a lot of votes from poor rural voters in areas such as Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, the Scottish Highlands and Herefordshire. These people wouldn't dream of voting Labour in a million years, however they also dislike the Tories so tend to plump for the LD's.

Actually if you look carefully at what they both say they will do, and what Labour has done, there is a big difference... but you have to look for it.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 08:42:40 am
Oldham West and Royton: Lab maj. 33.5%
Manchester Gorton: Lab maj. 41.5%
Rochdale: Lab maj. 14.3%
Sheffield Hillsborough: Lab maj. 34.2%
Hull North: Lab maj. 37.4

Rochdale and S-H are not urban seats, they have more than a small rural element and are "county" seats.

Although I can see them picking up Rochdale, I would doubt that they will pick up any of the others.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2003, 10:38:07 am
final predictions:

MS - GOP pickup 51.5% (R)- 48.5% (D)
KT - GOP pickup 56% (R) - 44% (D)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 11:37:53 am
I've decided to have a go at naming the districts using the method we use in the U.K
As a result I'd better explain what county and borough seats are.
The best description is from David Boothroyd's(a Labour counciller) excellent site(www.election.demon.co.uk (http://www.election.demon.co.uk)) :

Quote
The Boundary Commission is instructed to classify a constituency as a County constituency if it contains &#8220;more than a small rural element&#8221; (page 12 of the Fourth Periodical Report of the Boundary Commission for England, Volume 1). Occasionally this can cause confusion - for example over Reading and Milton Keynes, each of which have two constituencies where one is a Borough and the other a County constituency.

A b next to the districts name will mean borough, and a c will mean county.




Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 04, 2003, 11:43:40 am
Point taken. However be careful of predicting popular opinion based on media commentary or if you do, at least look at the track record of the specific media outlet you consider.

For instance if you go by the NYT almost every ill in America is due to Bush while the WSJ says the opposite. But I know liberal and conservative readers of both the WSJ and the NYT and while they are generally happy with these papers they do not take everything they read there at face value.
If you find usually conservative or moderate papers panning Bush, then maybe you have a reason to say there could be a decline in support.

Also dont forget that you have presumably seen only those media outlets which have an internet presence and these would be mainly newspapers. Others will disagree but I have found majority of US local newspapers to be left-of-center. Local Television stations are less so and Radio especially talk radio balances out the print media's leftward bias. These probably wont have a net presence so you havent got a complete picture of media coverage in WV.

Btw I reiterate that I think WV is competitive. My purpose is to warn you against predicting popular reaction based on media reporting especially if you rely on the net for that. It doesn&#8217;t present a complete picture.




Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: © tweed on November 04, 2003, 11:47:37 am
Final Prediction before I go and vote for Steve Levy for County Exectutive here in Suffolk....

GOP wins in Kentucky and Lousiana, and Musgrove wins in the state house in Mississippi.

Levy!  Levy!  Levy!


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: © tweed on November 04, 2003, 11:49:54 am
I see that both of you have done wondeful reasarch (Realpolitik and Observer).  It is a project that I am simply too lazy to do.. nice work.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 04, 2003, 11:51:27 am
Final Prediction before I go and vote for Steve Levy for County Exectutive here in Suffolk....

GOP wins in Kentucky and Lousiana, and Musgrove wins in the state house in Mississippi.

Levy!  Levy!  Levy!

Final Prediction:

Kentucky-Fletcher
Mississippi-Baebour above 50%.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Ryan on November 04, 2003, 11:52:49 am
Do you feel that naming CD's may cause confusion as after each redistricting a seat may no longer represent much of an area by which it is named?

Naming them by Historical figures may be better.

Personally I for some reason prefer the current numbering system but I your work is pretty interesting nevertheless.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 12:00:35 pm
ALABAMA:

01 Mobile c
02 Montgomery and Dothan c
03 Auburn and Anniston c
04 Gadsden c
05 Huntsville c
06 Jefferson and Shelby c
07 Birmingham c


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Ryan on November 04, 2003, 12:22:22 pm
No...no... There are plenty of of 'em left...
Problem for the Dems is that they only seem to vote Democrat at state and local level...

This has been a matter of debate for some years. Democrats are registered at far higher numbers than Republicans in the South but vote solidly GOP in national elections. Its not certain whether most of them consider themselves actually democrat or whether they self-identify as republicans but havent got around to changing their registration.

Its very interesting if you compare these PARTY ID figures with the PARTY REGISTRATION figures in states which register by party: (I got these figures from old forum, I think posted by JMFST-not sure )
They are all R%-D%:

Florida - 38%-40% ID, 39%-43% REG

Kentucky - 39%-46% ID, 33%-60% REG.  According to state election board figures, of those who actually turned out, their registration was 34%-61%.

Louisiana - 34%-48% ID, 22%-61% REG

North Carolina - 38%-41% ID, 34%-51% REG

Oklahoma - 44%-42% ID, 36%-55% REG

As to the South voting democrat in local elections, I have been told that for state legislatures and the like the level of gerrymandering is even higher than for Congressional seats and it is a useful method for democratic majorities to retain that status even if they have lost the support of the majority of voters.
However I admit I have not myself checked on this and cannot vouch for this information.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2003, 12:52:12 pm
Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton to Host 'Saturday Night Live'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102149,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102149,00.html)



Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: DarthKosh on November 04, 2003, 01:37:58 pm
Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton to Host 'Saturday Night Live'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102149,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102149,00.html)



That's where Al needs to be with all the others jokes.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 04, 2003, 02:21:51 pm
Heavy turnout in southern Mississippi which is heavily republican.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Flying Dog on November 04, 2003, 03:25:10 pm
I voted gephardt in this poll because I think he has the best chance of beating bush


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 03:25:43 pm
WV is still competative, although it is very likely to go Dem in 2004... but it's only 5 EV's.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: © tweed on November 04, 2003, 03:33:15 pm
CNN just said exit polls in Mississippi show race as too close to call, and fletcher in a big lead in Kentucky.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 03:46:07 pm
All going as I predicted ;)

How many lawyers in Mississippi are there?


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 04, 2003, 04:00:11 pm
Clarion-Ledger report high turnout


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: migrendel on November 04, 2003, 08:25:20 pm
Fletcher has won Kentucky by about ten points.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Canadian observer on November 04, 2003, 09:42:33 pm
Do you feel that naming CD's may cause confusion as after each redistricting a seat may no longer represent much of an area by which it is named?

Naming them by Historical figures may be better.

Personally I for some reason prefer the current numbering system but I your work is pretty interesting nevertheless.
I have no idea on the confusion naming the Districts might cause, but it would be interesting to evaluate a general hypothesis which would assume that the fact that a district possess a name enhances voters' sense of belonging to a district, thus enhancing the awareness of a greater number of people to district boundary changes.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 04, 2003, 09:47:15 pm
Harris: "Bonjewer, Jeemaple en Godfather IV, et moy je'detestey le loosing et la election to le Liberele merdey Paul Martin.
Soo Jai will not beecoom le capitain of le Titanic(le CPC).
Oil Resivoir!"
Hahem!!   I think Harris needs a couple of centuries to be coached in French.  Too bad, life expectancy is still under 100.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 04, 2003, 10:25:20 pm
Kentucky

100% Precincts reporting

Fletcher (R) 593,058 55.0%  
Chandler (D) 484,804 45.0%


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 05, 2003, 01:55:08 am
All going as I predicted ;)

How many lawyers in Mississippi are there?

You predicted that you would make a fool of yourself?!  Good pick!

----

AP, FoxNews, MSNBC are reporting that the Mississippi race has been called for the GOP!

85% PRECINCTS REPORTING  
Candidate  Votes Vote %
Haley Barbour (R)  406,733 53%  
Ronnie Musgrove (D) inc  343,476 45%  
John Cripps  5,550 1%  
Shawn O'Hara (RP)  3,470 0%  
Sherman Dillon  3,215 1%  


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 05, 2003, 02:07:56 am
The year began with 26 GOP governors versus 24 Dem governors.

So far, the GOP has unseated 3 Dems in 3 elections...and of those 3 elections, only 2 were scheduled when we began the year!

The count is now 29 GOP - 21 Dem...with one GOP open seat still up for grabs in LA.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: English on November 05, 2003, 05:20:48 am
Look at the way the LD's turned knife edge marginals such as Torbay and Winchester into massively safe seats in 2001. Manchester Gorton, Hull North and Sheffield Hillsborough have given the LD's considerable majorities in local elections, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the LD's can pull off large swings against Labour in these seats. Also Oldham West can hardly be considered a safe seat for Labour, it was a 3 way marginal up until recently and Oldham I understand is now governed by the LD. Liverpool may also cause an upset and send a LD MP to the Westminster. Probably Liverpool Riverside.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: English on November 05, 2003, 07:47:32 am
If this was a European nation, Dean would win hands down and go on to take the White House. That said I would prefer any Democrat who can unseat Bush, even someone on the right like Liebermann.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 05, 2003, 12:39:50 pm
I don't see how I made a fool of myself... I said that the GOP would pick up KY and that Mississippi would be close.
(The lawyers remark was a joke) .

Musgrove's big mistake was to concede the battle before it even started:
His posters said "independent" and "conservative". Democrat was not mentioned.
To fight on ground chosen by the enemy is stupid.
What Musgrove should have said is:
"populist" and "real Democrat".

Let that be a lesson to ya all.

But it's not all bad for the Dems:

Street won big in Philly(amazing what a bugging scandel can do).

And for the first time in a generation they picked up seats in the Virginia State House.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 05, 2003, 12:58:28 pm
I think you are confusing Oldham West and Royton with Oldham East and Saddleworth, which Labour picked up from the LibDems in 1997, and were only saved in 2001 by the BNP(!)

The LibDems don't control Oldham BC anymore, they cocked up the finances(ala Sheffield) and it's currently run by Labour.

Manchester Gorton is not going to be a LibDem gain, it's too working class and 41% is too big a hurdle for a General Election.
Also, the LibDems will be worried about defending nearby Cheadle from the Tories.

If Sheffield Hillsborough was going to go, it would have been in 2001 when the LibDems were still popular in Sheffield.
An upset is possible, but unlikely.

The LibDems are a local thing in Liverpool, most of their councillers are... erm... tin pot town hall hacks, who are not really elected because of the LD banner.
They did hold a seat till 1997, but that was due to the "Alton Factor"(David Alton MP was very popular locally and was elected because of who he was, not because he was a liberal).
Riverside is waaay too safe for an LD upset, if it happens anywhere I'tel be Liverpool Wavertree(which contains Alton's old fiefdom of Mossly Hill).

Instead look for:

Oldham East and Saddleworth, Cardiff Central, Colne Valley, Rochdale, Falmouth and Camborne, B'ham Yardley.

They are all much better bets.

As is Ceredigion(currently a PC seat) and tons of Tory seats.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: b_rules on November 05, 2003, 10:47:24 pm
I'd have to disagree with the others that PA is likely to go to Bush.  While the state has been losing population, the voter registration percentages have not changed.  What has happened is that Philly and the Philly suburban counties have become more Democratic, while the rural counties have become more Republican, mimicking the national trend.

Bush was very weak in 2000 in the Philly suburbs, as were Dole in 1996 and Bush in 1992.  It's hard to say whether the suburbs are becoming turned off by the national Republican message or whether this was a Clinton/Gore phenomenon.  Bush's 4 weakest counties in PA, as measured by (Registered GOP % - Bush %) were the 4 suburban counties of Delaware, Montgomery, Bucks, and Chester.  They were also Gore's strongest counties relative to party registration.

The state is really a toss-up based on those 4 counties, and right now, Bush is not popular there at all.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Platypus on November 06, 2003, 02:04:30 am
I'm saying Republicans 271-267 Democrats

DEMOCRAT

Hawaii
Washington
Oregon
California
New Mexico
Iowa
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Mississippi
New York
Vermont
New Hampshire
Maine
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
Michigan
Illinois
Kentucky (?)
West Virginia
DC
Virginia
South Carolina
Maryland
Delaware

REPUBLICAN

Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Utah
Nevada
Idaho
Wyoming
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
Arkansas
Misouri
Minnesota (?)
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Indiana
New Jersey

Bit controvertial, I know, but definently possible.

Change Kentucky to Republican and they win 279 to 259

Change Minnesota to Democrat and they win 277 to 261


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 06, 2003, 05:51:23 am
Definately can't see the Democrats winning Mississppi, South Carolina or Virginia. They have been reliably Republican in presidential elections since the 60's. Also New Jersey? Republican? I would say definately a hold for the Democrats.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: English on November 06, 2003, 06:08:53 am
Sorry, yes! I did mean Oldham East & Saddleworth! I would agree with Rochdale, definately a likely LD gain, after all it was held by Cyril Smith for years. I cannot imagine Birmingham Yardley falling, it has been a 3 way marginal for sometime yet has been stubbornly loyal to Labour since 1992. Falmouth and Camborne I fear may fall to the Tories, The LD already control Cornwall, so I can't see them having much desire to elect an LD MP. Most of Labour's voters will probably defect to the Conservatives in F & C. Also I agree about Ceredigion, I hope that does fall to the Liberal Democrats. Plaid Cymru are complete morons.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Platypus on November 06, 2003, 06:25:28 am
Mississippi is changing-their governor is a democrat and they had a high (for them) vote for Gore in 2000 (45% IIRC)

Given the right push, I can see it going towards the Democrats.

I concede I might be a bit ambitious giving them South Carolina; it has been republican since 1980, but I could see it if Edwards was the VP candidate.

Virginia has ben won by Republicans for a while, but by slim margins-Bush was a statistical err in 2000-Clinton lost it in 1996 by a very slim margin-and Carter also came close tom winning it.

I see New Jersey as carring the incumbent, basically because of world events-it is my impression the new jersey have been significantly affected by 9/11 and have become more conservative because of it-I see it as a close race, and I think that the surburbanites will turn republican-it happened with George Bush sn., he won much of northern new jersey in 1992.

(sources, of course, from this website)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 06, 2003, 08:19:35 am
You"re dreaming if you think conservative Va, Mississippi, or South Carolina vote will vote Dem.  I've said this before but kerry, Dean, and company couldn't carry those states if Robert E. Lee was their VP.  And kentucky?  Come on.  Don't look for any Dem noninee to even set foot in those states.  However, I'd love for them to waste time and resources there.  It would be about like the money and time Bush wasted in California the last wk of the 2000 campaign.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 06, 2003, 10:05:37 am
I have to agree with agcat. The Dems will never win Mississippi, Sth Carolina or Virginia, not in a million years. Their vote of 45% in Missi (in the delta), is about saturation level, I can't see it rising any higher than that. These states are too conservative and rural. New Jersey on the other hand is largely urban and industrial with Democrat strongholds such as Newark, Atlantic City, Paterson, Camden & Trenton. New Jersey I predict will remain Democrat and probably get even safer.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 06, 2003, 12:42:24 pm
I can certainly see a Dem win in Virginia(with a margin under 10% it ain't safe) but not Mississippi and definately not SC.

In fact Mississippi and SC are the least likely of the Southern states to go Dem.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Platypus on November 06, 2003, 05:01:28 pm
You"re dreaming if you think conservative Va, Mississippi, or South Carolina vote will vote Dem.  I've said this before but kerry, Dean, and company couldn't carry those states if Robert E. Lee was their VP.  And kentucky?  Come on.  Don't look for any Dem noninee to even set foot in those states.  However, I'd love for them to waste time and resources there.  It would be about like the money and time Bush wasted in California the last wk of the 2000 campaign.

Clinton carried kentucky both times, IIRC...


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 06, 2003, 05:59:44 pm
You"re dreaming if you think conservative Va, Mississippi, or South Carolina vote will vote Dem.  I've said this before but kerry, Dean, and company couldn't carry those states if Robert E. Lee was their VP.  And kentucky?  Come on.  Don't look for any Dem noninee to even set foot in those states.  However, I'd love for them to waste time and resources there.  It would be about like the money and time Bush wasted in California the last wk of the 2000 campaign.

Clinton carried kentucky both times, IIRC...

Because Gore was from Tenn and Perot.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Demrepdan on November 06, 2003, 07:42:52 pm
I am currently giving my support to  Sen. John Edwards. Although, Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt fall closely behind. In many ways, I do not think Gephardt would win. His main concern is for workers rights, and his views toward this may turn away many southern voters. Howard Dean is  the fighting Liberal! The man so opposite of President Bush that he would most certainly give Bush a run for his money! But maybe he is...TOO...liberal? Hmm... And plus his remarks concerning the Confederate flag and the south proove that he is very ignorant to how to pull in southern votes. Which brings me to Edwards. Edwards would most certainatly bring in more southern votes than any of the other candidates. He has some conservative views that appeals to the south. I also like some of his views on education, and the War with Iraq (which I commonly refer to as the Gulf War II).  I'm surprised that on this poll, I was the FIRST person to vote for Edwards. I hope that some may see what potential he has.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 06, 2003, 08:01:34 pm
Exactly.  No Northern Dem has carried Kentucky since 1952.  Bush carried 103 out of 118 Kentucky counties and took the state by 16 points in 2000.  Trust me.  Kentucky is not in play.  

I'll go even further.  The entire South is not in play in 2000.  A northern Democrat has not carried a single Southern state since John Kennedy in 1960.  (Actually, there was one exception - Humphry in 1968did win Tx - a fluke when Johnson was President and Nixon and Wallace split the conservative vote).  Senator Miller has it right.  The national Democratic Party has managed to alienate the entire South in presidential elections.  Sorry Governor Dean.  You're wasting your time.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on November 06, 2003, 08:12:13 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/elec04.prez.GOP.gains.ap/index.html

Above web address describes PEW Poll results showing GOP making gains (sometimes substantial) since 2001.     There's a state by state breakdown available - can't find it right now. Republican gains were notably in MN, IA, MI, TX, and CA.   I think quite a few states that Gore carried narrowly (2% or lessmargin ) in '00 will fall into the Republican column this time.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 06, 2003, 11:11:44 pm
<<I don't see how I made a fool of myself...Musgrove's big mistake was to concede the battle before it even started:  His posters said "independent" and "conservative". Democrat was not mentioned.
To fight on ground chosen by the enemy is stupid.
What Musgrove should have said is:
"populist" and "real Democrat"....Let that be a lesson to ya all.>>

You are a fool because you're a foreigner from across the pond that thinks you have a CLUE of how to run a political race in Mississippi!

----

<<I said that Mississippi would be close>>

LOL!

Actually, you said the Dem would win in the MS House, meaning that the GOP wouldn't pick-up a majority of the vote.

Obviously, history has proven you wrong, even though you thought the night was "All going as I predicted".

---

<<I said that the GOP would pick up Ky>>

Considering that the polls were showing the GOP up by 7 to 9 points in the last two weeks of the race, I don't think you impressed anyone with this pick.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 06, 2003, 11:21:36 pm
Some of the posters in this thread are smoking something funny.

How in the world do the Dems win MS & SC, yet end up losing Penn?!

Has the guy been asleep since 1956?!


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on November 06, 2003, 11:38:23 pm
How in the world do the Dems win MS & SC, yet end up losing Penn?!
What many people overlook is that Gore did pick up extra white votes in the south in '00 because he was a Southerner. And he had 90-95% of the black vote.  However, it wasn't enough to win any states. But it did diminish the margin of Bush's wins in many southern states,compared to GOP wins in 1980,84,or 88, thus creating the impression that Democrats are within striking distance.   IMHO, Bush is a lock in every Southern and border state except MD (unless there's a big event).


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 07, 2003, 12:34:48 am
Many people may be surprised what states will switch from Democratic to Republican and Republican to Democrat.  States that may turn to the Democrats are New Hampshire and Missouri, and depending on whether or not John Edwards, or Wesley Clark are on the VP ticket or they are the Presidential candidate themselves, then don't be surprised to see some southern states vote Democratic. Such as North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia (perhaps), Tennessee, and maybe even Florida. But then again I'm sure Gov. Bush would make sure his big brother wins his state.  Democratic states that may turn Republican might be Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan (I doubt it), New Mexico, Illinois, and maybe even *GASP* California? You think "Gubernah" ARH-nold Swarzenegger will help President Bush win California? You may indeed be surprised.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Beet on November 07, 2003, 12:39:54 am
Ah, don't forget Delaware, that is not going to be a huge battleground due to its 3 electoral votes, but it could go either way, leaning Dem.

That having been said, no, there aren't any Southern states in contention unless Edwards gets the nomination. Actually it is not the Democrats' fault for "alienating" the south. Lyndon Johnson said he was signing away the South was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965... there aren't many politicians in America today who would dispute those watershed civil rights measures as unjustified, but the South seems to hold a permanent grudge against Democrats for giving blacks equal rights. The Democrats didn't leave the South... the South left the Democrats.

Anyways here are the states the Dems have a greater than 50% chance of holding in 2004:

Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
Delaware
Illinois
Washington
Hawaii
California

I see Maine, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, and Oregon switching to Republicans. Pennsylvania and Michigan will be very contentious and the Democrats MUST win both states if they are to have a chance. But they probably will not win both states.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Beet on November 07, 2003, 01:10:34 am
Demrepdan, I fully agree with you that Edwards is the best candidate and has the best chance of winning. Close behind are Dean and Gephardt.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 07, 2003, 01:18:42 am
Jobless claims plunge

The Labor Department said 348,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 1, compared with a revised reading of 391,000 in the prior week.

It was the lowest number of weekly jobless claims since 339,000 in the week of Jan. 20, 2001. Economists, on average, expected 380,000 new claims.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

---

Productivity gains hit 10-year high
 
Gains in productivity reached 8.1% in 3Q, accelerating from an upwardly revised 7.0 percent gain in the prior three months, as labor costs fell 4.6% in period.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/06/news/economy/productivity.reut/index.htm

---

Service sector surges
 
Biggest component of U.S. economy grows stronger in October, beating Wall Street forecasts.
 
The ISM's "new orders" index jumped to 64.4 from 59.9, and its employment index rose to 52.9 from 49.1 -- the highest level since November 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/05/news/economy/services/index.htm

---

Spending pickup lifts factory orders

The Commerce Department said orders for goods made in U.S. factories rose 0.5 percent in September.

Orders rise 0.5 percent in September as demand for non-defense capital goods gains 4.7%.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/05/news/economy/factory_orders.reut/index.htm

---

Demand for new home loans surges
 
Industry group: U.S. applications for mortgages jump 11%; refinancing demand rises 0.3%.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/05/news/economy/mortgages.reut/index.htm



Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 04:04:50 am
Actually my predictions were:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)

What's wrong with that?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 04:34:08 am
The South went from Democrat dominance to GOP advantage.
It's importent to remember that and not get carried away with the idea that the South is a GOP "lock".

WV, Arkansas, Virginia, Tennesse, Lousiana, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia could all go Dem without any freak factors needed.
If you disagree, I can justify every one of them.

On the other hand Texas and South Carolina will not go Dem under any circumstances.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 07, 2003, 08:02:40 am
Ok, justify them.  I've gotta hear this.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 07, 2003, 08:35:15 am
Oct job growth +126k
Oct unemployment -0.1% to 6.0%

Sept job growth revised up to +125k from +57k
Aug job growth revised up to +35k from -41k

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/07/news/economy/jobs/index.htm

---

bye, bye, Dems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 10:30:57 am
Please note that these are not predictions.

Well I don't think most of em need justifying, but basically Bush's margins were only above 10% in NC and Georgia.

Georgia is prone to sudden and violent swings of opinion.

I don't know a lot about NC(so I'm probably wrong about this), but it seems fairly moderate.
But I repeat I don't know a lot about the state.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 11:06:32 am
IOWA

01 Waterloo and Dubuque c
02 Iowa City and Ceder Rapids c
03 Des Moines c
04 Winnebago c
05 Sioux City c


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 12:40:24 pm
Apparently the MP for Ottawa Centre(Mac Herb... I think) has resigned his seat.
Is this true? And if so when is the by-election going to be?


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 12:42:27 pm
A BBC correspondent has said that it's "the closest election for years".

Voting is on sunday.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 07, 2003, 12:46:50 pm
The election campaign has started and the latest Viacom poll shows United Russia leading the KPRF by 7%
However it was taken before "Yukosgate"...


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 07, 2003, 08:34:26 pm
Realpolitik,
The political South is obviously of interest to you as you've posted several threads dealing with the subject.  It's always been of interest to me as well.  I did my graduate thesis  over presidential politics in the modern South.  I mention that not to claim that I'm in ANY way an expert on the subject, but rather to illustrate that, just like you, the topic has always been of great interest to me.

First, let me say that West Virginia could easily go Democratic in the next election.  I don't think it will, but it was always a Democratic state at the presidential level and has been carried twice since 1968 by northern liberals Humphry and Dukakis.  I think Gore's environmental stance as well as the general cultural drift was just too much for Gore to overcome in the last election.

However, I firmly believe that any Northern Liberal Democrat loses big in any of the other Southern states you cite, and the historic trends confirm that.

The Democrats have nominated four Northern Liberals since 1960 - Humphry (68), McGovern (72), Mondale (84), and Dukakis (88).  None of these candidates even came close to carrying the states of NC, Tenn, Virginia, Florida, Arkansas, or La.

Democratic perentages 68, 72, 84, 88:

Ark    -  31, 31, 38, 42
La.    -  30, 31, 38, 44
Va.    - 32, 30, 37, 39
Ga.   -  27, 25, 40, 40
NC    -  29, 28, 42, 42
Tenn - 28, 30, 42, 42
Fla    - 31, 28, 35, 39

Ronald Reagan had far more success in liberal Massachussetts than any of the above candidates had in any of these Southern states.  The above percentages were achieved by Northern Democrats rounding up 92% of the black vote in states with anywhere from 20 to 36% of voting population being black.  This means they were garnering no more than 25% or less of the white southern voters.  Unless that changes drastically, these results will repeat over and over.  I don't see Howard Dean changing this equation do you?


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 07, 2003, 10:51:48 pm
Sorry, bud.  My mistake.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 08, 2003, 02:32:27 am
***VERY IMPORTANT***

2nd Round of Tax Cuts to take effect in early 2004!!!

In July (Q3) 2003, parents received $400 per child tax credits in the mail due to the fact that the per child tax credit was raised from $600 to $1000.

Also in July (Q3) 2003, individual tax RATES were lowed so workers began taking home more of their paychecks.

BUT, get this...the tax cuts were RETROACTIVE back to Jan 2003, so for the first 6 months of 2003 Americans overpaid taxes under the current tax code.

THEREFORE, those 6 months of overpayments will be REFUNDED to Americans when people file their 2003 taxes returns in early 2004!

So, just as 2003Q3 GDP got a boost from tax cuts, 2004Q2 GDP will get an additional boost.

----

But what should scare Dems even more was the weekly jobless claims that plunged 43k to 358k from 391k for the week ending 11/1/2003.

The Oct unemployment report (6.0%) only included data up to 10/15, so the Oct report didn't include the huge plung in jobless claims.

But the plung will be reflected in the Nov unemployment report (released in early Dec), and it will show a BIG increase in job growth!!!


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2003, 04:33:51 am
That's O.K ;)

Out of interest if you were running Musgrove's campaign what slogans would you use?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2003, 04:41:56 am
The South is very interesting.
Why do so many people vote against their economic interest so they can vote to state their position on wedge issues?

My theory on the South is that the current GOP advantage is a result of Democrat weakness not GOP strength.
This point was rammed home by Musgrove's insane campaign in Mississippi.

WV should go Dem next election if only because Bush has failed to halt the decline in the Coal industry and his education policy is being blamed for the states budget problems.
But it's only 5 EV's and won't cause Bush to lose re-election.

Other than WV, AR and LA the best chance for a Dem pickup may actually be Virginia(!)

I'm not sure what Dean is yet, but I'll agree that if Kerry wins the Dems will struggle to pickup any state other than NH...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2003, 07:51:07 am
West Virginia

01 Wheeling c
02 Charleston c
03 Coal District c

Maine

01 Portland and Augusta c
02 Madawaska c




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2003, 11:19:05 am
The final boundary changes can be found at www.elections.ca (http://www.elections.ca)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Kevinstat on November 08, 2003, 11:49:16 am
One thing I read is that the new boundaries "come into force effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs after August 25, 2004."  Is Parliament dissolved on the day the Prime Minister calls a new election, is it election day, or is it some other time.  Regardless of which day it is, I think there's a good chance that the coming elections will be held under the existing district lines.  What do you people think?

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 08, 2003, 12:04:04 pm
Canada is run under the "Westminster System", in other words their are no fixed election dates and the P.M can call an election whenever he likes.
The new boundries come into force on the 25th of August, but Martin is under no obligation to call an election after or on that date.
He can call one on the 24th if he likes.

When the election is called partly depends on whether the boundry changes are favourable to the LPC, if they are expect an election to be called very soon after the 25th, if they are not expect an election any time before that date.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 08, 2003, 12:40:23 pm
I'm gonna have to disagree that Musgrove's campaign was horrible. It wasnt perfect but quite decent. I really think his vote total was the most any democrat could be expected to get in Mississippi right now (with a strong GOP challenger) The negative connotations to the word "democrat" are just too strong right now.

And yes I do know recent Miss. Gubernatoral history. Its no longer valid. The south is changing and changing fast and its not looking good for the dems.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 08, 2003, 02:23:31 pm
I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on November 09, 2003, 02:37:44 am
I agree that West Virginia is fairly likely to go Dem. As for the rest of the South, Florida has changed dramatically even since 1988 to become much more competitive, and could be won by any of the serious Dem candidates. Other than that though, Clark and Edwards are probably the only Dems who could win any other Southern states. Of course, Florida is the only Southern state that the Dems really need to win, and they don't even need Florida if they can win someplace like Ohio.
Clark I believe would win Arkansas, and be competitive in Louisiana and possibly Tennessee. Edwards would be competitive in North Carolina and Arkansas, and maybe also Louisiana and Tennessee. Gephardt and Lieberman also would both be competitive in Arkansas. Dean and Kerry would lose the entire South except maybe West Virginia and Florida (which are both quite unlike the rest of the South, and as we've said earlier West Virginia probably shouldn't be considered the South...it doesn't really fit into any region.)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 05:28:07 am
I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 07:42:37 am
I've been looking at congressional results etc. from NC, and it appears that the Dems do have a chance there... with the right candidate with the right platform.

If we were to divide the South into different regions it may be easier to understand:

Upper South: Arkansas, WV, Kentucky, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennesse and possibly Maryland, DC and Missouri.

Deep South: Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Lousiana

Texas: Texas

Florida: Florida

The Dems might do well in the "Upper South" in 2004, but are going to struggle in the Deep South until racial divisions begin to heal.
They have a chance in Florida, but Texas is a no no.
They were under 40% in Texas in 2000...


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 07:48:53 am
Looking at the House results, Arkansas is a Democrat stronghold(if the popular vote is adjusted they won about 60%), and I think most Democrats will be able to win it in 2004.
Ditto WV.

Problem is neither are very large, and if Bush can pick up Wisconsin and Oregon it would negate those possible gains.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 09, 2003, 09:28:13 am
Be careful about trying to take congressional voting patterns and using them to predict what happens at the presidential level in the South.

Southern congressional candidates in rural areas do NOT run on the same platform as the John Kerrys and Howard Deans.  Southern whites have been splitting their tickets for years while they vote in droves against the national nominee.

The scary thing about Howard Dean isn't that he wants the votes of whites with pickup trucks and confederate decals.  it's that he actually thinks he can get them.  Good luck Howard.  You're going to need it.

For the posters who think Howard Dean can be competitive in Florida, what are you guys smoking?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 09, 2003, 10:11:12 am
Looking at the House results, Arkansas is a Democrat stronghold(if the popular vote is adjusted they won about 60%), and I think most Democrats will be able to win it in 2004.
Ditto WV.

Problem is neither are very large, and if Bush can pick up Wisconsin and Oregon it would negate those possible gains.


Agcat brought up a good point about using congressional elections as predictors for Presidential elections.

I would go furthur and say that even out of the south their relevance is much less than you might think.

Reason is that in some very uncompetitive states or rather seats the other party often doesnt field a serious candidate against a popular incumbent. The latter ends up winning with something like 90% even though the actual partisan alignment in the seat may be about 50-50. This result will of course prejudice the total state congressional percentages that you seem so fond of.

The conclusion is dont assume party strength based on congressional results.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: dazzleman on November 09, 2003, 10:15:41 am
Some of the comments I have read on here about the south by people advocating a liberal position tell me why the Democrats have such a slim chance of winning any southern states next year.

There seems to an assumption among liberals that racism is the primary motivation for white southerners (whom the Democrats presume to all be "poor") to vote Republican.  The theory is that white southerners are stupid and vote against their own economic interests out of racial hatred.

This is essentially the position taken by Howard Dean, the former governor of a state that has virtually no black population.  Dean's statements on this issue are positively dripping with condescension toward southerners.  The reality of the situation is much more complex than this.

First off, the Republican party is not overtly anti-black.  It does not support the agenda of the NAACP or other left-wing "advocacy" groups, but that doesn't make it anti-black.  Republican-sponsored welfare reform has benefited blacks more than the Democrat-supported AFDC did, and Republicans support efforts to free blacks from failing inner city schools, while Democrats side with the teachers' unions.  One could make a very good argument that the programs espoused by the so-called proponents of black progress have had a big hand in preventing greater progress on racial issues in the past 30 years.

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  Since the southern economy has been growing faster than the rest of the country for some time now, following more conservative economic policies, maybe the southerners are right.  Maybe not, but it is simplistic and condescending to say unequivocally that what white southerners need is more government programs.

I also think that northerners, especially ones like Dean who come from lily-white states like Vermont, ought to stop patting themselves on the back about their tolerance on racial matters.  There is a great deal of racial prejudice up north, and some of the greatest racial tensions and even violence have taken place in supposedly liberal places such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit.

New York and Boston, those great bastions of northern liberalism, are about as racially segmented as you can get, complete with high levels of hostility between the races.  Where I live in Connecticut, you couldn't have a greater degree of racial separation if it were imposed by law.  This doesn't happen by accident, but through the deliberate decisions of large numbers of individuals.  So I think northerners who criticize the south on the race issue ought to stop the self-deluding hypocrisy and look more deeply at the issue, outside the bounds of political correctness.

Zell Miller is right.  Until northern Democrats obtain a better understanding of the south and stop the condescension, they don't stand a chance there, and they shouldn't.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 10:17:45 am
I'm well aware of that, BUT they are a good guide in some cases. (and MUCH better than using Senate or Gubernatorial elections).

And warped results are fairly easy to spot ;)
(2 in Virginia alone!)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 09, 2003, 10:21:24 am
I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 10:30:52 am
Some of the comments I have read on here about the south by people advocating a liberal position tell me why the Democrats have such a slim chance of winning any southern states next year.

There seems to an assumption among liberals that racism is the primary motivation for white southerners (whom the Democrats presume to all be "poor") to vote Republican.  The theory is that white southerners are stupid and vote against their own economic interests out of racial hatred.

This is essentially the position taken by Howard Dean, the former governor of a state that has virtually no black population.  Dean's statements on this issue are positively dripping with condescension toward southerners.  The reality of the situation is much more complex than this.

First off, the Republican party is not overtly anti-black.  It does not support the agenda of the NAACP or other left-wing "advocacy" groups, but that doesn't make it anti-black.  Republican-sponsored welfare reform has benefited blacks more than the Democrat-supported AFDC did, and Republicans support efforts to free blacks from failing inner city schools, while Democrats side with the teachers' unions.  One could make a very good argument that the programs espoused by the so-called proponents of black progress have had a big hand in preventing greater progress on racial issues in the past 30 years.

In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  Since the southern economy has been growing faster than the rest of the country for some time now, following more conservative economic policies, maybe the southerners are right.  Maybe not, but it is simplistic and condescending to say unequivocally that what white southerners need is more government programs.

I also think that northerners, especially ones like Dean who come from lily-white states like Vermont, ought to stop patting themselves on the back about their tolerance on racial matters.  There is a great deal of racial prejudice up north, and some of the greatest racial tensions and even violence have taken place in supposedly liberal places such as Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit.

New York and Boston, those great bastions of northern liberalism, are about as racially segmented as you can get, complete with high levels of hostility between the races.  Where I live in Connecticut, you couldn't have a greater degree of racial separation if it were imposed by law.  This doesn't happen by accident, but through the deliberate decisions of large numbers of individuals.  So I think northerners who criticize the south on the race issue ought to stop the self-deluding hypocrisy and look more deeply at the issue, outside the bounds of political correctness.

Zell Miller is right.  Until northern Democrats obtain a better understanding of the south and stop the condescension, they don't stand a chance there, and they shouldn't.

First off I'm not a liberal.

Facts are facts, a lot of people in the South are poor, and a lot of em vote against their economic interest.
It's also true that poor people need government intervention(DON'T even bother to argue about that. I live in a poor rural area).

And all credit to the GOP for their sucess in at getting people to vote against their economic interest.
If you take Texas and Florida out of the picture the South is not doing very well at all.

There is a lot of racism in the North, and even more out West(would you like to be black and in Idaho?)

I happen to think that a northerner like you can slag off other northerners for not "understanding" the South is hypocritical.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 10:35:21 am
I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.

I don't think that Gore was a strong candidate, but I'll agree that the Flag stuff might stop a high black turnout for Dean.
Maybe he's going for the Yellow Dog vote?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 09, 2003, 11:13:11 am
I don't think LA will be that close because Bush won it by seven points.

Which is not a lot

Actually it is a lot.  He won LA against a strong canidate white a high black turnout.  I still believe that Dean will not get a high black turnout.

I don't think that Gore was a strong candidate, but I'll agree that the Flag stuff might stop a high black turnout for Dean.
Maybe he's going for the Yellow Dog vote?

Gore was the strongest canidate the Dems put up in years.  He had record high black turnout and he couldn't win LA that  is why I think Dean does not have a chance of winning it.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 09, 2003, 11:25:06 am
Clinton?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 09, 2003, 12:30:19 pm
Clinton ran as a Southern moderate.  Dean and Kerry are neither southern nor moderate.  They are much less likely to get the votes of southern whites than even Gore.  Bush carried Louisiana by 8 pts.  He beats Dean or Kerry by between 12 and 15 in 2004.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 09, 2003, 01:53:36 pm

Clinton positioned himself as a southern moderate.  The whole Dem field with the exception of Edwards and Clark are notherners.  And all are liberals.


Title: Japan is not a democracy!
Post by: Beet on November 09, 2003, 03:54:52 pm
"Maybe we really are moving towards a two-party system" - Junichiro Koizumi, after the "opposition" party made gains in diet elections

The U.S. definitely failed at nation-building a democracy in Japan, considering it has been controlled by one party for longer than the Ba'ath party controlled Iraq or even the Communists controlled Cuba! The only time in the past 50 years it wasn't ruled by the LDP was June 1993 to June 1994... otherwise can you really call it a democracy when the same party always wins?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Beet on November 09, 2003, 04:39:05 pm
Lieberman, Edwards and Clark are definitely not liberals. The only prominent Democrat candidate to come out against the war was Dean. But I agree Dean doesn't have a change in LA.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 09, 2003, 05:36:46 pm
Neither do any of these three since they aren't going to be nomiated.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: agcatter on November 09, 2003, 07:45:36 pm
Ryan,
How do you see the La. governor's race?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 09, 2003, 07:45:48 pm
Neither do any of these three since they aren't going to be nomiated.

Dean is going to be the nom and it is going to hurt the Dems downticket.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on November 09, 2003, 08:07:55 pm
In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  
It's also worth noting that not everyone votes primarily on economic issues.  Michael Barone notes in "The Almanac of American Politics" that social values and depth of religious commitment are a bigger indicator of political preference than income.  Bush did poorly with secular voters in '00, but did well with highly observant Catholics and Protestants.  But I know that the pattern doesn't always hold true, because Reagan wasn't highly obseranvant yet crushed Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1980. An exception to every rule.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 09, 2003, 09:56:28 pm
This month's elections emphasized that the country is still split Red/Blue  Republican/Democratic.  Republicans challengers won in Red states (KY and MS) fairly easily, but Democrats solidified there control in NJ.  So I assume the 2004 election will closely follow 2000, unless there is a state specific factor that would lead to a change.  Thus the election will come down to the 17 closest states in 2000, those with a margin of victory less than 7%.   The winner in these states could be determined by how strong third parties run and any changes in statewide voter partisanship.
 
The margin of third party votes exceeded the winning margin in 6 states.  The Green Party may have cost Gore two states NH and FL, while Libertarian and Reform Parties may have cost Bush 4 states: NM, WI, IA, OR.  At this point it seems likely all three third parties will run again, though I think it likely the Reform and Green parties will get fewer votes in 2004.

The recent Pew Research Center for the People & the Press review of partisanship found a significant change in Republican self identification from 2000 to 2003.  Looking over the tables of partisanship change:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750
if we assume the shift in party identification results in a similar change in voting, it suggests Bush would lose NH (but retain FL), and he would pick up NM, WI, MN, IA, MI and maybe OR.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: nclib on November 10, 2003, 12:34:13 am
In addition, it is simplistic to say that Democratic economic policies will aid southerners, particularly the "poor" ones that Dean speaks about.  Maybe the southerners believe that lower taxes and greater economic freedom will lead to better job creation for them than higher taxes coupled with social programs.  
It's also worth noting that not everyone votes primarily on economic issues.  Michael Barone notes in "The Almanac of American Politics" that social values and depth of religious commitment are a bigger indicator of political preference than income.  Bush did poorly with secular voters in '00, but did well with highly observant Catholics and Protestants.  But I know that the pattern doesn't always hold true, because Reagan wasn't highly obseranvant yet crushed Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter in 1980. An exception to every rule.

Exactly. The religious right has appealed to conservative rural southerners, but has made the Northeast and other urban areas a Democratic stronghold. As Clinton handily won the '92 election, the top two states in per capita income (CT and NJ) were only won by 6% and 2% respectively. Gore, in a 50-50 race, won them by 16% and 17%.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on November 10, 2003, 01:58:59 am
Indeed, there are a lot of wealthy voters in the North who are liberal and thus also perhaps vote against their own economic interest, as well. Elections in the US turn just as much, if not more so, on culture than they do on economics. Democrats are out of step culturally with much of the white vote in the South, it isn't just racism that costs the Dems in the South. But, if the Dems nominate a candidate who the South can relate to (like Carter or Clinton) they can be very competitive there. Clinton was reasonably competitive in every southern state, even the most conservative ones like South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Virginia and Texas. He was within 10% in every southern state in both 1992 and 1996. Clark and Edwards, likewise, would not get blown out in the South, even in the states they lost.  They would be able to at least come within 10% in every southern state, i think, except Texas. But, the South clearly leans Republican, even the more Democratic southern states such as Arkansas and Louisiana.
Conversely, in the Northeast, unless he wins a landslide victory, Bush has no chance to win any states except New Hampshire, Maine, and Pennsylvania, and the last 2 would still probably require a reasonably solid Bush victory. New Hampshire is really the only swing state in the entire Northeast (defined by me here as everything north and east of, and including, DC). Republicans are out of step culturally with the Northeast just as badly as Democrats are out of step culturally with the South.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: kemma on November 10, 2003, 09:37:27 am
I believe that it is wrong to assume that Bush will have an easy reelection. When it's crunchtime, people will be surprised to see how mch of a struggle it is going to be regarding his reelection. Just look at the independents data, the letest poll indicates that only 40 percent of the independents consider voting for Bush, while 53 percent do consider voting for other candidates (arguably democratic). given the fact that the committed (republican, democrats) voters are almost equal (with maybe a slim republican majority) , I believe that the independents will decide this election, and they do not see a compassionate conservative in Bush by any means.

But I agree that the south is going to be a republican landslide (with maybe arkansas or gore's home state coming into play, but I doubt it) but democrats may carry west virginia (its economy is in bad shape, but wva is not necessarily considered south.)
Look for ohio among others where the democrats may surprise the pundits declaring bush landslide.
this election will not be determined by texas , south carolina, virginia or strong democratic households like new jersey, new york, michingan (it wont be a battleground state this time) but rather places like ohio, oregon, kentucky, nevada and the other midwest states.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 10, 2003, 10:48:56 am
In 2004 and in future elections I can see there being a very clear split in the vote. The North East and West coast I predict will continue to swing heavily to the Democrats. The entire south and west I believe will be lost for good and become staunchly Republican. Elections will be decided by the mid west states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 10, 2003, 02:00:52 pm
Ryan,
How do you see the La. governor's race?

LOL I was wondering why no one had asked yet :)
There is a reason I haven&#8217;t said anything about it yet. I can usually analyse races dispassionately, regardless of which candidate I want to see win. This race is an exception. You may be aware that I am an Indian-American (family from India). While I usually detest sectarian politics, I do have something of a stake in this contest. You see the republican nominee Bobby Jindal is an Indian-American like me. Of course that&#8217;s not the only reason for my solid support for him- he is supremely qualified with a solid record in Government and impeccable credentials, which is why over 80% of republicans voted for him in the primary.
While for a lower office I believe I would not spend so much time looking at a race even the candidate was an Indian. In this case however a Jindal victory could finally wake up the Indian-American community to the fact that the GOP is better for them or at least a viable option. This is something people like me have been trying to get across for decades but have been stymied by the lies about alleged republican racism. If Jindal is elected he will be the ultimate proof that the GOP is not racist.
Anyways I&#8217;m rambling here, in short, I predict a Jindal victory but accept that it may be impossible for me not to have slightly biased my analysis. Therefore I wont expand much furthur but I will say that turnout will decide this race especially black turn out. I do not anticipate a significant black vote for Jindal despite several high-profile endorsements from black leaders. What could happen however is that black turnout may be low if they feel they don&#8217;t have a good enough reason to fear the GOP candidate winning. That would assure Jindals victory. As the black turnout goes up Jindals chances go down as Blanco has been making inroads among voters a GOP candidate would be expected to carry and Foster did by large margins the last time. White women especially married women head this list for obvious reasons.
In any event it&#8217;s a close race and to sum up my prediction, I choose Jindal and a vote breakup of 51%R- 49%D as most likely.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 10, 2003, 02:43:35 pm
It's going to be very close.
I will admit to being suprised to see Jindal leading in the New Orleans area and Blanco leading in Northern Lousiana(as at least one poll has), but the prospect of less ethnic voting in the Deep South is wonderful.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 10, 2003, 02:57:09 pm
Results(according to BBC World) :

LDP 240 (-7)
NK    34  (+3)
NCP    4  (-5)
DPJ  177 (+40)
CPJ      9 (-11)
SDPJ    6 (-12)
IND     10(-8)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 10, 2003, 03:04:06 pm
It makes sense to divide the South into 4 different areas(the border used to define the South is the Mason-Dixon line, still used for census and polling data) :

Deep South:
Lousiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina

Upper South:
Arkansas, Tennesse, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, District of Columbia

Greater Texas:
Texas, Oklahoma

Florida:
Florida

The Dems might do very well in the Upper South(with the right candidate), they will struggle in the Deep South until racial divisions begin to heal, have a shot in Florida and might as well not turn up in Greater Texas.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 10, 2003, 04:03:20 pm
DC isn't in the south.  WV is the only souther state i think that will be in troble for Bush.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 10, 2003, 04:07:01 pm
It's going to be very close.
I will admit to being suprised to see Jindal leading in the New Orleans area and Blanco leading in Northern Lousiana(as at least one poll has), but the prospect of less ethnic voting in the Deep South is wonderful.

The latest poll has Jindal leading in nothern Louisiana.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 10, 2003, 05:05:20 pm
I would have to agree that D.C. is not in anyway part of the south. In fact I would argue that Maryland isn't part of the "modern" south.

And I'm not all too sure on the way you categorized Georgia as being in the "deep" south. Georgia is nearly a mix between the deep south, and the "Greater Florida Region", if that's what you would want to call it. Florida and Georgia could very well vote Democratic. The states that you categorize as the deep south would most likely vote republican 9 out of 10 times. Thus, taking Georgia out of this category.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Michael Z on November 10, 2003, 05:57:12 pm
The LDP lost quite a few seats; not enough to suggest some form of distrust amongst the Japanese electorate, of course, but it does beg the question whether Koizumi's economic reforms really have the full public support which may be necessary for such a wide-reaching reform package. This question becomes even more pressing if you consider the seats gained by the DPJ (a full 40).

In other words, hardly a fully fledged endorsement for Koizumi.  As far as I know the LDP did even better than this under Mori (possibly the most unpopular PM in Japan's post-war history)... though I could be wrong.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on November 10, 2003, 08:34:18 pm
Georgia is nearly a mix between the deep south, and the "Greater Florida Region", if that's what you would want to call it. Florida and Georgia could very well vote Democratic. The states that you categorize as the deep south would most likely vote republican 9 out of 10 times. Thus, taking Georgia out of this category.
Georgia go Democrat? Have you ever heard of Zell Miller?  They can't even find a Democratic candidate to run for his seat next year, and he's voting for Bush himself.  


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on November 10, 2003, 09:01:46 pm
No northern Democrat has carried Georgia since 1960.  Southernor Clinton couldn't even beat inept Dole there in 96.  And it gets worse.  In 2000 southernor Gore got drilled by 12 points by Bush.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 10, 2003, 09:18:00 pm
No northern Democrat has carried Georgia since 1960.  Southernor Clinton couldn't even beat inept Dole there in 96.  And it gets worse.  In 2000 southernor Gore got drilled by 12 points by Bush.

And after the mid-terms the state dem party is in shambles.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: agcatter on November 10, 2003, 09:19:06 pm
Sounds like it's a classic case of the better candidate (Jindal) vs. the candidate with the biggest base.  Could go either way, but it appears it will be a cliffhanger.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 10, 2003, 09:24:13 pm
Check out the Ballot Access News for the latest on which independent parties are on which state ballots:
http://www.ballot-access.org/

I think it likely Nader will try for the Green nomination again, but if he runs in 2004 he&#8217;ll get fewer votes than 2000.

The reform party will not attract a viable candidate and have even less than the 0.4% they got in 2004.
Libertarians will be on all 50 state ballots and take about the same 0.4% as 2000.  Together both the Reform and Libertarian parties will reduce Bush&#8217;s vote by about 1%, enough to hurt Bush in close states (His margin of loss in 4 states, NM, WI, IA, OR, in 2000 was less than the vote for either the Reform or Libertarian Party)

Most interesting maybe Kucinich, one of his best friends and major supporters, Haglin, is the founder of the Natural Law party which was on most (maybe all?) state ballots in 2000.  This could be the perfect vehicle for Kucinich to carry on as the "true" progressive".  Sharpton might want to run as an independent, but I don't think he has any friends willing to give him a party line or the skills to organize a 50 state effort to get on the ballot.  Altogether if Nader, Kucinich and/or Sharpton ran on the Left it would probably drain 2-4% from the Democratic candidate, which could help Bush in the close states (he won two states in 2000 by less than the Green vote (NH and FL).  


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 10, 2003, 09:50:41 pm
Yes I've heard of Sen. Zell Miller, and his displeasure with the Democratic Party recently. But when I said that Georgia "could" vote Democratic I meant exactly that. I never said it would. A Democrat has carried it as recent as 1992, even though it was a southern Democrat, and even though it was won by barely one percentage point.  And who's to say that it won't be a southern Democrat in 2004 (i.e. John Edwards) who is nominated for President. I'm sure many would say Edwards doesn't have a chance in hell, but you never know. After all, Sen. Miller may be right, that the Democratic Party has left the interests of the south. Edwards seems to be one of the most conservative of the nine Democratic Presidential candidates, so maybe he has a chance in that respect. And I would have to agree with you though, the way Georgia is right now I don't think I could ever see them voting for the Democrats.

And I suppose the Democrats in Georgia would be in disarray after the mid-term election. Especially after having lost an incumbent Senator, who was a  triple-amputee and a Vietnam veteran, who was accused of being unpatriotic by his Republican opponent. But then again, maybe ole Zell is right, it’s the Democrats who abandoned the south and not the south who abandoned the Democrats.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: emergingDmajority on November 10, 2003, 11:25:37 pm
The deep south is solid Bush, the the dem nominee doesn't even need to waste time there with a token visit...

Gephardt or Edwards could make headway in some upper south states. I could see Gep doing well in Arkansas or Tennessee

I don't consider Delaware the South, but to me Missouri is and Gephardt would win Missouri. Even if it's by a point or 2, his home state will come in for him.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: emergingDmajority on November 10, 2003, 11:58:20 pm
Johnny come lately here, my picks:

Alabama- R by 12-15 pts
Arizona- R by 4-6
California- D by 8-10
Connecticut- D by 13-15
DC- D by 75+
Georgia- R by 12-15
Idaho- R by 35
Indiana- R by 8-10
Kansas- R by 15
Louisiana- R by 6-8
Maryland- D by 16-18
Michigan- D by 7-9
Mississippi- R by 15-18
Montana- R by 20-25
Nevada- D by 1 point : )
New Jersey- D by 18-20
New York- D by close to 30
North Dakota- R by close to 30
Oklahoma- R by 20+
Pennsylvania- D by 5-7
South Carolina- R by 12-18
Tennessee- R by 2 points
Utah- R by 35+
Virginia- R by 3-5 points
West Virginia- D by 2-3 points
Alaska- R by 20-25
Arkansas- D by a hair
Colorado- R by 10
Delaware- D by 10
Florida- R by 5-7
Hawaii- D by 15
Illinois- D by 9-10
Iowa- D by 2 points
Kentucky- D by 10 points
Maine- D by 7-9 points
Mass- D by 15-20
Minnesota- D by 6-8
Missouri- D by 2-3
Nebraska- R by 25-30
New Hampshire- D by 3-4
New Mexico - D by 2-3
North Carolina- R by 10-12
Ohio- R by 5
Oregon- D by 4-5
Rhode Island- D by 30-35
South Dakota- R by 30
Texas- R by 15-20
Vermont- D by 12-15
Wyoming- R by 25+
Washington- D by 4-6
Wisconsin- D by 1-2

I think you'd get these results with any combination of Clark/Gephardt/Edwards


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 11, 2003, 05:51:48 am
My sincerest apologies to all those who already read this. I've have corrected the punctuation screwups I had made earlier which were destroying the post.  

Please note that while this focuses on Louisiana, the conclusions apply to most of the South and Southern voters in general.


Firstly the most important question- Will Bush win La. in 2004. The answer is YES (in any event) but the degree of certainty for that depends on the Dem candidate.
Let me expand;

La. had long been a democratic stronghold very much in tune with the Solid South. It has shifted to the GOP in recent years in keeping with trends in the whole south. Many voters have however until quite recently considered themselves more or less independent, generally voting GOP nationally and Democrat locally. Since loyalty/ fondness for the GOP was not established it was possible for democrats with the right policy and persona to capture even reasonably conservative votes. This is why such a large number found it easy to vote for Clinton in the 90s. Numerous others (who in La. at least were mostly people would have voted GOP as second choice) voted for Perot (12 % in 92 and 7% in 96).
This has changed slowly but steadily over the last five years or so. More and more Voters in La. now consider themselves actually republican and look at democrats as the opposition. It doesn't make it impossible for democrats to win but they would have to stake themselves out as clearly conservative or at least moderate in a way that Clinton did not have to do. In short, for democrats in La., The bar has got higher.

Now I turn to a more detailed look at possibilities for 2004.
La. is not as rock Solid a Bush /Republican state as say neighboring Mississippi. It is certainly politically competitive but as specified above, depending upon the candidates.

Ø   If the republican candidate is in tune with southern voters (esp. but not only, if he himself is Southern) and the democrat is not, its a certain GOP victory. Eg. Bush and Dean.

Ø   If its the other way around (depending on other specifics) I can see democrats having a slight edge.
Eg. I consider the 96 Clinton-Dole contest as a part example for this. Dole never really caught fire in the South. Never gave anyone the feeling that he's one of us as Bush definitely does.
This scenario (Good Dem and Bad GOP candidates) doesn't apply to 2004 as Bush DEFINITELY appeals to La. voters on every level.  

Ø   If both GOP and DEM candidates can appeal to southern voters then its certainly a contest but Id give a definite edge to the GOP. Eg. Bush and Clark. &#8211; Presuming he doesn't collapse soon, Clark may have a shot but personally, unless he's winning the national election by a large margin, I still consider La. safe for Bush. Even in this scenario its still better than 50-50 for Bush.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 11, 2003, 05:57:33 am
Sounds like it's a classic case of the better candidate (Jindal) vs. the candidate with the biggest base.  Could go either way, but it appears it will be a cliffhanger.

Good sum-up :)


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: migrendel on November 11, 2003, 09:23:47 am
I would be reluctant to even vote if I was a resident of Louisiana. I could never endorse Jindal, because his conservativism is an over-arching theory of reactionary social views. Perhaps that might appease his conservative base, but to moderate-to-liberal Louisianans, that is clearly anathema. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco is not much of an improvement. Her platform is little other than a diluted version of Jindal's, a sort of Jindal Lite. Some say that Jindal's candidacy is a great step forward for the minority community. I beg to differ. If he equivocates on behalf of minorities where no equivocation can be had in Louisiana, a state that sent David Duke into a run-off twice in the past 15 years, the community will be hurt by his policy of rapprochement, not benisoned. If Bobby Jindal campaigned on an earnest platform of racial equality and economic advancement, not a paean to the Christian Coalition, I would be compelled to endorse him. That is not the case, and I urge a vote for the lesser of two insidious evils, Kathleen Blanco.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 11, 2003, 11:00:58 am
Hey,
I have read a lot of good posts on this forum.  As for the 2004 State predictions, I have a proposal:

I'll create a page that highlights your individual predictions.  You could download the main US Map and color it (using my standard 10 point scale) (using red for Democrats and blue for Republicans or green for Independent :)).  I'll add a web page interface so that you can upload your maps and add any text descriptions you like.

Comments?
Dave  


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2003, 12:41:30 pm
Hey,
I have read a lot of good posts on this forum.  As for the 2004 State predictions, I have a proposal:

I'll create a page that highlights your individual predictions.  You could download the main US Map and color it (using my standard 10 point scale) (using red for Democrats and blue for Republicans or green for Independent :)).  I'll add a web page interface so that you can upload your maps and add any text descriptions you like.

Comments?
Dave  

Good idea :)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2003, 12:52:24 pm
The Mason-Dixon line is used for polling and census purposes, so it makes sense to use it for this.

I've stuck Georgia in the Deep South for two reasons:

1. I've always associated Georgia as being in the Deep South ;)

2. Leaving SC as a little "island" of Deep South looks silly on a map


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 11, 2003, 01:22:29 pm
Hey,
I have read a lot of good posts on this forum.  As for the 2004 State predictions, I have a proposal:

I'll create a page that highlights your individual predictions.  You could download the main US Map and color it (using my standard 10 point scale) (using red for Democrats and blue for Republicans or green for Independent :)).  I'll add a web page interface so that you can upload your maps and add any text descriptions you like.

Comments?
Dave  

I would definitely have to agree with this. I LOVE this idea. And it would also make it easier for us to give our prediction, since we must currently have to TYPE it all out. Coloring the map would be easier to do, and it plus it would give people a great visual.  A BRILLIANT idea, Dave!


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 11, 2003, 01:34:01 pm
Oh yeah, and I had a quick question for you, Dave. Concerning the colors.
Why do you use blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, when most people do it the other way around, even calling the southern Republican states, "red states"? You probably don't really have an answer to this question. I mean, its probably just your preference of colors, but I was just curious. :)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 11, 2003, 01:49:09 pm
Hey,
I have read a lot of good posts on this forum.  As for the 2004 State predictions, I have a proposal:

I'll create a page that highlights your individual predictions.  You could download the main US Map and color it (using my standard 10 point scale) (using red for Democrats and blue for Republicans or green for Independent :)).  I'll add a web page interface so that you can upload your maps and add any text descriptions you like.

Comments?
Dave  

That is a great idea!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 11, 2003, 02:58:41 pm
I've just learnt from my cousin(who by the way has got the hell out of BC and is currently in Winnipeg), that David Miller(in effect NDP) has won the Toronto mayoral election.
But he doubts that it'll have a lot of effect on the federal election.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 11, 2003, 04:13:12 pm
Oh yeah, and I had a quick question for you, Dave. Concerning the colors.
Why do you use blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, when most people do it the other way around, even calling the southern Republican states, "red states"? You probably don't really have an answer to this question. I mean, its probably just your preference of colors, but I was just curious. :)

Demrepdan - this is one of the most-frequently asked questions.  I have a FAQ entry on it, but the bottom line is that I started building these maps 12 years ago - way before states were referred to as "red" or "blue" (at least that I can remember).  I believe that I was most influenced by the map I saw in the Syracuse Herald Journal of Reagan's win in 1984 (I was 14).  The map was entirely blue (with exception of MN and DC).  Also, as has been pointed out on the forums in the past, Red is more traditionally the color of parties on the left.  Elephants are also "blue" :)

Dave


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 11, 2003, 09:33:11 pm
New User Prediction Page:

2004 Prediction Page (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/PRED04/pred04.php)

I whipped this up and it still needs some polishing.  Post your comments, feature requests, modifications, etc.

Dave


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 12, 2003, 07:56:25 am
Dems in red and the GOP in blue is also easier for people not from the US to understand.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 12, 2003, 08:22:02 am
My upload didn't work :-(



Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 09:47:36 am
English,
Did you get an error message after attempting the upload?  The files showed up in the directory, but with zero file length.  I don't know what caused that (does the directory that you are attempting to read the file from have the correct permissions set?).  email me your file to leip at this domain (uselectionatlas.org) and I will upload it.

Dave


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: English on November 12, 2003, 11:02:22 am
English,
Did you get an error message after attempting the upload?  The files showed up in the directory, but with zero file length.  I don't know what caused that (does the directory that you are attempting to read the file from have the correct permissions set?).  email me your file to leip at this domain (uselectionatlas.org) and I will upload it.

Dave

Yes, I did get an error message, it said I'd already attempted to send the file! I've e-mailed my prediction instead.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 12, 2003, 02:54:29 pm
Where can we see the final predictions of each member??

Also I trust we will be seeing your map as well Dave :)
I know that most of your time goes in quantifying and analysing prior elections but knowing that you are a political junkie like the rest of us, you must spend some  time (if you r like me; Too Much time) in predicting election results. :D


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 05:13:10 pm
This link (http://www.uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/PRED04/pred04.php).  I will eventually have it linked on a 2004 page (that will include candidate information, polls, ballot status of candidates, etc.).  


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on November 12, 2003, 06:00:46 pm
My upload wouldn't work either. So, should all of us just e-mail our maps to you until the problem is fixed?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: zorkpolitics on November 12, 2003, 08:25:05 pm
When I download the map its just a static .gif file, how do I download a map I can change the color of the states?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 08:40:47 pm
I am not able to reproduce the upload problem.  I have tried MacOS X with Safari and MacOS 9 with Netscape and Opera and have not had any trouble with the upload.  If you are using a PC, I suspect that the folder that you are attempting to upload the file from must have permission set for anyone to read (i.e. the web browser needs to be able to read the folder)... but this is only a guess (I have always had some degree of trouble with PCs and permissions).  Beet, what did you use to perform the upload?  I will try uploading on a PC a bit later.

As for filling the maps, get a small graphic manipulation program.  On Mac, I use the excellent GraphicConverter.  Although overkill, photoshop of course works on any PC/Mac.  I think that even the included "Paint" program on the PC will work, but I have little experience with it.  On Linux, I'm sure that the free GIMP will work, although I haven't tried it.

Essentially, select the color for the appropriate percentage win from the boxes in the lower corner with a color-select tool.  Then use a paint-bucket tool to fill in the states (and the holes inside the EV numbers).

Thanks,
Dave


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 10:01:58 pm
NorthernDog - are you predicting the exact same map as 2000?  Notice you left the EV totals out.  BTW, what platform (OS, browser) did you use to upload?
Thanks,
Dave


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Dave Leip on November 12, 2003, 10:10:51 pm
Lots of posts from me tonight: I just tested IE5 on Win98 (my PCI IDT 400 Winchip! in the 9600 who-hoo! - for those of you who might know what that gibberish means :)) and was also able to upload a map from the desktop... no permission changes required.

Also fixed a bug that I introduced this afternoon where the home page had the incorrect link on each username.

Dave


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 13, 2003, 01:14:16 am
I've just learnt from my cousin(who by the way has got the hell out of BC and is currently in Winnipeg), that David Miller(in effect NDP) has won the Toronto mayoral election.
But he doubts that it'll have a lot of effect on the federal election.
Not at all...  If it would, almost all Ontario's urban seats would be orange (I mean in NDP terms, not in Northern Irish ;).


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2003, 04:24:08 am
Although 60 years ago NI Orange would have been about accurate...

Just how incompetent was Lastman? I've heard some pretty bad things about him(calling people in Africa "cannibals"!), but I'm not sure what is true and what is myth.

As an aside is their going to be a by-election in Ottawa Centre(which is a safe LPC seat if I remember correctly)?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2003, 04:47:25 am
Paint works; I've been using it to make maps of UK election results for ages now ;)


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 13, 2003, 09:47:07 am
Results according to Psephos:

DP    37.4   177
LDP  34.9    237
Kt     14.8      34
CPJ   07.7       9
SDP  05.2       6
Oth.   n/a      17


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Michael Z on November 13, 2003, 12:33:36 pm
Am I reading this correctly? The LDP got 237 seats with a 34.9% share of the vote whereas the DPJ only 177 with 37.4%?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on November 13, 2003, 01:50:07 pm
NorthernDog - are you predicting the exact same map as 2000?  Notice you left the EV totals out.  BTW, what platform (OS, browser) did you use to upload?
Thanks,
Dave
Wow, I screwed it up - a Luddite at heart.
I'll try to fix it in a couple days.  Same as 2000?  That'd be fun.  Another Electoral College/Popular Vote criss-cross.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Michael Z on November 13, 2003, 04:58:05 pm
Does anyone have a list of the states where members of the other party and/or independents can vote in either or both parties primaries??

Am I right in assuming that's an unfinished sentence which ends with "...so maybe I, as a Republican, can vote for Dean?" ;)

I mean no disrespect to Howard, he's an awfully nice guy and would make a fantastic President in my opinion, but really I could have said the same about McGovern or Mondale. As uncomfortable as the reality of the situation is, this is the guy most Republicans want to see the Democrats nominate. I like Dean, but, realistically, can I see him beat Bush? No.

Either way, I'm slowly starting to veer towards the concensus that Edwards has the best chance of winning. I previously thought he'd be more suited as a running mate (in a way I still see him at the same stage Al Gore was in during the '88 primaries - "Yes, you look like a future President, but... please, not just yet."), but deep down I feel he's the only one who looks remotely Presidential out of the current selection.

So at the moment I would say Edwards, then maybe Gephardt. At the start I was rooting for Kerry, but frankly his campaign has been hapless beyond belief (Jim Jordan, etc). Honestly, he makes Bob Dole look suave. Fortunes can change of course, but even Bill Bradley looked better at this stage for 2000.


Title: some interesting facts...
Post by: b_rules on November 13, 2003, 07:56:44 pm
Only twice in the 20th century have Presidents been elected directly from Congress - Warren G. Harding in 1920 and John F. Kennedy in 1960, both coming from the Senate.  Seven Presidents were governors (including 4 of the last 5), and five vice presidents were elected in their own right after serving as elected vice presidents.

If a Democrat were to beat Bush, based on history, it would be hard to see it be Gephardt or Kucinich.  These statistics don't bode well for Edwards, Kerry, or Lieberman either.  In my mind, if there is a new President, it could very well be another former governor, Howard Dean.

Anybody want to read more into these statistics?  Do Americans today like their Presidents to have executive branch experience or is the recent trend of governors just coincidental?


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Ryan on November 14, 2003, 04:13:50 am
At the start I was rooting for Kerry, but frankly his campaign has been hapless beyond belief (Jim Jordan, etc). Honestly, he makes Bob Dole look suave. Fortunes can change of course, but even Bill Bradley looked better at this stage for 2000.

Charlie Cook has done a good piece on how Kerry has screwed up and How Dean has hurt him the most. I had actually thought of the many of the same points and noted them down but I think you would prefer to get Charlie Cooks read on it :)

Think about Kerry's career. He came back from combat duty in Vietnam,
testified against the war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
and later became a leader in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Once
elected to the Senate, Kerry seemed to get himself into virtually every
liberal cause that came through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
If there were three Democrats in the Senate that one might guess would
be opposed to the war in Iraq, Kerry would be one of them. In voting for
Iraq resolution, Kerry voted against everything he had ever represented
and effectively cut himself off from his own base. This has become a
particular problem for Kerry because he and Dean share a constituency --
younger, well-educated, more affluent liberals, especially in New
England. Just as Gephardt's appeal has been strongest among older, more
populist and more unionized -- particularly industrial union -- voters,
and Lieberman's appeal is to older, more conservative and Jewish voters,
Kerry and Dean have been fighting over the same turf.

These Democrats saw many of their party's leaders "abandon them" and
sought out the most visible opponent of the war they could find, and
they had to look hard before they found Dean. Until the war issue came
along, Dean had been using Vermont's civil unions law as a way to show
that he wasn't just another politician who just licked a finger and put
it up in the air. The irony, of course, is that Kerry took what he and
many other Democrats thought was the politically safest course of action
rather than what almost everyone believes his conscience told him to do.
This is certainly not to suggest that every Democrat in Congress who
supported the war was violating their conscience. Does anyone really
believe that Lieberman's position is anything but his own? But for some,
their behavior on the Iraq vote was completely inconsistent from
everything they have ever been and done.

While polls show that a majority of Democrats prefer a candidate that
voted for the war but don't like how President Bush has conducted the
war, these are not the voters that Kerry was going for and that Dean
got. Those Democrats are the ones driven to vote because they are
against the war and of course they are choosing Dean over Kerry and doing it in droves.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 14, 2003, 03:05:47 pm
Well... Carr is not sure how accurate the figures are, but it's the closest the anglophone world is likely to get...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 04:15:26 am
Paul Martin has been elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada with 94% of the vote.

A source close to Chretien has said that the Prime Minister is to resign in 2 to 4 weeks.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 15, 2003, 09:54:31 am
Final prediction LA:

GOP 52.5%
LA 47.5%


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Michael Z on November 15, 2003, 10:06:24 am
Hmmm, perhaps something did get lost in the translation. I need to brush up on my Japanese. Konyaro! But to be honest I thought the reason the figures are so muddled are due to some bizarre idiosyncracy within the electoral system. After all, Japanese democracy is notorious for being muddled in bureaucracy and red tape; which, now that I think about it, is probably one of the reasons young people there tend to show such extreme political apathy. That, and the fact that Japan is effectively a one-party state.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 10:12:45 am
It'll depend on which candidate can get a late swing towards them.
Right now it looks like Jindal but because of above reason I'm not prediction either way.

Either way, it'll be a step forward for Lousiana.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 10:26:32 am
I think it's more likely to be the result of Japan's WEIRD electoral system than anything else...

Still the Democrats polling 2 million more votes than the LDP(first time that the LDP have been out-polled I think) is a positive.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 15, 2003, 11:17:34 am
Final prediction LA:

GOP 52.5%
LA 47.5%

ooops...I meant:

GOP 52.5%
Dem 47.5%


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Michael Z on November 15, 2003, 11:37:25 am
I think it's more likely to be the result of Japan's WEIRD electoral system than anything else...

Definitely, although that's more or less what I was implying.

Still the Democrats polling 2 million more votes than the LDP(first time that the LDP have been out-polled I think) is a positive.

And yet the DPJ still lost. Makes you wonder whether the electoral system is geared to benefit the LDP in any specific way, doesn't it?


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 15, 2003, 11:56:46 am
Prediction

Jindal: 54
Blanco: 46


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 12:15:32 pm
It's beyond reasonable doubt(ie; it would be enough to get sent down) that the Japanese electoral system is biased in favour of the LDP.
But what can anyone do about it?


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 12:17:37 pm
Er... is that an exit poll or your prediction?


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: DarthKosh on November 15, 2003, 01:45:48 pm
Er... is that an exit poll or your prediction?

My prediction.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Kevinstat on November 15, 2003, 03:36:43 pm
Japan today uses a two-tier system for elections to it's House of Representatives.  300 of its 480 members are chosen by single-member districts while the other 180 are chosen by proportional representation.  It is possible that many voters voted for parties other than the LDP in the proportional vote but voted for the LDP in the single-member-district vote.  In 2000, the LDP received only 28 percent of the proportional vote but received 41 percent of the single-member-district vote, probably enough to win a large majority of those seats since there were several sizable other parties.  Are the percentage results shown above for the proportional part of the vote, the single-member-district part, or some average of the two.  My guess is that they are for the proportional part, and that the LDP won a higher percentage of the nationwide single-member district vote than the Democratic Party, thus making it easier to understand why the LDP won the most seats, since over 60% of the representatives are chosen from single-member districts.  I may be mistaken, however, and if someone knows better please correct me.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 15, 2003, 05:24:42 pm
I'm not sure... I think it's the PR totals, but I'm not really sure...

However the DPJ giving the LDP such a scare might(just might) shake the political system up over there.

But I'm a pessimist...


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 15, 2003, 11:15:56 pm
Wow, I've only had 3 wrong out of the last 50 some odd elections I've predicted and 2 of those 3 misses were in LA.

Never did care much for the state. Too much French influence! :)


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Demrepdan on November 16, 2003, 12:20:11 am
A poll from the CBS news on Friday, November 14th, has the "Unknown Democratic Candidate" beating President Bush by 2 precentage points. The Democrat was at 43% and President Bush was 41%.


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 16, 2003, 06:18:44 am
To be expected :)

This election will not be a cakewalk for anyone.


Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: Ryan on November 16, 2003, 02:27:37 pm
I have started a discussion thread in the < 2004 U.S. Presidential Election > section to discuss "What the 2003 elections (Ca. Miss. Ky. & La) mean for 2004 ?"

Look forward to hearing others responses :)


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: NorthernDog on November 16, 2003, 06:31:47 pm
It seems like the Democrats are broken into 3 main groups:
1.Urban Liberals and their interest groups
2.Blue Collar/Middle class moderates
3. Minorities/Civil Rights Activists
If this is true, which group is strongest?  I think the "Urban Liberals" because that's where the majority of activists are.  Blue Collar types go hunting and fishing in free time and minorities support w/ votes but less so with $.  This explains Dean's support so far too.  Anyone disagree ?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 18, 2003, 02:30:22 pm
Prime Minister Chretien has announced that he will step down on the 12th of December.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: English on November 19, 2003, 05:07:16 am
Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 19, 2003, 01:01:49 pm
Tennessee

01 Great Smoky Mountains c
02 Knoxville c
03 Chattanooga c
04 Upper Tennessee c
05 Nashville b
06 Jackson* c
07 Clarksville c
08 Lower Tennessee c
09 Memphis b

*After President Andrew Jackson and also a county in the district. Could also be called Murfreesboro.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: NorthernDog on November 19, 2003, 07:06:05 pm
Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.
Many countries are in such a position - they are controlled by repressive left-wing governments that stamp out the opposition.   But when people dream of a better life they never move to Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. They move to the US.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: English on November 20, 2003, 05:34:34 am
Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.
Many countries are in such a position - they are controlled by repressive left-wing governments that stamp out the opposition.   But when people dream of a better life they never move to Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. They move to the US.

Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe are hardly progressive are they? Repressive more like.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2003, 01:06:01 pm
Mugabe is a F-A-S-C-I-S-T and they are R-I-G-H-T W-I-N-G.

The opposition MDC is S-O-C-I-A-L  D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-I-C and they are L-E-F-T  W-I-N-G.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 20, 2003, 02:58:34 pm
Jobless claims fall
 
New claims for unemployment insurance lower than expected last week, government says.
 
The Labor Department said 355,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 15, compared with a revised reading of 370,000 in the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 365,000 new claims

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/20/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

---

U.S. leading indicators rise
 
Conference Board says economic gauge jumped 0.4% in October after a flat September.

Conference Board economist Ken Goldstein said something other than a one-month shock -- such as a major power outage, new war or other disruption -- would have to occur to halt the rising trend in spending and investment.

"Latest economic data point to continued economic growth in the next year," Goldstein said in a statement.


http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/20/news/economy/lei.reut/index.htm

---

New Housing Starts swell, but no bubble
 
Red-hot housing market unexpectedly gets even hotter in October, but economists say gains justified.
 
The Commerce Department said the pace of housing starts rose 2.9 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.96 million units, after rising a revised 4 percent to 1.91 million units in September. Economists, on average, expected housing starts to fall to a 1.85 million-unit pace, according to Briefing.com.

It was the fastest pace of housing starts since 1.97 million units in January 1986.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/19/news/economy/housing_starts/index.htm

---

Mortgage rates slip
 
Rates drop on indications of little worry of inflation; 30-year at 5.83%, 15-year at 5.17%.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/20/pf/yourhome/q_weekly_rates/index.htm

---


Mortgage demand rises as rates drop
 
Applications for loans to purchase homes increases 13.5%

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/19/news/economy/mortgages.reut/index.htm




Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 20, 2003, 03:38:26 pm
What I'd like to see would be a regional breakdown etc.

More details really.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: DarthKosh on November 20, 2003, 03:48:21 pm
What I'd like to see would be a regional breakdown etc.

More details really.

I don't think that they break the numbers downregionally.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 20, 2003, 06:19:15 pm
What I'd like to see would be a regional breakdown etc.

More details really.

You're looking for the "Beige Book"

http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/beigebook/2003/

The Oct 15th report showed "Ten of the twelve districts indicate that activity has been expanding, while two--Boston and Cleveland--report mixed but steady levels of economic activity."

The next report is coming out Nov 26.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on November 20, 2003, 06:53:48 pm
the market is starting to fall again, and several companies came out the other day and said they were lowering expectations for the holiday season.

dollar also falls to record lows against the Euro.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 20, 2003, 07:51:45 pm
the market is starting to fall again, and several companies came out the other day and said they were lowering expectations for the holiday season.

dollar also falls to record lows against the Euro.

Ok, Mr. DoomAndGloom, let's hear your predictions on GDP growth and unemployment!

Here's mine:

2003Q3 GDP growth will be revised UPWARD from 7.2% (already a 19 year high) to 7.5-8.0%.

2003Q4 thru 2004Q3 GDP growth will average >4%.  (2004Q3 GDP will be reported right before election day.)

The unemployment rate will be between 5.3-5.7% on election day with 2.5-4.5M jobs created in the 12 months prior to the election.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 20, 2003, 08:02:19 pm


  One mans Doom and Gloom is another mans sobriety. The Bank of Japan has almost single handledly kept long term intrest rates in the US artificially low by buying US bonds non stop for trhe last two years. THis has kept the real estate industry and the connected construction industry stimulated at artificially high levels. Real estate can not continue on its torrid pace forever, there are some serious limitations to botth the purchase and re-fi end of it when long term intrest rates finally do rise.

   In my opinion, the consumer is on barrowed time. The fact that re-fis were pegged from July 2002 to June of this year, along with $100 billion of "tax refunds" is what drove the economy in the third quarter, and will help this qiuarter. After that, the consumer will be somwhat haderd pressed to keep on moving forward.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: KEmperor on November 20, 2003, 08:17:56 pm
Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.

So you think having one party completely dominant with no effective opposition is a good thing?  Those are often called "tyrannies"


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 21, 2003, 12:37:25 am
<< One mans Doom and Gloom is another mans sobriety. >>

"Sober"?  Is that what you call books such as:

"On the Brink: How to Survive the Coming Great Depression, 1993-2000" (Release Date: January, 1993)

---

your friend emergingDmajority1 pointed out that "the market is starting to fall again", but he wasn't "sober" enough to point out that it has only fallen from 9900 to 9600 AFTER RISING from 7,416.64 in March 2003 to  9,903.57 in Nov 2003!

Certainly a 300 point (3%) pull-back is justifiable after a 2500 point (34%) climb in 8 months.

---

<<In my opinion, the consumer is on barrowed time.>>

I guess you don't read the economic reports, otherwise you would know that BUSINESS SPENDING increased by 7.3% in 2003Q2 and 11.0% in 2003Q3.

Just spare us the doom and gloom analysis and give us your predictions for the coming year.

 


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: English on November 21, 2003, 05:57:13 am
Tyrannies are not democracies. How come conservatives always equate repressive states such as North Korea etc. with Liberalism or Social Democracy?! Liberalism believes in social freedom and civil rights, exactly the opposite of the tyrannical regimes mentioned earlier which are socially extremely conservative and do not believe in any civil rights whatsoever. If anything places like Zimbabwe have a similar social policy to hard line US/UK conservatives i.e anti-gay, anti-abortion etc. etc. They have nothing in common with Liberal states such as Sweden, Canada or Denmark. Mugabe is a paradox, he has a fascist social policy which believes white settlers are vermin and homosexuals lower than pigs, however he as an extreme left marxist economic policy favouring complete state control over everything. As for North Korea, that follows a bizzare extreme marxist ideology dreamt up by it's reclusive leader. This falls at the opposite end of the political spectrum to liberal democracy which I favour.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 21, 2003, 12:25:23 pm
Mugabe also thinks that Ndeble are vermin(as soon as he assumed power he started a pogrom against them), and it's impossible to get food in Matableland without a ZANU-PF card...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on November 21, 2003, 06:07:00 pm
Although recent Canadian federal elections do lack competiveness, Canadians are not under a "repressive progressive governement".  Hyperbolic references to Zimbabwe, Cuba and North Korea are a little displaced.

Notwithstanding the Federal Liberals' rethoric, Canada's economy is strong, the Canadian dollar gains strength, the federal budget is in surplus (although few provinces are in the red, but not as dramatic as in many US states), and unemployement is low.  All that under a capitalist market system with, I shall risk to tell, a little more regulation and government intervention than what is the case South of our borders.  Needless to say that such current economic context isn't prone to revolutions.

Speaking of "progessive"... Realpolitik, I hope you don't find Paul Martin 100% progessive ;) Have you checked this site : http://www.flyourflag.ca (http://www.flyourflag.ca)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: NorthernDog on November 21, 2003, 09:17:49 pm
Canada seems to be in the uniquely enviable position of having a progressive party completely dominant in national elections. The right in Canada really only consists of the CA, and that only 'wins' in Alberta. Even the old Canadian right, the Tories, are hardly what you would consider right wing in the US/UK sense as they are quite liberal on social isssues. It would be nice if all countries were in this position.
Many countries are in such a position - they are controlled by repressive left-wing governments that stamp out the opposition.   But when people dream of a better life they never move to Cuba, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. They move to the US.

Cuba, North Korea and Zimbabwe are hardly progressive are they? Repressive more like.
I took your comment of "it would be nice..." as a reference to having 1 party dominating the national elections.  IMO this is never a good thing even of you like the policies.  It leads to corruption and abuse of power; the dominating party will eventually seek to eliminate any opposition.  Why shouldn't they? Who will stop them?  Germany was an educated, progressive country in the early 1900s and look what happened when the good times ended.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: nclib on November 21, 2003, 10:08:14 pm
From article:

<<Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.">>

It looks the the GOP neglects the Northeast just as much as the
Dems neglect the South.

<<So, four times -- 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000 -- the Democratic candidate couldn't carry a single Southern state.>>

In 1992 and 1996, the GOP couldn't carry a single northeastern state, and in 2000 carried only one, barely, New Hampshire.

To show that the GOP is neglecting the northeast, in 1988 Bush 41 carried 8 of 11 northeast states against a Mass. native, but have only won one NE state in 3 tries against southern candidates since then.
-------
Dems are still in better shape in the south (old CSA) than the GOP is in the Northeast (from MD to ME, including DC).

Senate:

South: 13-9 GOP
Northeast:  14-7-1 Dems

House:

South: 76-55 GOP
Northeast: 55-36-1 Dems

Electoral votes in 2000 (based on 2002 districts):

South: 153-0 Bush
Northeast: 113-4 Gore

Cong. districts won by Gore/Bush in 2000 (based on 2002 districts)

South: 92-39 Bush
Northeast: 72-20-1 Gore

Governors:

South: 7-4 GOP
Northeast: 7-4 GOP


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Nym90 on November 21, 2003, 11:11:34 pm
Good analysis, NcLib. Indeed, the Northeast pretty much balances out the South politically, leaving the Midwest and West as the battlegrounds. In Congress, the GOP advantage in the House is due largely to their relatively strong performance in the Midwest, where GOP congressional candidates have been able to outperform their presidential nominees. In the Senate, the GOP advantage derives largely from the Mountain states.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 22, 2003, 05:58:57 am
Is it true about Ottawa Centre? If it is, am I wrong in assuming that its a safe LPC seat?

RE: FlyOurFlag
The NDP have quite a warped sense of humour sometimes ;)
Or is it a general Canadian thing ;)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on November 22, 2003, 09:17:30 pm
As a Tennessean, I'll take a crack at ours:

1 - Tri-Cities
2 - Knoxville
3 - Chattanooga-Oak Ridge
4 - Mid-State/Cumberland Plateau
5 - Nashville
6 - Upper Cumberland
7 - Western Corridor
8 - Northwest Tennessee
9 - Memphis


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 23, 2003, 06:46:53 am
Illinois

ILLINOIS
01. Chicago Southside b
02. Chicago Heights b
03. Chicago West b
04. Chicago Cicero b
05. Chicago Northside b
06. DuPage b
07. Chicago Central b
08. Lake and McHenry b
09. Chicago Northside b
10. North Chicago b
11. Joliet c
12. East St Louis and the Valleys c
13. Will and DuPage b
14. Batavia and Henry c
15. Wabash c
16. Rockford c
17. Rock Island and Springfield c
18. Springfield and Peoria c
19. Kaskakia c


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Demrepdan on November 23, 2003, 11:37:29 pm
Before the redistricting, the 15th Congressional district (which I live in), did not extend so far north along the Wabash River as it does now. It consumed most of East Central Illinois, nothing more.
 
      But now it goes from East central Illinois, and dips ALL the way down to southern Illinois along the Wabash River. Which, undoubtedly, is what gives the district it's current name.

       However, I wonder what the district was called BEFORE it extended so far south along the Wabash River.

P.S.        From what I've heard, the 15th district in Illinois stretches further north and south than any Congressional district east of the Mississippi. Just a bit of trivia information for you. ;)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Beet on November 24, 2003, 01:12:38 am
Quote
I took your comment of "it would be nice..." as a reference to having 1 party dominating the national elections.  IMO this is never a good thing even of you like the policies.  It leads to corruption and abuse of power; the dominating party will eventually seek to eliminate any opposition.  Why shouldn't they? Who will stop them?  Germany was an educated, progressive country in the early 1900s and look what happened when the good times ended.

NorthernDog, I tried to point out in the topic Japan Diet elections that Japan has been exactly this way for half a century...

I agree that one party should not dominate. However it is nice that Canada has a solid liberal party in power when virtually all other countries have right-wing parties (Blair really disqualifies the Labour party) or, in the case of Germany, a left-wing party on the brink of collapse.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 24, 2003, 12:52:11 pm
Actually Blair's economic policies would be regarded as far-left in much of the USA.

Left and Right are relative terms.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 24, 2003, 12:58:14 pm
Neither Canadian Observer or me have done names for the old districts but...

In most cases the names would have been the same or slightly different depending on geography etc.

There are a few districts(PA-14 used to be PA-18) that have changed numbers due to re-districting anyway.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 24, 2003, 03:19:34 pm
Pennsylvania

01 Philadelphia South b
02 Philadelphia North b
03 Erie c
04 Beaver and Allegheny c
05 Tioga c
06 Chester and Berks b
07 Chester b
08 Bucks c
09 Altoona c
10 Susquehanna c
11 Wilkes-Barre c
12 Johnstown c
13 Philadelphia Valley Forge b
14 Pittsburgh Steel Valley b
15 Allentown c
16 West Chester and Lancaster c
17 Harrisburg c
18 Westmoreland and Pittsburgh c
19 Gettysburg c


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 25, 2003, 06:18:02 am
Kentucky

01 Paducah c
02 Owensboro c
03 Louisville b
04 Ashland and Covington c  
05 Pikeville and Somerset c
06 Lexington and Frankfort c


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 25, 2003, 12:06:13 pm
North Carolina

01 Roanoke c
02 Raleigh c
03 Pamlico Sound c
04 Durham c
05 Blue Ridge Mountains c
06 Randolf and Moore c
07 Cape Fear c
08 Concord and Kannapolis c
09 Gastonia c
10 Hickory c
11 Asheville c
12 Charlotte c
13 Greensboro and Raleigh North c


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 25, 2003, 01:43:59 pm
U.S. economic growth revised up
 
GDP grew at a blistering 8.2 percent pace in the third quarter, faster than originally thought.
 
The U.S. economy grew in the third quarter at an even faster pace than originally reported, the government said Tuesday.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at an 8.2 percent annual rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 1984, the Commerce Department reported. GDP grew at a 3.3 percent pace in the second quarter.
 
Last month, the government reported that GDP grew at a 7.2 percent clip in the third quarter. Economists, on average, expected that to be revised to 7.6 percent.

Nonresidential fixed investment (aka "BUSINESS SPENDING") rose at a 14 percent rate, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 2000, following the second quarter's 7.3 percent pace, a sign of further strength in business spending.

A measure of profit widened to a record $739.7 billion, giving companies confidence to increase spending.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

---

Consumer confidence jumps
 
Closely watched measure of consumer sentiment surges more than expected in November.

The Conference Board, a business research group based in New York, said its closely watched index of consumer confidence rose to 91.7, the highest level since the fall of 2002, from a revised 81.7 in October.
 
Economists, on average, expected the confidence index, based on a survey of 5,000 households, to rise to 85, according to Briefing.com.

The survey's "present situation" index jumped to 80.1 from 67.0, while the "expectations" index, measuring consumers' expectations for the future, rose to 99.4 from 91.5.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/confidence/index.htm

---

tick...tick...tick...tick....


Title: Re:2004 Democratic Primary
Post by: Demrepdan on November 25, 2003, 05:46:23 pm
I was a supporter of John Edwards. Because I thought he could be the only person to beat Bush. But after last nights debate, I'm leaning more to Howard Dean. Yeah I'm a sheep! What of it?!

I honestly don't think (as I'm sure many would agree) that Dean could win the Presidency. So I don't know why I like him so much. And I don't see why many Democrats like him either. The Republicans LOVE him because they know he would lose to Bush. Maybe I'm being brainwashed into liking Dean. Maybe this is some kind of big conspiracy to help Dean win the nomination so he can ultimately take the fall. People are SHEEP!! Sheep I tell you!

The only thing I have to say about that is...baaaaaaahhhhh.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 25, 2003, 06:39:34 pm
I have had a lot of time today to think of the various issues and the various candidates that tote those issues within and across party lines. I myself, a conservative democrat, will make a leap of faith and vote for Bush in 04'. It tastes like bitter medicine. But, I'll swallow and bare it.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on November 25, 2003, 06:49:22 pm
What are we exactly ticking to? Another bubble bursting?

Indeed, these are great numbers the media is hyping. Good for Bush. When the 7.2 came out people's expectations and confidence did rise.

They tell us the economy is improving, ok, WHEN WILL WE FEEL IT?

Not surprising this comes out now, considering this is a make or break holiday season. Most of the major retailers say expectations are low so they have to encourage people to BUY BUY BUY! Why else would Santa appear in October?


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Demrepdan on November 25, 2003, 10:09:50 pm
I would consider myself a Democrat, although I do have some conservative views of things. But I'm fairly moderate. But I've decided, that if the election were held TODAY....I would more than likely vote for Bush. What the hell.
     
    He is sort of like Reagan. Reagan messed things up in our own country, but put a lot of money in National Defense in order to scare the Ruskies, thus helping to bring an end to the Cold War. Bush is like this in many respects. He is screwing things up at home, but he's showing our military might, and going after terrorists. (Although I see nothing to prove this, i.e no Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein). So why not vote for him?! He may screw things up, but after he's done we'll elect someone better to fix all of his mistakes, and ulitmately Bush will be viewed historically as a good President.

But trust me, this opinion will change in the not to distant future.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 25, 2003, 11:06:44 pm
<<What are we exactly ticking to? Another bubble bursting?>>

No, just ticking down to more good economic news, which is "bad" news for the Dems.

---

<<Indeed, these are great numbers the media is hyping.>>

Gee, I didn't know you could hype the truth.  The best GDP growth in 20 years is certainly headline news.

---

<<They tell us the economy is improving, ok, WHEN WILL WE FEEL IT?>>

For those flipping burgers at McDonald's, they will NEVER feel it.  For those with marketable skills, they are either already feeling it or will feel it very soon.

In recoveries, it is always the best and brightest talent that is utilized first.

---

<<Not surprising this comes out now...>>

And just what in the world does that suppose to mean?!  Are you saying they put this out "now" to help holiday’s sales?!

FYI, the first reading on economic growth in ANY quarter is known as the "advanced reading" and comes out approx a month after the quarter ends (Q3's advanced reading came out on Oct 30th).

The second reading is called the "prelim reading" and comes out about two months after the quarter ends (Q3's prelim reading came out on Nov 25th)

The third reading is called the "final reading" and comes out about three months after the quarter ends (Q1's final reading came out on June 26th.  Likewise, Q3's final reading will come out on Dec 23th).

Here is a calendar of economic reports.  The dates of the reports are known months (sometimes YEARS) in advance.

http://money.cnn.com/markets/IRC/economic.html (http://money.cnn.com/markets/IRC/economic.html)

Late in EVERY month, we get a reading (advanced, prelim, or final) GDP number for the previous quarter.  So go back to sleep, there is no conspiracy.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 12:13:50 am
From article:

<<Once upon a time, the most successful Democratic leader of them all, FDR, looked south and said, "I see one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished." Today our national Democratic leaders look south and say, "I see one-third of a nation and it can go to hell.">>

It looks the the GOP neglects the Northeast just as much as the
Dems neglect the South.

<<So, four times -- 1972, 1984, 1988, and 2000 -- the Democratic candidate couldn't carry a single Southern state.>>

In 1992 and 1996, the GOP couldn't carry a single northeastern state, and in 2000 carried only one, barely, New Hampshire.

To show that the GOP is neglecting the northeast, in 1988 Bush 41 carried 8 of 11 northeast states against a Mass. native, but have only won one NE state in 3 tries against southern candidates since then.
-------
Dems are still in better shape in the south (old CSA) than the GOP is in the Northeast (from MD to ME, including DC).

Senate:

South: 13-9 GOP
Northeast:  14-7-1 Dems

House:

South: 76-55 GOP
Northeast: 55-36-1 Dems

Electoral votes in 2000 (based on 2002 districts):

South: 153-0 Bush
Northeast: 113-4 Gore

Cong. districts won by Gore/Bush in 2000 (based on 2002 districts)

South: 92-39 Bush
Northeast: 72-20-1 Gore

Governors:

South: 7-4 GOP
Northeast: 7-4 GOP
Why do the Democrats look South and say it can go to HELL?  Because Ronald Reagan won the South for the Republican Party. The Democrats were blindsided. He became their shepherd and like sheep, they followed him. The only contender I see having a real chance of winning back the South for the Dems is Jonathan Edwards. There really is no other candidate that could do it. What about an Edwards/Dean ticket. Edwards, a Southerner, and Dean, from out East. Dean could gather the Storm on the East Coast and Edwards with the HELP of Clinton and Gore, could sweep through the South like a Hurricane. THAT WOULD BE AWESOME!


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Nym90 on November 26, 2003, 12:22:31 am
I also think that Clark could do well in the South.
I also don't think that the Democrats look South and say it can go to hell. Democrats are in many ways out of step culturally with the South, yes, but Democrats don't hate the South. As a northern Democrat myself who has travelled much in the South, I very much appreciate the friendliness and hospitality of the Southern people. I do agree with Dean that many of them are not voting for what is in their economic self interest, but there is more to politics than just economics, plus a lot of people may vote based on which party's economic theories sound best for the whole country rather than just for their own personal self. Cultural issues matter too, and northern Democrats come off as out of tune with the South culturally. The same can be said for many wealthy suburbanites who vote Democratic; they aren't voting for what is in their own personal economic self interest, but there are other factors for them that override that.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on November 26, 2003, 02:07:36 am
I also think that Clark could do well in the South.
I also don't think that the Democrats look South and say it can go to hell. Democrats are in many ways out of step culturally with the South, yes, but Democrats don't hate the South. As a northern Democrat myself who has travelled much in the South, I very much appreciate the friendliness and hospitality of the Southern people. I do agree with Dean that many of them are not voting for what is in their economic self interest, but there is more to politics than just economics, plus a lot of people may vote based on which party's economic theories sound best for the whole country rather than just for their own personal self. Cultural issues matter too, and northern Democrats come off as out of tune with the South culturally. The same can be said for many wealthy suburbanites who vote Democratic; they aren't voting for what is in their own personal economic self interest, but there are other factors for them that override that.
Nym90 says that ..."Northern Democrats come off as out of tune with the South culturally? I just have to say: No kidding, it's been that way since pre-Civil War Era.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 10:56:54 am
Jobless claims hit 33-month low
 
New unemployment claims slide to lowest level since January 2001 as job market recovery continues.
 
The Labor Department said 351,000 people filed new claims for unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 22, the lowest level of new weekly claims since the week of Jan. 20, 2001, compared with a revised reading of 362,000 in the prior week. Economists, on average, expected 360,000 new claims.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

---

Durables orders hit 16-month high
 
Demand for aircraft, communications gear boost orders 3.3 percent in October, above forecasts.

Orders for durable goods climbed 3.3 percent to a seasonally adjusted $184.53 billion, far ahead of Wall Street economists' forecasts for a 0.8 percent gain, while September's increase was revised up sharply to a 2.1 percent pickup, the Commerce Department said. Previously, the department said orders were up 1.1 percent in September.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/durable_goods.reut/index.htm

---

Midwest business picks up
 
Chicago purchasing managers index accelerates further, hitting nine-year high.
 
The group's business barometer surged to 64.1 from 55.0 in October. Economists had forecast the index at 56.0.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/chicago_pmi.reut/index.htm

---

Consumer sentiment up in November
 
The University of Michigan says improving jobs market, better stock returns boost confidence.
 
The University of Michigan's final index of consumer sentiment for November rose to 93.7 from October's final reading of 89.6.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/companies/michigan_sentiment/index.htm



Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 26, 2003, 11:10:21 am
South-Texaflorida-Deep South=Upper South

Divide and Rule.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on November 26, 2003, 11:14:26 am
I sure hope Bush declares victory realy early on the economy. Puts up a nice "mission accomplished - economy restored" banner. Then we'll see another spectacular fall.

I've never seen such spin come out of Washington when it comes to economic news. It's like they're expecting us to forget 3 terrible years. This is what we call a "dead cat bounce" drop it out of a 50 story window and it's bound to bounce up a little.

it's like "jobless claims down"

well gee, they're still so damn high!

here's some more news to make sure this post is "fair and balanced"

New home sales fall 3.5%
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/26/news/economy/home_sales.reut/index.htm

Consumer spending flat in October
 
Personal spending unchanged, slightly weaker than expected; incomes rose 0.4 percent.
 
Retail sales fall
 
Key measure of consumer activity down more than expected in October as auto sales slump.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/14/news/economy/retail_sales/index.htm

Industrial output growth slows
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/14/news/economy/industrial/index.htm

Holiday spending may disappoint
 
Consumer group says more Americans are planning to spend less than what they spent last year.
November 25, 2003: 1:24 PM EST
 


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. holiday shopping season may not live up to economists' robust expectations, a survey out Tuesday suggested, with more Americans saying they would cut spending from last year's already weak levels.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/25/news/economy/holiday_shopping.reut/index.htm


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 01:00:37 pm
<<we'll see another spectacular fall (economically).>>

It just kills you that the US economy is boiling, doesn’t it?  LOL.

---

<<This is what we call a "dead cat bounce" drop it out of a 50 story window and it's bound to bounce up a little.>>

“up a little”?  How about rising faster than it has for the last 20 years.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE…give us your predictions for GDP growth and unemployment between now and the election….PLEASE!

---

<<it's like "jobless claims down" well gee, they're still so damn high!>>

Does your intelligent mind believe jobless claims should immediately ramp down as soon as the job market improves?  If so, please find me just ONE example when that has ever happened!  We’ve gone from 420k/week to 350k/week in the last couple of months.

---

<<here's some more news to make sure this post is "fair and balanced">>

Good, let’s see what you got….

---

<<New home sales fall 3.5%>>

Hopefully, you’re placing this in context that is a 3.5% fall FROM a level that hasn’t been seen since 1986!  Therefore, 3.5% off of a 17 year high is still excellent!
 
---

<<Consumer spending flat in October…Personal spending unchanged, slightly weaker than expected; incomes rose 0.4 percent.>>

Meaning that spending is HOLDING STEADY, which was high already.  Add to that the fact that incomes are continuing to rise.

---
 
<<Key measure of consumer activity down more than expected in October as auto sales slump.>>

Here is what the report says…”The Commerce Department said retail sales fell 0.3 percent to $318.5 billion after falling a revised 0.4 percent in September. Excluding a decline in volatile automobile sales, retail sales rose 0.2 percent after rising a revised 0.2 percent in September.  Economists, on average, expected sales to fall 0.2 percent and sales excluding autos to rise 0.2 percent.”

In other words, auto sales are “volatile” depending on dealer and factory incentives.  That is why retail sales are more accurately analyzed by factoring out auto sales.  Excluding autos, retail sales GAINED 0.2 percent, matching expectations.

---

<<Industrial output growth slows>>

“growth slows”….meaning the sector is STILL GROWING, just not as fast as before.

Also, there are competing reports on industrial output, which is why I list ALL of them on the opening post of this thread.  

And this report you site is in contradiction to the ISM report which said its index of manufacturing activity jumped to 57 from 53.7 in September, and since a reading above 50 denotes expansion, this means that growth ACCELERATED.

The report also contradicts the Chicago region manufacturing index which also slowed ACCERATING growth, its index jumping +3.8 to 55, where a reading above 50 denotes expansion.

The report also contradicts the Mid-Atlantic Manufacturing report which also slowed ACCERATING growth, its index jumping to record 28.0, where a reading above 0 denotes expansion.

….but hey, nice try!

---

<<Holiday spending may disappoint>>
 
How many years have we heard this at the beginning of the holiday season, only to hear that holiday sales were good after all was said and done?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 01:30:23 pm
jmfcst, remind me to never argue the economy against you.

I hope you feel that way because you think I am making good points, not just because I'm hard-headed:)


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: M on November 26, 2003, 02:09:12 pm
You could win the whole thing with one stroke. But you've abandoned patriotism and the idea  of the USA as unique. That's the cultural difference that's barring you from the entire region. The idea of "USA- one among the nations" is not short of disastrous for the Democratic party. Figure that out, people! I'd vote for a liberal part that believed these things. I'm a fundamentally liberal person myself. That's why I'm GOP. There are places I strongly disagree, but overall, the GOP is the party of Jefferson and Lincoln, and the Dems are the party of Mareen Dowd.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 02:20:22 pm
To ALL (especially newcomers to this thread),

This thread is designed to provide a time sequence of economic activity as we head toward Nov 2004.  To that purpose, I try to list the same set of economic reports each month in order to be able to track a given report over a number of months, thus comparing apples to apples.  These lists are displayed on the opening post of this thread, which I keep updated.  The listed reports include leading, concurrent, and trailing indicators.

I also add new posts giving links to reports AS THEY COME OUT...meaning, if I miss a report because I wasn’t visiting the forum on a given day, then it means I will NOT be posting a link for that report.  

I very rarely post news that is more than a day old.  As a matter of fact, I don’t believe I have ever posted a link to a news item that was older than the previous day.  If they are not on cnnfn.com’s front page, I simply do not have the time to go searching for them.

BUT…even though I may miss posting a link to a report, I ALWAYS GO BACK AND BACK FILL the opening thread in order to avoid gaps in coverage.

There is other info (stock market, inflation, etc) that I do NOT list because they are either too volatile (stocks) or are not in dispute (inflation at 40 year low).

---

And from time to time, I will also give my opinion to the real meaning of a report.  For instance, the 8.2% Q3 GDP growth was headlined as “Consumer spending gives Q3 big boost”, but you had to dig a little deeper to find that business spending increased at TWICE the rate of consumer spending.  And for over a year consumer spending has held up the economy and economists have been waiting for business spending to rebound.  That is exactly what began to happen to business spending in Q2 (+7.3%) and accelerated in Q3 (+14%), and it should come as no surprise that job growth soon followed.  Business spending is the key to job growth and the revival of business spending was the headline, IMO.

---

I also give my opinion as to which leading indices to watch, which is why the ECRI – US Weekly Leading Index is the first item on the opening post.  Not only does this index have the BEST track record of predicting recessions and recoveries, it is also about as close as you can get to watching economic activity in real-time.

Whereas the Q3 (July-Sept) GDP report didn’t come out until Oct 30th, the ECRI index as flashing a 20-year high in late July, TWO WHOLE MONTHS before the GDP report came out confirming the 20-year high.

 


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 02:54:32 pm
Weekly Leading Index Rises  

NEW YORK, Nov 26 (Reuters) - A leading index of the U.S. economy climbed higher in the latest week, suggesting the torrid pace of recovery will not moderate significantly any time soon, a report showed on Wednesday.

The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its leading index rose to 131.6 in the week ended Nov. 21, compared with a downwardly revised reading of 130.7 for the previous week. The leading index is composed of seven major indicators, all of which showed improvement except for stock prices.

The index's growth rate, an annualized rate for the four-week moving average that evens out weekly fluctuations, grew to 12.0 percent from 11.0 percent in the previous week.

"This index is saying we know there's going to be some moderation, but maybe we have to moderate our expectations for that moderation," said ECRI managing director Lakshman Achuthan.

http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=599 (http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=599)

 


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 26, 2003, 03:03:42 pm

 Mr Fresh, it is one thing to parrot what the Wall Street Journal prints, it is quite another to get into the details on why the eocnomy is acting the way it is. THis "recovery" is unlike the previous recoveries that came after the 73-74 reccesion, the 82 reccesion and the 91 recession. All of these recoveries started with savings rates around 10%, P/Es on the stock markets in the high single digits, and they were marked by a peak in intrest rates. This "recovery" is opposite. The 2001 reccesion was marked by intrest rates going lower, not peaking, it was marked by auto sales going higher, not lower, and real estate that continued at a artificlaly strong pace due to artifically low intresrt rates, another contrast to the previous recessions.

  The fiscal stimulus given to the economy by artificlaly low intrest rates that sparked a record amount of re finance activity, the $400 a child "tax rebate" and sky high debt levels has resulted in the good numbers that we see today. The question is, is this sustainable. While nothing is ever a perfect repeat, history being used as a guide says its not.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 26, 2003, 03:49:58 pm
Jefferson was a member of the Democratic-Republican party which is usually regarded as an ancestor of the Democratic Party which was founded by Andrew Jackson.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 04:01:49 pm
<<This "recovery" is unlike the previous recoveries...[x, y, and z] has resulted in the good numbers that we see today.  The question is, is this sustainable. While nothing is ever a perfect repeat, history being used as a guide says its not.>>

First you say that this recovery is unlike previous recoveries...then you try to use history as a guide to say it can't last?  Don't you see any contradiction between the two statements?

Possible contradictions aside, can you please give us your predictions on GDP and Unemployment through Nov 2004.  Once Nov 2004 rolls around, we'll be able to use the "history" of your predictions in order to determine if your economic analysis is worth listening to in the future.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 26, 2003, 05:12:19 pm

 No contradictions at all, this recovery does not resmble the previous recoveries that ushered in periods of healthy growth, as I went over the differences in my post.

  As for how this will impact the election next year, the economy I believe will slow down next year, but not enough to go into a recession, but back to the slower pace of growth seen in 2002 as the consumers will no longer be able to get anything more out of re-fi their homes. So that said, I do not believe the economy will be bad enough to impact the re election prospects of Bush.

  Even if the economy is a little worse than expected, as 1972 has shown, one does not need a good economy to be re elected, and if the Democratic primary becomes a circular firing squad and Dean gets the nomination, Bush could win a 40 state re election.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: M on November 26, 2003, 05:27:43 pm
Absolutely true. Its the Dems who have forgotten this. His ideals of listening to the democratic will of the people above all and the dignity of man are now espoused by- prepare yourself- the Neocons!


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Michael Z on November 26, 2003, 06:44:05 pm
Absolutely true. Its the Dems who have forgotten this. His ideals of listening to the democratic will of the people above all and the dignity of man are now espoused by- prepare yourself- the Neocons!

Instead of arrogantly claiming that something just "is", perhaps you wish to evaluate exactly how and why this is the case?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: agcatter on November 26, 2003, 07:22:06 pm
If the Dems nominate Dean then game over before it even really gets started.  No way this country elects Howard Dean after what happened 9-11.  I have no idea what the Democrats think they're doing.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 26, 2003, 07:54:40 pm
<<the economy I believe will slow down next year, but not enough to go into a recession, but back to the slower pace of growth seen in 2002>>

GDP growth average 2.5% in 2002.  So are you putting yourself on record stating 2004's growth will be in the 2.5% ballpark?

---

<<No contradictions at all, this recovery does not resmble the previous recoveries that ushered in periods of healthy growth, as I went over the differences in my post.>>

It also doesn't represent any recoveries that have failed, either.

The recession was the mildest recession on record (which is why consumer spending never faltered) and followed the longest expansion on record....both the mildness of the recession and the length of the 90's boom were unprecedent in "history", yet both occurred.  

This recovery also has:
--the highest productivity growth in 50 years
--the lowest interest rates (which are set by the market and therefore are hardly "artificially" low) in 40 years
--the lowest inflation in 35 years
--the highest GDP growth in 20 years

That combination was NOT present in 75, 83, or 92....so in many aspects, the US economy is in a better situation.

US corporations are also extremely healthy and recording record profits...that was certainly NOT the case in 75, 83, or 92.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: M on November 26, 2003, 08:56:20 pm
Wait a sec- I didn't use the word is one time in that post. Is this like the Knights who say Nee? Oh! I said is. Oh! I said is Again!

The reason why it is is that most Neocons are in fact former liberals, who broke w/ the party following Vietnam and the Dems abandonment of patriotism and the ideals of the expansion of democracy, a-la Wilson.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 26, 2003, 09:19:49 pm
   A few things. For one, corporate profits are still below where they were even in 97,  as for productivity, the numbers reflect more a combination of hedonistic accounting methods put in place at the BLS during the Clinton admin and a runaway expansion of the M3 money supply. As for intrest rates, they are set on the short term end by the FED and on the long term end, the 10 year bond yeild that determines the rate for long term bond has been about 1% lower than it should have been because of Japanese central bank intervention, buying US tresuries non stop in a efforts to prevent the yen from getting strong against the dollar.

  As for inflation, inflation is another metric that was changed by the BLS during the Clinton admin, but for basic needs such as housing and medical care, inflation is though the roof.

   Lastly do you want to know why the recession was so mild, because of the artificlaly low intrest rates that enabled many homeowners to re-fi their homes up to 3 times in the last 3 years, this was also certainly a factor not present in the last recession. Again, put down the WSJ, turn off Larry Kudlow and learn about fundamental economics, not spin. The debt burden corporation now experience in relation to their assets is far higher now than it was when the recove4ries from the previous 3 recessions began.

  Like I said, I am not anti Bush, nor do I blame Bush for most of the current economic problems, but I can not tolerate spin that is all glitz and no substance that parrots rags like the WSJ, a rag that is just as biased as the other rag, the NYT is. If one wants to get a better picture of economics, read the Financial Times and the Econiomist, both UK publications.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 27, 2003, 01:49:16 am
<<corporate profits are still below where they were even in 97>>

Of course, you failed to mention that 1997 was the peak for corporate profits for the last business cycle.  We're only two years into this recovery, so a better comparison is 1993.

---

<<as for productivity, the numbers reflect more a combination of hedonistic accounting methods put in place at the BLS during the Clinton admin and a runaway expansion of the M3 money supply.>>

This is easy to debunk....Q3 GDP increased by 8.2% (annualized), yet the number of workers increased only 0.2% (annualized) and the number of hours worked was roughly flat.

So, how does a 0.2% increase in workers working a constant number of hours produce 8.2% more goods and services?  

Let's do a little math...8.2% increase in product - 0.2% increase in effort = 8.0% increase in productivity.  

And what was the official productivity number for Q3?...8.1%, compared to my quick calculation of 8.0%.

It doesn't take a genius to figure at that when you have roughly the same number of workers working roughly the same number of hours, any increase in production is due to increased productivity!

---

<<As for interest rates, they are set on the short term end by the FED and on the long term end, the 10 year bond yield that determines the rate for long term bond has been about 1% lower than it should have been because of Japanese central bank intervention>>

Yes, the Fed Reserve does set overnight lending rates, BUT you have to be a BANK in order to barrow from the Fed Reserve!

For businesses and individuals, rates are set on the open market and maturity terms range from 3 months to 10 years....So, for anyone other than banks, short term and long term rates are set on the open market...just as I said.

---

<<the rate for long term bond has been about 1% lower than it should have been because of Japanese central bank intervention, buying US tresuries non stop in a efforts to prevent the yen from getting strong against the dollar.>>

You have it backwards!  You're right that strong demand (buying) for US treasuries decreases US interest rates.  But a drop in US interest rates makes the dollar LESS VALUABLE (and the yen more valuable) because those holding dollars get less of a return on their dollar denominations compared to other denominations.

Therefore, if the Japs wanted to prevent the yen from getting strong against the dollar, they would want to raise US rates in comparison with Japanese rates, thus offering better return for US denominated assets.

Finally, the exchange markets are far too big for central banks to impact the rate of exchange.  Central bank intervention is just a way to communicate policy direction.

---

<<As for inflation, inflation is another metric that was changed by the BLS during the Clinton admin, but for basic needs such as housing and medical care, inflation is though the roof.>>

Housing:  More Americans own homes than ever before because low interest rates makes buying a house MORE affordable, even though the price of homes are increase at 10%!  Also, housing starts are increasing at a 18 year high because more and more American can AFFORD buying a home.

Medical care:  Yes the costs are going through the roof, and without those increases, the US would probably have a NEGATIVE rate of inflation.

---

<<The debt burden corporation now experience in relation to their assets is far higher now than it was when the recove4ries from the previous 3 recessions began.>>

If you read a little deeper, you'd know that the Business Debt-Service Burden (Net Interest/Pre-Tax Profits) is MUCH lower today than it was in '83 or '91 (I don't have figures for '74.)  So the coverage of interest payments by profits is now much higher than at any time in the 80's or early 90's.

---

<<Again, put down the WSJ, turn off Larry Kudlow and learn about fundamental economics, not spin.>>

Are you now trying to pass yourself off as being physic?!  If so, I wouldn't quit your day job.  LOL!

Is 2.5% your prediction on 2004 GDP?  Also, what is your reading on 2003Q4 and the unemployment rate in Nov 2004?

My predictions are for 2003Q4-2004Q3 GDP growth to average >4% and the unemployment rate to be in the area of 5.3%-5.7% in Nov 2004 with 2.5M-4.5M jobs created between now and then.



Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: NorthernDog on November 27, 2003, 11:48:18 am
I just read Al Gore's screed printed in USA TOday by Moveon.Org and he seems to have moved to the left (even more than 2000).  If Dean is nominated he will support him to ingratiate himself with Dean's supporters.  When Dean loses Gore will try to capture his supporters for his run in 2008.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 27, 2003, 12:29:35 pm
Jefferson was never a member of the GOP so don't say he was.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 27, 2003, 12:35:11 pm
 Jmc and Mr Fresh, again, look in greater detail not the spin. As for debt service burden figures, where do you get your figures. Companies like GM and IBM have looming problems with their pension plans that they didnt have in the early 90s. As for real estate, thanks to Clinton era changes that dramaticlaly increased the size and scope of GSE such as FNM and FRE, more people who have questionable credit quality own homes, and that has the potential to be a time bomb.

  As for productivity numbers, look at them in relation to the runaway growth the M3 money supply has had untill late August of this year. Much of the productivity gains is due more to runaway M3 money supply growth than anything in the real world, along with the "adjustments" the BLS made in the 90s.

   As for Japanese central bank, what I say stands, the BOJ intervention to prevent the dollar from sinking against the Yen involved buying tresuries, and the BOJ holdings of US tresuries increased by about $200 billion in the last two years, and that does not even inclue the amount of tresuries BOJ proxies such as the Japanese Postal Pension system has done. Again, Japanese, Chinese and to a lessor extent other Asian countries buying of tresuries have pushed intrest rates to a artificlaly low level in order to keep their currecnies depressed against the dollar(in Chinas case, to maintain the Yuans peg to the dollar).  As the US federal budget gap will remain large in the next few years combined with the massive trade gap, there is going to be a far larger supply of 10 year bonds, and a bigger supply means higher yeilds.

  In any event, somthing will give, will it be by Nov 04, probably not, but the US can not maintain the trade deficits and expect intrest rates to remain low and the dollars value not to sink any further.

  As for the bond market, the shorter term instruments are indeed set by the FED.  The 3 months and one year and even 2 year debt insturments are very much so set by the FED, as the FEDs overnight rate is the benchmart that influences short term debt insturments.

  In any event, mo matter where you get your information, though again it seems much like the "information" one would read in t he WSJ, it is not all peaches and cream out there, the economy has moved soley because of the stimulus given to it by tax cuts/rebates and more importantly to the consumer, the massive number of home re-fis. As home re-fis have wound down, and as next year the consumer will not have nearly as impressive as a $400 a child "tax rebate", again I restate, the consumer will be harder pressed to maintain their pace of spending. As for business spending,  reading teh most recent Beige book, it confirmed what I have read elsewhere, a large amount of the business spending is related to the financial and construction indutsry, and they have largely driven the economy.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 27, 2003, 12:45:22 pm


 Lastly, the real estate prices have risen far in excess of inflation, and even the median monthly payments have risen in excess of inflation despite the fact that intrest rates have sunk in the last 3 years, historically this is not sustainable. Also, along with FNM and FRE enabling very high risk consumers to buy homes, it looks very much so like intrest rates on home loans have bottomed out, so one of the prime drivers of the real estate bubble, and one has to look at it as a bubble is slowly being taken away.

  Like I said, I dont have a crystal ball, I just have the past as a guide, and unlike you, I see many warning signs, you derride it as gloom and doom, I take the authentic conservative view and I prefer honestly and reality. The way the economy has sustained itself in the last 3 years is not sustainable long term. A combination of the stimulus given by the FED loweing its rates 13 times, the long term rates going down(casuing real estate to accelerate its activity and a record shattering re-fi boom) and a record increase of govrenmnet spending, 2 rounds of large tax cuts can not sustain itself forever. Consumers need to increase their amount of savings, large corporations such as GM and IBM need to get more financially solvent considering their looming pension problems, the trade gap needs to narrow dramatically over the long term. The dramatica increase in the M3 money supply has made the numbers seem far better than they would have bene otherwise, but that spigot is slowly drawing to a close.  

  Will the day of that all of this has to be dealt with come before Nov 2004, probably not, but the fact that this recovery does not have any of the factors that previous recoveries had, and I repeat, intrest rates going lower, DOW stocks haveing a low P/E, personal savings rates around 10%, real estate coming off a period of slow or even no growth below inflation and so on, is cause for concern.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Beet on November 27, 2003, 01:09:29 pm
Given the U.S. annual inflation rate of 2%, the 1% federal funds rate actually represents a negative real interest rate. This is the same situation as existed in the late 1970s and for a brief period I believe in 1992-93. Anyone care to explain this?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 27, 2003, 11:21:10 pm
 Like I said, I dont have a crystal ball

In other words, you're so much of a coward, you can't even give us your gloom and doom predictions because you know they would testify against you in a matter of months...LOL!

All you want to do is stand on the sidelines and toss genades by trying to spread your fear and self-doubt to others.

"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap. " (Ecclesiastes 11:4)

...so it is with you.

---

I will not debate with you any longer until you find  enough courage to give us your predictions.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 28, 2003, 06:30:52 am


 If you did not notice, I said I expect 2004 economic numbers to resemble 2002 numbers, slow growth, once the dual stimulus of tax rebates and the home re-fis run their course. That is my prediction, and if you did not notice that a few replays ago, then that is your problem. During things like calling me a coward and throwing in the LOLs is your porblem, not mine.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 28, 2003, 11:44:56 am
Yes, you did say "2002" but mentioned no numbers.  That's why I wanted confirmation of 2.5% so that there is no confusion.

So, just for the record, are you saying that 2004 GDP growth will be in the ballpark of 2.5%, just like it was in 2002?

Also, what is your prediction for the current quarter (2003Q4); and unemployment and numbers of jobs created leading into the election.

Here are my numbers, why don't you just counter and give your opposing numbers?

GDP 2003Q4-2004Q3:  >4% (average)
Unemployment rate Nov 2004:  5.3-5.7%
Job Growth next 12 months:  2.5-4.5M


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 28, 2003, 02:05:44 pm


 My guess, around 2% growth in 2004, job growth 500K to 1 million, unemployment rate 5.8%-6.3%. I have no idea where you come up with job growth figures of up to 4.5 million, not even in the late 90s was job growth that good, not even in the mid 60s when the economy was at its peak in all areas that job growth adjusted for todays numbers was that good.

  There are hopes then there is cold hard reality. Cold hard reality is rooted in facts and history, hopes are based on the best case scenario and peoples dreams. For you numbers to become fact, the re-fi boom needs to be maintained, the intresr rates on long term bonds needs to go down, because as I mentioned on a couple of my posts, much of the business spending is related to housing activity, either on the construction or financial end.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Ryan on November 28, 2003, 02:52:18 pm
I just read Al Gore's screed printed in USA TOday by Moveon.Org and he seems to have moved to the left (even more than 2000).  If Dean is nominated he will support him to ingratiate himself with Dean's supporters.  When Dean loses Gore will try to capture his supporters for his run in 2008.

To live up to his self appointed elder statesman role he would have to be front and center in supporting the candidate whoever it is.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 28, 2003, 10:40:14 pm
My guess, around 2% growth in 2004, job growth 500K to 1 million, unemployment rate 5.8%-6.3%.

I see you bought yourself some time by not giving us your opinion on 2003Q4...LOL!

Anyway, here's the comparison of the predictions:

                                                   jmfcst           jnb
GDP Growth 2004                         ---            2.0%
GDP Growth 2003Q4-2004Q3    >4.0%         ---
Job Growth 2004 (?)                     ---           0.5-1.0M
Job Growth 11/03-election        2.5-4.5M       ---
UnEmp 2004 (?)                            ---           5.8-6.3%
UnEmp Election Day                  5.3-5.7%       ----


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 28, 2003, 10:55:40 pm


 Must this be a competition? As for the post a few posts back that quotes a bible verse, I myself prefer His Holiness Pope Leo XIII encyclical on economics called Rerum Novarm.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 28, 2003, 11:47:24 pm
<<Must this be a competition?>>

Why shouldn't I let you bury yourself by your own words?  After all, you did presume to know my reading material and chastised me as a parrot of spin.

How many times do I have to ask for your opinion on 2003Q4?

---

<<I myself prefer His Holiness Pope Leo XIII encyclical on economics called Rerum Novarm.>>

I'm pretty ignorant of religious writings, with the exception of the bible.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on November 29, 2003, 12:09:17 am

 I stand by what I said, the numbers you put out are what the WSJ and the likes of Kudlow spins, and I stand by what I have said, the problems I have listed. If you are not parroting spin, ok, but to me, it sounds almost identical to a collum Kudlow wrote recently. The serious economists I have read and the people I know who have been invested in 25+ years realise the warning signs of a economy that depends too much on fiscal stimulus, and too little on savings, and I trust these people far more than I trust the hype.

  Bury myself in my own words, are we not laying on a bit thick? I gave my opinion on 2004 twice allready


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 29, 2003, 02:21:21 am
<<the numbers you put out are what the WSJ and the likes of Kudlow spins>>

Sounds like you're the one reading the publications you accused me of reading.

---

<<Bury myself in my own words, are we not laying on a bit thick? I gave my opinion on 2004 twice allready>>

Yes, you did give us 2004, but you've refused to give us your opinion of the current quarter (2003Q4).


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: StevenNick on November 29, 2003, 02:56:38 pm
I think Bush will carry every state he carried in 2000 plus New Mexico, New Jersey, Maine, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota.

California, Washington, New York, Michigan, and Illinois are going to be competitive.

Here's my rationale:

New Mexico went Democrat in 2000 by the slimmest of margins.  Since 2000 Bush has increased his constituency more than enough to compensate for a 300-or-so vote loss there (Despite this third year slump he's just now coming out of Bush is looking good).  In New Jersey in 2003, Democrats won control of the state legislature, but only as a result of gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of the votes cast statewide.  Bush will win NJ in '04.

Depending on who the nominee is Bush's victory will be solid or a landslide.  Considering that the nominee seems likely to be Dean, a Bush landslide in '04 could may not be out of the question as some of those states I called competitive may line up with Bush.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: StevenNick on November 29, 2003, 02:59:44 pm
If Al runs as an independent, Democrats are completely toast in 2004.  All the battleground states will go Bush.  It'll be a bloodbath with Bush skating to 350-400 electoral vote victory.  Popular vote is another story though.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Paul on November 29, 2003, 03:39:32 pm
I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Paul on November 29, 2003, 03:53:16 pm
I'm not so sure that GOP votes at the state level equals a majority for Bush in 2004.  I doubt that many of those Republicans were as socially conservative as Bush.  
That being said, I think the idea of Bush picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota is a good hypothesis.  Not only were totals close in those places in 2000, but self-identification as a Republican is up in some.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 04:00:56 pm
LOL we are talking about two different Al's here Paul :D

The one whose Independent run we are wondering about is Sharpton!!! :D



I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Ryan on November 29, 2003, 04:03:13 pm
Just for the record I dont think Al (Sharpton :)) will run as an Indep. He knows he wont win the nomination but the whole thing is to increase his prestige WITHIN the democratic party.

Btw I must say he's been successful at that. :P




I really can't see Gore running as an independent this time around.  If he wanted to run for President, he could've gotten into the Democratic primaries earlier this year.  All indications are that he would have run away with the race.
I think Gore might be saving up for an '08 run, maybe even against Hillary...but that's another story.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Paul on November 29, 2003, 04:05:21 pm
Ah, sorry for the faux pas.  I saw Al Gore mentioned and simply couldn't restrain myself.
As far as Sharpton goes, I really don't see him running as an independent, although I would love it, both for partisan political reasons, but mainly for sheer entertainment value.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on November 29, 2003, 05:27:45 pm
I'm not so sure that GOP votes at the state level equals a majority for Bush in 2004.  I doubt that many of those Republicans were as socially conservative as Bush.  
That being said, I think the idea of Bush picking up Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Oregon, and Minnesota is a good hypothesis.  Not only were totals close in those places in 2000, but self-identification as a Republican is up in some.

And the lack of a strong dem canidate doesn't hurt.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: StevenNick on November 30, 2003, 12:33:36 am
If I had to guess I'd say that Al will run as an independent.  I think he really feels that the Democrats have ignored the needs of black voters.  From his point of view he can run in 2004, a race the dems probably won't win anyway, and spoil it for the nominee.  At least that way he can wield some influence in the democratic party in the future.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ryan on November 30, 2003, 01:02:10 pm
err dude U sure about this..........U have NJ as definite and Wa. (ur home state) as competitive. At most it could could be the other way around.

I think Bush will carry every state he carried in 2000 plus New Mexico, New Jersey, Maine, Oregon, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota.

California, Washington, New York, Michigan, and Illinois are going to be competitive.

Here's my rationale:

New Mexico went Democrat in 2000 by the slimmest of margins.  Since 2000 Bush has increased his constituency more than enough to compensate for a 300-or-so vote loss there (Despite this third year slump he's just now coming out of Bush is looking good).  In New Jersey in 2003, Democrats won control of the state legislature, but only as a result of gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of the votes cast statewide.  Bush will win NJ in '04.

Depending on who the nominee is Bush's victory will be solid or a landslide.  Considering that the nominee seems likely to be Dean, a Bush landslide in '04 could may not be out of the question as some of those states I called competitive may line up with Bush.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 02:09:24 pm
Carole James has been elected leader of the BCNDP.

Ernie Eves has resigned as leader of the Ontario Tories.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on November 30, 2003, 02:20:49 pm
It's probably worth mentioning that James is a  Metis and is probably the first Native American to lead a major political party.


Title: Re:Will Al be Dean's pal?
Post by: Demrepdan on November 30, 2003, 05:36:40 pm
If I had to guess I'd say that Al will run as an independent.  I think he really feels that the Democrats have ignored the needs of black voters.  From his point of view he can run in 2004, a race the dems probably won't win anyway, and spoil it for the nominee.  At least that way he can wield some influence in the democratic party in the future.

Are you talking about Al Gore, as the person in the post before you was, or are you talking about Al Sharpton? If you're talking about Gore, there is no way in hell he would run as an independent. That would ruin his chances for the 2008 election. You can't run as an independent, not supporting your own party, and then HOPE to be nominated by your party again 4 years later. The Democrats would be outraged that Gore did this, and would never nominate him.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on November 30, 2003, 11:06:54 pm
OK I see BUsh with a 216-200 generic lead in EV.

Dems have tough Gore states to protect in MN, IA, WI, NM, OR and PA

BUsh's states at risk I think are FL, LA, AR, MO, NH and WV

THe GOP has alot of advantages in these states.  They have a lot of new registered voters, NH traditionally votes for GOP and hasn't gone Dem since LBJ I believe; FL I have discussed elsewhere as being BUSH country for both brothers; LA and Ar are socially conservative and Dem candidates there have to run as conservative to moderate at best.  

--also as some said with other states but no DEm President has won the presidency without 5 southern states, not one , but 5!

--oh and along those lines MO picked the winner from 1900 to 2000 every time but once went for Adlai Stevenson, well no state is perfect :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: jravnsbo on November 30, 2003, 11:29:14 pm
ok all the seats set--I think the GOP picks up seats and retains control.  Currently the GOP holds a 229-205-1 advantage.  The Dems need to NET 13 seats to gain control.  

I see the GOP picking up around 5-7 seats esp if the new Texas map stays in place.

The more the GOP gains this time the harder it will be for Dems to take control.  The Dems were gaining ground until 2002, now as many say I think the GOP maintains control through 2010.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on November 30, 2003, 11:45:58 pm
Bush Dropping Steel Tariffs to Avert Trade War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A23899-2003Nov30?language=printer

----

It's certainly good news for the overall economy.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: StevenNick on December 01, 2003, 01:17:45 am
Probable Republican States:

Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arizona (10)
Arkansas (6)
Colorado (9)
Florida (27)
Georgia (15)
Idaho (4)
Indiana (11)
Iowa (7)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (9)
Maine (4)
Minnesota (10)
Mississippi (6)
Missouri (11)
Montana (3)
Nebraska (5)
Nevada (5)
New Hampshire (4)
New Jersey (15)
New Mexico (5)
North Carolina (15)
North Dakota (3)
Ohio (20)
Oklahoma (7)
Oregon (7)
Pennsylvania (21)
South Carolina (8)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (34)
Utah (5)
Virginia (13)
West Virginia (5)
Wisconsin (10)
Wyoming (3)

Tossup States:

California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Washington (11)

Democratic States:

Delaware (3)
D.C. (3)
Hawaii (4)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (12)
New York (31)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)

Rep. 357
Dem. 77
Toss. 104


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 01, 2003, 11:01:57 am
Off topic.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 01, 2003, 11:37:16 am
Actually Clinton won New Hampshire in 1992 and 1996. Other than that it hasn't gone for a Dem since Johnson though.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 11:46:25 am
i stand corrected on NH.  ty for correction.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on December 01, 2003, 12:30:18 pm
New Jersey as a republican state? are you crazy?!?!!? I take offense to that


Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin will also stay Dem. There is no evidence those states will swing to Bush. Just wishful thinking.

all 4 of these are Dem locks.

California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Washington (11)


even Dean can win NJ

and if it's Gephardt/Edwards, we retain every state from 2000, perhaps gaining in Missouri and NH


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 12:40:57 pm
Well I think MN is definately in play along with WI, IA, OR, NM and PA for Dem side.

MNs were p*ssed in 2002 at the rally and swept GOP to wins in the Gov, Senate and increased state house maj and are closest  ever in St senate.  A lot of the suburban Twin Cities voters are becoming more and more GOP backers, plus as with other states the GOP registration drive in MN has hit full throttle.

Next a lot of the farm states will benefit from farm bill Pres Bush signed and most likely an energy bill in some form with ethanol provisions in it.

I do agree with you that NJ is a bit of a stretch.  They voted for Lautenberg with the scandal of switching candidates midstream, which I still think was reprehensible and I criticized the gOP for thinking about it in MT too.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 01, 2003, 01:00:34 pm
Manufacturing index near 20-year high
 
Nation's purchasing managers say business conditions much stronger than expected in November.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - U.S. manufacturing accelerated in November, the nation's purchasing managers said Monday, in a report that was the strongest in nearly 20 years and reinforced analysts' hopes that the long-sluggish economy is finally in a classic, self-sustaining expansion.

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its index of manufacturing activity jumped to 62.8 from 57 in October. Economists, on average, expected an ISM index of 57, according to Briefing.com.

The index was the highest since 69.9 in December 1983 and has been above 50, a number that indicates expansion in the sector, for five straight months.
 
"It appears that the recovery is gaining momentum. Indications are that the manufacturing sector is ending 2003 on a very positive note, and all of the indexes support continued strength into 2004," said Norbert Ore, director of the ISM's survey committee. "While there are still companies lagging the recovery, they should be encouraged by the current indicators in the sector."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/01/news/economy/ism/index.htm

----

Gloom&Doomsters may just want to skip this story.  I'm sure it saddens you to have to read yet another story showing the economy rising faster than at any time in the last 20 years!

Maybe these purchasing managers are "planted" by the WSJ and aren't really seeing their businesses boom.

Hey, JNB, since you're so good at predicting economic storms for 2004, can you please step outside your house and give us a reading on the CURRENT (2003Q4) weather?   After all, who listens to a forcaster's opinion that refuses to admit to the current conditions?

LOL!


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on December 01, 2003, 01:06:49 pm
the GOP is dead in NJ, take it from somebody that lives here.

They launched an all out attack on McGreevy in the months prior to election day, to the point where everybody's mailbox was overflowing with attack ads. Dems still won control of the state.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: John on December 01, 2003, 02:13:34 pm
Bush will Get Back on Track & Win the 04 Election & Then he will get Real to Work


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 01, 2003, 03:51:34 pm
Ernie Eves has resigned as leader of the Ontario Tories.
Where have you read it ? I haven't heard of that...


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 01, 2003, 04:13:50 pm
NORTHEAST-SOLID DEM. i think even NH will go dem


SOUTHEAST-SOLID REPUBLICAN. south gets more and more red every election.

MIDWEST-WILL GO DEM. only indiana and kentucky will go repub

PLAIN STATES-SOLID REPUB


ROCKY MN STATES-SOLID REPUB

WEST COAST-DEM

DEM VICTORY- thanks to midwest

but that is just my belief


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 04:31:21 pm
jtf you were general but your analysis was 2000 replayed except NH.

Where else do you see Switches in states from one column to the other?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 01, 2003, 04:46:45 pm
jtf you were general but your analysis was 2000 replayed except NH.

Where else do you see Switches in states from one column to the other?
arizona-dem,missouri-dem,arkansaw-dem
minnisota-republican,oregaon-republican,ohio-dem


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 04:54:43 pm
Well o the states you mention I think Dems have problems for the following reasons-

AZ well Mccain has already said he will have an all out effort to help Bush win and with McCain running for reelection himself that will help Bush.

MO-mentioned bad Dem Gov, plus 2002 wins

OH-everything is run by GOP and been trending that way for some time.

AR- socially conservative state and all Dem have to be moderate to conserv to win.  Toss up one.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 01, 2003, 05:09:13 pm
U.S. stock close higher on strong economic, retail data
Monday December 1, 4:56 pm ET
By Tomi Kilgore


NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- U.S. stock indexes surged to new 52-week highs Monday as better-than-expected economic news and strong holiday sales data kept investors in a merry mood.
The Dow (^DJI - News) charged up 117 points, or 1.2 percent, to finish at 9,899, stretching its winning streak to six sessions. This level marks the index's highest close in a year and a half.


http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/031201/d06c49ce740a454d9a17df305482d47d_1.html

come on 10,000!


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 01, 2003, 06:06:16 pm
Well o the states you mention I think Dems have problems for the following reasons-

AZ well Mccain has already said he will have an all out effort to help Bush win and with McCain running for reelection himself that will help Bush.

MO-mentioned bad Dem Gov, plus 2002 wins

OH-everything is run by GOP and been trending that way for some time.

AR- socially conservative state and all Dem have to be moderate to conserv to win.  Toss up one.

arizona-you may be right,but growing latino population could make it close. dem 1%

Mo-if gep is nomminee i think he will win it or edwards or clark for that matter. dem-5%

OHIO-growing population in clevland. i think it will go dem by 2%

Arkansaw-bush approval rating going down in every poll.dem-1%

all close races


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: StevenNick on December 01, 2003, 09:37:44 pm
New Jersey as a republican state? are you crazy?!?!!? I take offense to that


Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin will also stay Dem. There is no evidence those states will swing to Bush. Just wishful thinking.

all 4 of these are Dem locks.

California (55)
Illinois (21)
Michigan (17)
Washington (11)


even Dean can win NJ

and if it's Gephardt/Edwards, we retain every state from 2000, perhaps gaining in Missouri and NH

It may sound crazy that I put NJ in the Republican column, but consider this:

Democrats solidified their control of the state legislature in 2003, but only because of district gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of votes cast statewide.  

Republicans have also made significant gains there in party ID.

Also, a lot of the victims of September 11 lived in New Jersey.  If Dean gets the nomination, which I believe he will, a lot of New Jersey residents may be driven to vote for Bush.

Maybe I should have put New Jersey as a possible turnover in '04 rather than probably, but as things stand right now I've got to give the advantage to the Bush.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on December 01, 2003, 11:11:20 pm
Quote

It may sound crazy that I put NJ in the Republican column, but consider this:

Democrats solidified their control of the state legislature in 2003, but only because of district gerrymandering.  Republicans actually won a majority of votes cast statewide.  

Republicans have also made significant gains there in party ID.
Quote
NJ is where most of my family lives. Definitely favors Democrats, but is a high income state and repealing the Bush tax cuts, as Dean wants, would not be popular!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 01, 2003, 11:46:17 pm
Manufacturing index near 20-year high
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/01/news/economy/ism/index.htm

I forgot to mention the following...

The ISM's employment index rose to 51 from 47.7 in October, marking the first month above 50 in 37 months, and raising the chances that November saw the first gain in non-farm manufacturing payrolls since July 2000. The Labor Department is scheduled to release its figures for November employment on Friday.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 02, 2003, 03:52:10 am
My cousin told me, I'm not 100% certain that it's true... but I'll have a look around the net to see if it is.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2003, 04:29:50 pm
U.S. jobless benefits to expire
 
With the economy recovering and the labor market showing signs of life, some observers and politicians say the time is right to cut off the federal benefits, while others worry the labor market isn't yet healthy enough to run on its own.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/02/news/economy/jobless_benefits/index.htm

---

It's time for these people to stop passing on jobs that are "beneath" them.  I don't understand how someone can take a government handout while turning down work.  

Even if it means flipping hamburgers or restocking shelves for a couple of months, isn't that better than having to take a hand-out?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 02, 2003, 05:33:42 pm
DEan and Gephardts and Clarks and Liebermans and Edwwrds and Kerrys TAX INCREASES are not going to be popular anywhere.  Just ask Mondale.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 02, 2003, 05:58:13 pm
Manufacturing jobs recovering is great news for all Americans!

Come on job numbers.  I'll be anxious to see them Friday.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 02, 2003, 07:09:27 pm
Or you could ask Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, which of course doomed his chances of reelection....


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 02, 2003, 07:42:07 pm
Or you could ask Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, which of course doomed his chances of reelection....
LOL


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 02, 2003, 09:07:25 pm
corporate profits are still below where they were even in 97

Sorry to shake you up, but corporate profits, both pre-tax and after-tax, are HIGHER than their peak in 1997 and have surpassed $1 Trillion dollars for the first time in US history.

http://www.gkst.com/uploads/report-documents/9l5YXg20031128112937.pdf (http://www.gkst.com/uploads/report-documents/9l5YXg20031128112937.pdf)

---

How long will I have to wait for your predictions on the current quarter (2003Q4)?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 02, 2003, 10:11:43 pm
yeah but it could be strongly argued that tax increases plus wanting national health care beaucracy led to Republican takeover of 1994, and when that happened Clinton moved towards the center and did Welfare reform and other more right issues to win reelection.



Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: TomAtPitt on December 02, 2003, 10:38:46 pm
Or you could ask Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, which of course doomed his chances of reelection....

Raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't be a big political problem. Dean and Gephardt both want to raise taxes on the middle class, which could be harmful to them.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 03, 2003, 12:38:36 am
Yeah and harmful to use all.

So at least pull the GOP lever down the ballot for balance if you want to save from massive middle class tax increases.


[Raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't be a big political problem. Dean and Gephardt both want to raise taxes on the middle class, which could be harmful to them.

Quote


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 12:38:46 am
I agree that raising taxes on the middle class is a bad idea.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on December 03, 2003, 02:50:34 am
I agree that raising taxes on the middle class is a bad idea.
yeah, well what about the poor? Does anyone care if taxes are raised on them?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 03, 2003, 08:51:11 am
Or you could ask Clinton, who raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993, which of course doomed his chances of reelection....

Raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't be a big political problem. Dean and Gephardt both want to raise taxes on the middle class, which could be harmful to them.


Not a big problem?  The Dems lost both houses after that.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 03, 2003, 09:13:11 am
Productivity boomed in 3Q
 
Government's measure of output per worker hour revised to fastest pace in 20 years.

Nonfarm business productivity, or worker output per hour, rose at an upwardly revised 9.4 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the strongest surge since the second quarter of 1983, the Labor Department said.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/news/economy/productivity.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/news/economy/productivity.reut/index.htm)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 03, 2003, 10:06:39 am
I agree that raising taxes on the poor would be an even worse idea.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: John on December 03, 2003, 02:46:28 pm
Ohio will Stay GOP as the Rest of the States But Bush Might Pick up Washighton Oregon & Minnestoa & Iowa


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 03, 2003, 04:01:46 pm
Ohio will Stay GOP as the Rest of the States But Bush Might Pick up Washighton Oregon & Minnestoa & Iowa
wASHington is dem country as of now and i think it whould stay that way till 04 and beyond


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 03, 2003, 04:02:38 pm
Ohio will Stay GOP as the Rest of the States But Bush Might Pick up Washighton Oregon & Minnestoa & Iowa
wASHington is dem country as of now and i think it whould stay that way till 04 and beyond

That all depends on who is the Dem nom.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 03, 2003, 04:04:20 pm
Quote from: DarthKosh
That all depends on who is the Dem nom.
[quote
the major candidates ,dean,gep,clark,edwards,kerry whould win washington


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 03, 2003, 04:22:48 pm
Quote from: DarthKosh
That all depends on who is the Dem nom.
[quote
the major candidates ,dean,gep,clark,edwards,kerry whould win washington

Dean could turn off swing voters.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 03, 2003, 04:29:12 pm
so could of gore


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 03, 2003, 04:31:15 pm

Gore was not campaign as far left and was as angry as Dean is.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 03, 2003, 06:15:34 pm
But they dont have VERY many differences


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ben. on December 03, 2003, 07:16:48 pm
Based on the 2000 contest and the current circumstances in most states by the summer (i.e the democratic convention) this is how I see the states looking. Dean I would say will very probably be the Democratic nominee with Clarke as his running mate. Dean will do poorly in many southern states…but in states such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia next to Gephardt he is best placed to exploit traditional blue collar democratic support amongst Union members and those states which went narrowly to Gore should still go to Dean as the Nader vote will almost certainly go to him in a big way.

The Lean Democratic States are going to be easier to win for the republicans than the lean republican states however I stick by my predictions.      


Alabama (9 EV) – Solid Republican    
Alaska  (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Arizona (10 EV) – Lean Republican
Arkansas (6 EV) – Lean Republican
California (55 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Colorado (9 EV) – Lean Republican    
Connecticut (7 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Delaware (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
D.C. (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Florida (27 EV) – Lean Republican    
Georgia (15 EV) – Solid Republican    
Hawaii (4 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Idaho (4 EV) – Solid Republican    
Illinois (21 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Indiana (11 EV) – Solid Republican    
Iowa (7 EV) – Lean Democratic  
Kansas (6 EV) – Solid Republican  
Kentucky (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
Louisiana (9 EV) – Solid Republican  
Maine (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Maryland (10 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Massachusetts (12 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Michigan (17 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Minnesota (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Mississippi (6 EV) – Solid Republican    
Missouri (11 EV) – Lean Republican  
Montana (3 EV) – Lean Republican    
Nebraska (5 EV) – Solid Republican    
Nevada (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Hampshire (4 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New Jersey (15 EV) – Solid Democratic      
New Mexico (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
New York (31 EV) – SOLID Democratic  
North Carolina (15 EV) – Lean Republican    
North Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Ohio (20 EV) – Lean Republican    
Oklahoma (7 EV) – Solid Republican  
Oregon (7 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Pennsylvania (21 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Rhode Island (4 EV) – Solid Democratic    
South Carolina (8 EV) – Solid Republican    
South Dakota (3 EV) – Solid Republican    
Tennessee (11 EV) – Lean Republican    
Texas (34 EV) – Solid Republican  
Utah (5 EV) – Solid Republican  
Vermont (3 EV) – Solid Democratic    
Virginia (13 EV) – Solid Republican    
Washington (11 EV) – Lean Democratic    
West Virginia (5 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wisconsin (10 EV) – Lean Democratic    
Wyoming (3 EV) – Solid Republican  


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on December 03, 2003, 07:43:53 pm
Gore was not campaign as far left and was as angry as Dean is.
I thought a lot of people thought Gore was "angry". Look at what he did during the debates. All the sighing and eye rolling. Dean hasn't really shown an "angry side" as much as many think.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: dazzleman on December 03, 2003, 09:26:04 pm
Ben, I think that your predictions are overly generous to the Democrats, but only time will tell.

If Dean is the Democratic nominee, I think that Bush will carry all of the states that he won in 2000, plus pick up, potentially, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Mexico.  Depending upon the political climate leading up the election, the next tier for him to crack would be Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington and California.  I think the least likely states for Bush are New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Overall, I would generally expect Dean to perform about as well as Dukakis in 1988, although not with exactly the same state alignment.

Gephardt would be more of a problem for Bush, since he has quasi-southern roots, and could possibly pick up some states that Bush won in 2000, such as Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio, plus damage Bush's chances of picking up some of the midwestern states that he may need, such as Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota.

Overall, out of the current sorry pack of Democratic challengers, I think Gephardt has the best chance of beating Bush.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on December 03, 2003, 09:46:16 pm
That's why this "Gep aide intimidates unions" thing bothers me, we can't afford to let Dean pull away with it or we're toast.

I've lost faith in Kerry, I'm thinking he would probably do worse than Dean in 04, talk about a complete collapse....


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 03, 2003, 11:02:10 pm
Gore was not campaign as far left and was as angry as Dean is.
I thought a lot of people thought Gore was "angry". Look at what he did during the debates. All the sighing and eye rolling. Dean hasn't really shown an "angry side" as much as many think.

Gore is a little kitten compared to Dean.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Demrepdan on December 03, 2003, 11:19:51 pm
Gore is a little kitten compared to Dean.
What has Dean done to appear so angry? I've seen him appear miffed a few times, usually after one of the other Democratic candidates bash him though. When has he appeared to be angry?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: StevenNick on December 04, 2003, 12:58:50 am
Ohio will Stay GOP as the Rest of the States But Bush Might Pick up Washighton Oregon & Minnestoa & Iowa
wASHington is dem country as of now and i think it whould stay that way till 04 and beyond

Washington isn't as solidly democratic as you might think.  Democrats won the Governorship here the last two elections (1996, 2000) with a relatively moderate candidate running against incredibly weak republican.

Since September 11, Republicans have gone from a five point disadvantage in voter registration to a one point advantage.  Republicans control the state senate (albeit by the thinnest of margins) and Democrats only control the state house by a few votes.  Going into the 2004 election we have a solid, moderate candidate for Governor and a solid candidate for Senate.  Democrats running for Governor (now an empty seat) will face a bloody primary battle as Republicans rally around Rossi (the main republican candidate).  The democratic candidates are all further left than the current governor.

Although Bush is unpopular in the more urban areas of Western Washington, he's not unpopular in general.  I can't say that Washington is going to be solid Bush country in '04, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see him win the state.  And I also wouldn't be surprised if he carried Rossi and Nethercutt (candidates for governor and senator, respectively) along with him.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 04, 2003, 07:26:25 am
Gore is a little kitten compared to Dean.
What has Dean done to appear so angry? I've seen him appear miffed a few times, usually after one of the other Democratic candidates bash him though. When has he appeared to be angry?

I haven't yet heard say anythin postive.  All he says is that the country is going to hell in a hand basket.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ben. on December 04, 2003, 07:56:36 am
Darth: Nothing positive? Dean in Hardball came across as relaxed, well informed and personable he did dig into Bush’s polices but 75% of the time he outlined his own views and beliefs with out referance to W. The lack of digs at Bush could partly be explained because he was projecting himself to the American electorate rather than the Democratic grassroots any primary candidate has to appeal to…but in terms of Dean being the “angry candidate” his attacks on Bush certainly where an important part of his campaign early on but these days he reserves them for occasional talks with activist while with undecided voters and independents he is a more pleasant laidback but no less passionate candidate.

“I started this campaign for the presidency with the simple notion that America can be better. I had virtually no staff and no money, but I wanted to talk about health care. I wanted to talk about early childhood development.  And I wanted to talk about fiscal responsibility and the importance of balancing the budget."

I offered people a campaign in which they could participate, and they have done so -- beyond anything we imagined. This campaign no longer is mine; it belongs to the people who are building it.”

- Howard Dean, Houston/ Texas:  November 18, 2003
 
“To me, health care isn't simply a policy issue. It's a moral imperative. Here, in the richest, most advanced country in the world in the 21st century, it's simply wrong for a sick child to go without seeing a doctor because her parents can't afford it.

Wrong for a woman to find out she has late stage breast cancer, because she couldn't afford a mammogram.

Wrong for elderly people to be choosing between prescriptions and food.

-Howard Dean, Columbia University, May 13, 2003

“This campaign is about more than one political office. It is about putting the power of the people to work for change. It is about giving people a reason to get involved, to care about their community, to get active, and out there, and vote!

I am running for President because it is time to rebuild the American community, reclaim our democratic heritage and restore our country to its rightful place as a moral leader among the nations of the world.

And I am running for President because it's time that we stood up to this President, to the Republican Party, to their radical conservative agenda, and forced them out of office.”

-Howard Dean, Des Moines, IA (July 30, 2003)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 10:08:35 am
yeah real positive, sought to get deferred in coming into doctor's office for draft; won't release gov's papers, wants gay marriage /civil unions=same thing; wants to repeal all the bush tax cuts-which are tax INCREASES even on the middle class; he got rattled by Matthews and asked him in a reactionary mode; "Well why should workers be allowed to work where they want without joining a union?"  

BAM- you never ask an open ended WHY question you don't know what the answer will be, in any debate style-

Matthews came back because this is America and people should be allowed to work where they want; The liberal leaning Harvard crowd rorared with applause.

Also he wants to break up companies like GE and Fox--while admitting he didn't want to name specific companies the plan is still there and he has publicly said before he wants to reregulate companies and put more restrictions on them.  Yeah that'll spur growth and productivity. (sarcastic)

Yeah real positive if that is the kind of person you want as president and policies of more taxes, more regulation.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 01:43:16 pm
Dean wants to break up GE and Fox? I'd like to see the specific quotes on those.
It depends on what kind of regulations he is proposing, but regulations could definitely make the market place fairer for small businesses and be very beneficial to consumers. Yes, regulations usually hurt the pure bottom line of the corporations in question but we have lots of regulations on corporations designed to create a fairer and thus freer market for all. Corporate monopolies, collusion and the like are some of the biggest threats to a free market.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 02:32:28 pm
No as I said he was peppered on GE and Fox and he backed off from them while acknowledging they could be targeted he said while he didn't want to name any specifically he definately though tthey should be more heavily regulated , on Hardball Monday.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Ben. on December 04, 2003, 04:12:45 pm
Dean suggested that like Microsoft, Murdoch and GE have an unfair dominance over the market and this is unfair. I am currently studying in the UK and here Murdoch runs a number of papers and now wants to buy a TV channel and most of the country is up in arms about how this will give him undue influence.

In the US the media market is owned by a small number of mostly conservative men…in the book “two cheers for Democracy” E.M.Forster said the second cheer was because Democracy permitted diversity in my view with likes of Murdoch there is no diversity of opinion and what Dean hopes is that through regulation of the media business the power of single corporations could be reduced and that rather than a limited narrow number of sources of news and opinion that might be many.

Personally I though Dean’s Hardball performance was very good, relaxed, well informed and attentive. Not the stiff and awkward Howard Dean who often appeared on TV earlier in the year.



Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: agcatter on December 04, 2003, 04:33:38 pm
I also thought Dean looked rether relaxed on Hardball.  He answered every question honestly and didn't pull any punches.

I've changed my mind.  Democrats SHOULD nominate this man.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 04, 2003, 04:34:28 pm
I agree that allowing greater dominance of ownership of the media by just a few sources, as the FCC has recently done, is a VERY bad idea.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 04:45:49 pm
Have to be more specific.  He freaks out all the time on talk shows.  He is beginning to make Dean look Calm.


Anyone see Clark in the last debate freak out?


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Flying Dog on December 04, 2003, 09:34:51 pm
The Media only LEANS left


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: jravnsbo on December 04, 2003, 10:33:30 pm
Anyone see Capitol Report?

The GOP guy was keeping Dean alive and talking about him being nominee and Joe Lockhart for the Dems was running Dean downa nd talking about his electability.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 04, 2003, 10:34:46 pm
Anyone see Capitol Report?

The GOP guy was keeping Dean alive and talking about him being nominee and Joe Lockhart for the Dems was running Dean downa nd talking about his electability.

The Dems know that Dean is going to be a disaster for them.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on December 04, 2003, 10:35:01 pm
Jobless claims rise
 
New weekly claims for unemployment benefits higher last week than Wall Street forecasts.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/04/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

this is weekly jobless claims, it got buried today. Tomorrow they're waiting for better numbers I hear...

Retailers still seek holiday cheer
 
Discounters Wal-Mart and Target post sales gains, but department stores continue to disappoint.
December 4, 2003: 3:08 PM EST
By Parija Bhatnagar, CNN/Money Staff Writer
 


NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Major U.S. retailers released November sales results Thursday showing that consumers overall were more value-conscious than ever as the holiday shopping season got under way.

 http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/04/news/companies/retail_sales/index.htm






Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 05, 2003, 12:50:46 am
love how the GOP posters post the positive numbers and the Dems post the negative ones.

Balance I guess :)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: emergingDmajority1 on December 05, 2003, 08:47:50 am
there was a rise in employment for November, though it was a small one, about 57,000, it takes about 120,000-140,000 per month to keep up with the growing population.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: John on December 05, 2003, 09:49:56 am
Ben, I think that your predictions are overly generous to the Democrats, but only time will tell.

If Dean is the Democratic nominee, I think that Bush will carry all of the states that he won in 2000, plus pick up, potentially, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon and New Mexico.  Depending upon the political climate leading up the election, the next tier for him to crack would be Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Jersey, Washington and California.  I think the least likely states for Bush are New York, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Overall, I would generally expect Dean to perform about as well as Dukakis in 1988, although not with exactly the same state alignment.

Gephardt would be more of a problem for Bush, since he has quasi-southern roots, and could possibly pick up some states that Bush won in 2000, such as Missouri, Tennessee and Ohio, plus damage Bush's chances of picking up some of the midwestern states that he may need, such as Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota.

Overall, out of the current sorry pack of Democratic challengers, I think Gephardt has the best chance of beating Bush.
[/quout
BUSH IS THE MAN HE WILL WIN 279 VOTES TO 259


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 05, 2003, 10:16:14 am
Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Wakie on December 05, 2003, 10:22:00 am
Productivity boomed in 3Q
 
Government's measure of output per worker hour revised to fastest pace in 20 years.

Nonfarm business productivity, or worker output per hour, rose at an upwardly revised 9.4 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the strongest surge since the second quarter of 1983, the Labor Department said.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/news/economy/productivity.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/03/news/economy/productivity.reut/index.htm)
Personally I'm very hesitant to look at these rising productivity #'s and believe they are sustainable.  Productivity went up in the 90's because of the boom in information technology.  Americans were able to work smarter.

Over the last few years though, companies have reduced IT spending and many American workers have been running scared for their jobs.  Personally I've seen people pretty much doing anything they can to retain their jobs.  While this is good for business in the short term, human beings burn out.

Hopefully the economy is turning around but I'm hesitant.  After 3 years of poor economic conditions I'm not ready to declare this better.  My gut feeling is the money is flowing again but that it is really staying at the top.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: NorthernDog on December 05, 2003, 10:44:37 pm
Quote
Although Bush is unpopular in the more urban areas of Western Washington, he's not unpopular in general.  I can't say that Washington is going to be solid Bush country in '04, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see him win the state.  
Quote
I'd be interested in hearing about any polls coming out of Washington after the holidays.My impression is that Washington state had become more liberal since the mid 1990s and was out of reach for the GOP (unless there's a 1984 style landslide).


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 06, 2003, 12:14:01 am
love how the GOP posters post the positive numbers and the Dems post the negative ones.

Balance I guess :)

I would like to know how you figured that this thread was unbalanced to begin with.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 06, 2003, 12:16:14 am
Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

"Not as fast as expected"?!  

FYI - the unemployment rate was expected to be flat and remain at 6.0%, so the 5.9% was BETTER than expected.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 06, 2003, 12:19:40 am
there was a rise in employment for November, though it was a small one, about 57,000, it takes about 120,000-140,000 per month to keep up with the growing population.

Of course, you fail to mention (probably due to your lack of knowledge) that the California grocery strike reduced overall payroll gains by about 25,800 to 30,800.

Also, look for the +57k to be revised upward since these initial reading have an error rate of plus or minus 100k!

And, at last, you also fail to note that these numbers are seasonally adjusted, meaning that MANY MORE that +57k new jobs were created in Nov, but fewer than a typical Nov.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 06, 2003, 12:20:16 am
Weekly Leading Index Slips  
 
NEW YORK, Dec 5 (Reuters) - A leading index of the U.S. economy slipped in the latest week, suggesting the current breakneck pace of recovery could moderate slightly, a report showed on Friday.

The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its leading index fell to 130.4 in the week ended Nov. 28, compared with a downwardly revised reading of 131.5 for the previous week.

"There's a small hint of moderation on the horizon, but the economic recovery is not going to collapse," said ECRI managing director Lakshman Achuthan.

A drop in mortgage applications and commodity prices helped to pull the gauge down in the latest week, although stock market gains lessened the fall, Achuthan said.

The index's growth rate, an annualized rate for the four-week moving average that evens out weekly fluctuations, slowed to 11.6 percent from 11.9 percent in the previous week.

http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=603

---

Oct. factory orders top estimates
 
Demand for manufactured goods rises 2.2%, highest rate in over a year.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/05/news/economy/factory_orders.reut/index.htm


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: ABD on December 06, 2003, 03:06:07 am
Hello!  This is my first post.  I was put on to Dave's presidential website some time ago...but only now have I signed up.  Dave congrats on a great web site.

I worked at in the Conservative Research Department, and the press office there, until quite recently, and so I am familiar with almost all of the comings and goings of shadow ministers and staff.  May I offer then a few comments on the recent Tory changes, and the prospect of the Lib Dems becoming the official Opposition?

The reason the Liberal Democrat vote in the UK has been artificially high in recent times was, sadly, the perception of drift under IDS - and this has been shown to be the case in recent polls since Howard has become leader.  Lib Dem support has dropped by around 8 points (according to ICM I think).

A Tory landslide this does not make, and there is a long way to go - but it does show that the idea that the Tories are to become party #3 is about as credible as the leadership credentials of Charlie Kennedy, Carol Moseley-Braun or Carmen Lawerence!

The key to this is that what the Tories have lacked for a decade, need for any revival to occur, and now appear to have regained - is an ethos of professionalism.  Howard, Fox and Saatchi will whip Westminster into shape and get them back into the habit of success again.

I wouldn't like to bet the outcome of a by-election in an upper middle class Lib Dem seat in the south in say, six months to twelve months time.  If such a byelection took place, and such a vote takes place, and the Tories win, then we'll know it's really Game On.

Look forward to getting to know you on this forum!

ABD


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: ABD on December 06, 2003, 03:27:01 am
OK, as an alumnii of Conservative Central Office, and as you Poms say, a political 'anorak', I'm going to predict the Tories will have a solid nett gain of seats.  How many, I think is too early to say.  We don't know how the leadership change will go down with the people that REALLY matter if there is to be a Tory revival - getting those that voted Tory in 1992 to either
(a) come out to vote again, or
(b) come back to the Tories from the Lib Dems or Labour.
Not to mention how the campaign pans out, etc etc....

However, I will make one bold prediction on the outcome of the 2005 general election - in Scotland.  My understanding is that a redistribution of boundaries is due but won't be in place for the next general election.  In which case there'll still be 72 or so seats up for grabs.  At the moment they have one - Galloway and Upper Nithsdale.  I think they will hold that, and gain at least four more.  Ayr, Perth, Edinburgh Pentlands, and Dumfries.  I base this on a combination of the results of the Scottish vote in May, the quality of the Tory machine in those seats and the demographic features of those seats.

I'll make a more solid prediction closer to the time. : )

ABD


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on December 06, 2003, 04:01:45 am
If the Labour Party choose anyone other than Tony Blair it means they will have rediscovered their taste for doing anything other than being electable.  Which would delight me.

Clare Short is like Carmen Lawrence in Australia - the sort of MP that tries to console themselves that life after Cabinet isn't that bad if you can wrap yourselves up in leftish moral vanity.

And Bryant?  Not now, I don't think.....




Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 06, 2003, 04:11:07 am
I feel that the media leans neither left or right, but rather in favor of profits (since they are after all businesses). Sometimes the pursuit of profits leads them to temporarily lean left or right, but no media outlet can afford to let its political leanings consistently come ahead of profits.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 04:13:53 am
I'm not sure whether that picture will actually damage Bryant a lot...
He's a Labour M.P and is on the wrong end of a homophobic campaign by the Daily Hate Mail, which will probably improve his position in his constituancy(Rhondda. And no, there is no chance of him losing it), he is talented and certainly should be made a minister at some point.

I think that Watson would make a good P.M but he's way too young now.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 04:16:13 am
I actually would predict a net loss of seats for the Tories...
They are in serious trouble in real rural seats(which is where the Liberals really are expanding), although Howard should hang on in faux-suburban Folkstone and Hythe.
But I'm calling Davis, May and Letwin down.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 05:38:31 am
A BQ M.P has defected to the LPC, the CA has voted to merge with the PC's, the PC's vote on it TODAY, and a poll for CBC shows the LPC on 58%, the NDP on 18% and the soon-to-be CPC on 13%...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 08:22:42 am
I've decided to have another go at PA:

Pennsylvania

01 Philadelphia South b
02 Philadelphia North b
03 Erie c
04 Beaver and Allegheny c
05 Pennsylvania North c
06 Chester and Berks b
07 Chester b
08 Bucks c
09 Pennsylvania South c
10 Susquehanna c
11 Wilkes-Barre and Scrantonc
12 Johnstown and Washington c
13 Philadelphia Valley Forge b
14 Pittsburgh and Steel Valley b
15 Allentown c
16 West Chester and Lancaster c
17 Harrisburg c
18 Westmoreland and Washingtonc
19 Gettysburg c


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 09:40:29 am
Voting begins tomorrow!

United Russia(pro-Putin) seems certain to win(according to the BBC) but the Commies might run them close.


Title: Re:UK Election Result 2005
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 09:56:39 am
Constituancy by Constituancy predictions(assuming election called before the boundary commision finishes, which is not certain) :

Key:

Lab=Labour, C=Conservative, LD=Liberal Democrat, SNP=SNP, PC=Plaid, Ind=Independent

The first party mentioned is the holder of the seat. (-) means that the party holding the seat does not have a hope in hell of holding on to it.
[-] means: depends on candidate


County Durham:

Bishop Auckland=Lab
City of Durham=Lab
Easington=Lab
North Durham=Lab
North West Durham=Lab
Sedgefield=Lab
Darlington=Lab

Shropshire:

North Shropshire=Con v Lab
Shrewsbury and Atcham=(LD), Lab v Con
Ludlow=LD v Con
The Wrekin=Lab [v Con]
Telford=Lab

Northumberland:

Berwick-upon-Tweed=LD
Hexham= Con v Lab
Blyth Valley=Lab
Wansbeck=Lab

More soon...


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: migrendel on December 06, 2003, 10:40:42 am
I've been doing my reading on Bryant in The Guardian, and have seen the picture. While it would seem to be an exceedingly odd place to store a spare pair of socks, it really shouldn't be anyone's concern but Mr. Bryant's. I think he would make a fine minister, and he should rightly be selected.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 11:26:10 am
You underestimate quite how homophobic the Hate Mail is...(they have published an article called "how gay is my valley". Not funny, not clever, homophobic and possibly racist), and as Bryant is the M.P for Rhondda(and a good one from what I've heard) being attacked by a Tory newspaper is like christmas coming early(the Tories lost their deposit(5%) in Rhondda last election)
Of course Bryant is used to homophobic attacks;
Plaid's attempt to stop him getting elected in 2001 revolved around calling him "exotic".
Bryant won 68% of the vote on a low turnout.

If the Hate Mail wants to bang on about M.P's sexual preferances, they should look at Paul Marsden(and that IS worrying)


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 06, 2003, 03:51:18 pm
Russians vote in Duma elections
 
 
The pro-Putin United Russia party is likely to be a clear winner
Voting has begun among the people in Russia to elect a new Lower House of Parliament, the State Duma.
It is the fourth such election in Russia since the collapse of communism.

Some 23 parties are running for 450 places, with a party backed by President Vladimir Putin, United Russia, tipped to win.

Foreign observers and other parties have said that the run-up to the election has been marred by open bias towards United Russia in the media.

Mr Putin has vowed not to let the bombing of a train on Friday which killed 42 people to disrupt the polls.

  It's all been decided and nothing changes anyway

Alexander Likhachov
voter  
The chairman of the Russian Central Electoral Commission, Alexander Veshnyakov, said all polling stations would open despite attempts to thwart the ballot and destabilise the situation, and he promised a free and fair vote.

He has promised to publish results from across the country's 11 time zones on the internet within 24 hours of polling stations closing.

Apathy

The election will decide the make-up of the Duma for the next four years.

Any party gaining 5% of the vote will be represented in parliament.

Reports from BBC correspondents around the country suggest there is a sense of apathy among voters who believe the outcome is largely a foregone conclusion - United Russia first, followed by the Communist Party second.

"Why should I bother?" one Russian, 40-year-old Alexander Likhachov, told Reuters news agency in St Petersburg.

"It's all been decided and nothing changes anyway."

Popular policies

The BBC's Russian affairs analyst Stephen Dalziel said no one was expecting the shocks which reverberated during the country's elections a decade ago.

Then, President Boris Yeltsin expected to welcome a Duma which would act in his interests and instead was greeted by the confrontational Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his so-called Liberal Democrat Party.

In 1995 another Duma, challenging President Yeltsin won through, until by 1999 he had stepped down after victory to hand over power to Mr Putin.


Russian election factfile


At-a-glance
 

A number of parties have expressed their anger at the public backing President Putin has given the United Russia party.

Our correspondent says that if Mr Putin has a Duma which largely supports him, it will be more difficult for any challenger in the presidential elections next March.

After nearly four years in the Kremlin, Mr Putin, the former head of the secret police, still appears to be riding a wave of genuine support.

The hard line his administration has taken against corruption and wealthy oligarchs has gone down well with voters.

Some analysts say victory for United Russia, plus the backing of some liberal parties, could see the Russian constitution changed to give Putin more than the current two terms as leader.

More than 1,100 international observers from 48 states have been accredited for the election, but their numbers may increase to 2,000.

The first polling stations open in the Far East of Russia at 2000 GMT on Saturday and the last ones close in the enclave of Kaliningrad at 1800 GMT on Sunday.



 


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 07, 2003, 12:05:37 am
A BQ M.P has defected to the LPC, the CA has voted to merge with the PC's, the PC's vote on it TODAY, and a poll for CBC shows the LPC on 58%, the NDP on 18% and the soon-to-be CPC on 13%...
The MP's name is Robert Lanctôt, from the riding of Châteauguay (Southwest from Montreal)
()
Robert Lanctôt, MP of Châteauguay, Québec

I think he's the sixth Bloc Québécois MP to switch Liberal.  Needless to say he and the five others want to keep their seat.  I'd bet the BQ won't get more than 10 seats in the next federal election.

But one thing I wouldn't bet on is the possibility that the NDP might be the official opposition after next election.  The poll you're referring to is from SOM (http://www.som-inc.com/SiteSOManglais/SondagesPublics%20-%20ang/03342SRC-CBC-ang/Section%20B/SRC_SECTB_A.html), and when they asked for party support, they nicknamed the yet-to-be-created Conservative Party of Canada "the new party of the united right".  Not that I oppose the SOM definition of the party (which is factually true), but then why didn't they term the NDP as a "left-wing party" ? ... or BQ as "French Quebecer Separatist party" ? Such aforementioned labels do sink popular support.

The results nevertheless show how Canadians are fond of centrism and hate left-wing or right-wing labels.

The SOM poll was published in every major newspaper in Canada (English and French) and I still don't understand why no journalist openly questionned the apparent methodology when the official SOM results (http://www.som-inc.com/SiteSOManglais/SondagesPublics%20-%20ang/03342SRC-CBC-ang/Section%20B/SRC_SECTB_A_1.html) give no mention of the "Conservative Party of Canada", which should be the official name of the new party of the united right.  That's not a way to make reliable polls...

Finally, I still stand by a poll published in the Globe and Mail, which used the CPC name.  I don't remember the exact numbers but the Liberals were roughly at 45%, the CPC at 29%, and the NDP at 16%.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2003, 04:36:00 am
The PC's have voted to leave a life raft and join a sinking ship...
Rt. Hon. Joe Clark has refused to join the new  Reformatory party, as has John Herron(Fundy-Royal)
Where will they and other Red Tories go?
I won't ask that of the Orchardites, as it seems a just a little bit obvious where they will be going...

IF the CPC is seen as the CA in blue, 13% is possible, but I think they would get at least 15% and probably over 20%
LPC support will be lower than 58%, but it will be over 45%

I wouldn't bet on the NDP getting to lead the opposition next parliament, but they should get a solid gain of seats(as they only have 14 M.P's now, a solid gain would be +5), especially in Nova Scotia and the Praries.

But the LPC is going to win a HUGE victory, if only because they are going to slaughter the BQ :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2003, 08:16:31 am
I've just watched Bowling for Columbine so doing Michigan seemed appropriate:

Michigan

01 North c
02 Muskegon and Holland c
03 Grand Rapids c
04 Midland and Mount Pleasant c
05 Flint c
06 Kalmazoo c
07 Battle Creek and Jackson c
08 Lansing c
09 Oakland c
10 Macomb and Port Huron c
11 Livonia c
12 Warren b
13 Detroit East b
14 Detroit West b
15 Dearborn Heights and Ann Arbor c


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: DarthKosh on December 07, 2003, 12:43:23 pm
I feel that the media leans neither left or right, but rather in favor of profits (since they are after all businesses). Sometimes the pursuit of profits leads them to temporarily lean left or right, but no media outlet can afford to let its political leanings consistently come ahead of profits.

I think that it leans left and it is noticable.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Michael Z on December 07, 2003, 01:00:38 pm
I feel that the media leans neither left or right, but rather in favor of profits (since they are after all businesses). Sometimes the pursuit of profits leads them to temporarily lean left or right, but no media outlet can afford to let its political leanings consistently come ahead of profits.

I think that it leans left and it is noticable.

Please, let's not go there. Right-wingers think the media leans left and left-wingers think the media leans right. It's a debate that has been raging for decades and pigs will fly before both sides agree on this.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2003, 01:50:35 pm
Pro-Putin party leads Russia poll
 
 
President Putin faces election himself in March
First exit polls from Russia's parliamentary election have put the party supported by President Vladimir Putin in the lead, as expected.
The poll, of 20,000 people in all seven federal districts, said United Russia had secured 34% of the vote, followed by the Communists with 14%.

Some 23 parties are running for 450 places in the State Duma.

Election officials said the turnout had passed the minimum 25% needed for the poll to be considered valid.

The poll, conducted by the Romir-Monitoring research centre said Liberal Democratic Party of Russia was in third place with 11% of the vote, followed by Motherland on 9%.

This is the fourth general election in Russia since the collapse of communism.

Foreign observers and other parties have said that the campaign has been marred by open bias in favour of United Russia in the media.


'Free and fair'

Mr Putin, whose popularity ratings top 80%, cast his ballot with wife Lyudmila at an institute in southern Moscow.

When asked for whom he voted, he smiled and said: "That could be considered electioneering, but my preferences are well known."


Central Election chief Alexander Veshnyakov has promised to publish results from across the country's 11 time zones on the internet within 24 hours of polling stations closing.

  It's all been decided and nothing changes anyway

Alexander Likhachov
voter  

The election will decide the make-up of the Duma for the next four years.

Any party gaining 5% of the vote will be represented in parliament.

Reports from BBC correspondents around the country suggested there was a sense of apathy among voters who believe the outcome is largely a foregone conclusion - United Russia will win and the Communist Party will come second.

"Why should I bother?" one Russian, 40-year-old Alexander Likhachov, told Reuters news agency in St Petersburg.

"It's all been decided and nothing changes anyway."

Popular policies

BBC Russian affairs analyst Stephen Dalziel said no-one was expecting the shocks which reverberated during the country's elections a decade ago.

In the 1993 election, President Boris Yeltsin expected to welcome a Duma which would act in his interests and instead was greeted by the confrontational ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his misleadingly named Liberal Democrat Party.

In 1995 another Duma challenging Mr Yeltsin was elected, this time dominated by the Communist Party.


Russian election factfile


At-a-glance
 

A number of parties have expressed their anger at the public backing President Putin has given the United Russia party.

Our correspondent says that if Mr Putin has a Duma which largely supports him, it will be more difficult for any challenger in the presidential elections next March.

After nearly four years in the Kremlin, Mr Putin, the former head of the secret police, still appears to be riding a wave of genuine support.

The hard line his administration has taken against corruption and wealthy oligarchs has gone down well with voters.

Some analysts say that if United Russia and its allies gain a two-thirds majority, they could change the Russian constitution and potentially pave the way for Mr Putin to stand for more than the current two terms as president.

More than 1,100 international observers from 48 states have been accredited for the election, but their numbers may increase to 2,000.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: Nym90 on December 07, 2003, 03:12:56 pm
Right, and so since both sides think the media is biased against them, that would seem to be pretty good evidence that the media is right in the middle.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on December 07, 2003, 03:16:27 pm
Right, and so since both sides think the media is biased against them, that would seem to be pretty good evidence that the media is right in the middle.
What Nym90 fails to understand is that FOX NEWS NETWORK IS THE FARTHEST TO THE RIGHT THAT ANY MEDIA OUTLET could possibly be. They are no where near-Moderate or Center.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: © tweed on December 07, 2003, 03:17:55 pm
Right, and so since both sides think the media is biased against them, that would seem to be pretty good evidence that the media is right in the middle.
What Nym90 fails to understand is that FOX NEWS NETWORK IS THE FARTHEST TO THE RIGHT THAT ANY MEDIA OUTLET could possibly be. They are no where near-Moderate or Center.

No, he understands.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Nym90 on December 07, 2003, 03:18:02 pm
Great movie.


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: CHRISTOPHER MICHAE on December 07, 2003, 03:19:44 pm
Right, and so since both sides think the media is biased against them, that would seem to be pretty good evidence that the media is right in the middle.
What Nym90 fails to understand is that FOX NEWS NETWORK IS THE FARTHEST TO THE RIGHT THAT ANY MEDIA OUTLET could possibly be. They are no where near-Moderate or Center.

No, he understands.
And you are in Nym90's head?


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2003, 04:19:39 pm
PARTIAL RESULTS
United Russia 36.25%
"Liberal" Democratic Party 15.2%
Communist Party 12.8%
Motherland 7.89%
Yabloko 4.19%
Agrarian Party 3.5%
Union of Right Wing Forces 3.4%


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 07, 2003, 04:20:47 pm
If only to see Heston squirm :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 07, 2003, 04:40:27 pm
The PC's have voted to leave a life raft and join a sinking ship...
Progressive Conservative on a life raft since 2000 ? Until december 6th I rather saw them in a leaky Soviet submarine like in the K-19 movie...
Quote
Rt. Hon. Joe Clark has refused to join the new  Reformatory party, as has John Herron(Fundy-Royal)
Where will they and other Red Tories go?
As I'd say in French Clark n'est pas une référence. He won the 1979 federal election more because voters were more frustrated of Trudeau Liberals than in love with the PC.  And at the time he presented the 79-80 budget, he forgot to remember he was running a minority government... (The Liberals and the NDP promptly rebuked the Clark governement and election ensued in Feb 1980). Clark couldn't even get a strong support from his party members in the 1983 PC congress (66% of the delegates).

Before the 1993 wipe-out of the PC, and the 1984 victory of Mulroney, Red Tories were always a minority within their own party.  I once read somewhere that Robert L. Stansfield (PC Leader from 1967 to 1976, Former Nova Scotia Premier), a Red Tory too, felt like that.  The upcoming CPC won't be an electoral success in the upcoming election.  However, I feel it's like history repeating when the Progressives merged with the Conservatives in 1942, to ultimately create the Progressive Conservative Party.

Quote
I won't ask that of the Orchardites, as it seems a just a little bit obvious where they will be going...
To the Green Party ;) ? O.K. I assume I might have given a wrong answer...

Quote
IF the CPC is seen as the CA in blue, 13% is possible, but I think they would get at least 15% and probably over 20%
LPC support will be lower than 58%, but it will be over 45%

I wouldn't bet on the NDP getting to lead the opposition next parliament, but they should get a solid gain of seats(as they only have 14 M.P's now, a solid gain would be +5), especially in Nova Scotia and the Praries.
Sound analysis, but the current unknown is how the Ontarian electorate will behave.

Quote
But the LPC is going to win a HUGE victory, if only because they are going to slaughter the BQ :)
And when it's not because of slaughtering parties, it's because some hara-kiri themselves ... (I think about the PC)


Title: Re:States after 2004.
Post by: StevenNick on December 07, 2003, 06:24:33 pm
I also thought Dean looked rether relaxed on Hardball.  He answered every question honestly and didn't pull any punches.

I've changed my mind.  Democrats SHOULD nominate this man.

The only reason Dean did well on Hardball is because Chris Matthews was asking him SOFTBALL questions.  It was a total Dean lovefest.  It was pretty obvious that Matthews is more than a little enamored of the guy.  

In the last debate, Tom Brokaw actually asked Dean tough questions (especially about the Dean draft business) and Dean looked painfully uncomfortable.  He stammered his way through some nonsense BS answer and then attacked Bush.

Once Dean gets into general election and independents start to scrutinize his performance more carefully and he starts coming under attack by Bush, he's not going to come off so well.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: jravnsbo on December 08, 2003, 10:01:24 am
who cares about listing the congressional districts?


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2003, 12:00:36 pm
Russia's parliamentary elections have failed to meet many democratic criteria, international observers say.
Sunday's poll was "overwhelmingly distorted" by pro-government bias, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said.

In Washington, a White House spokesman said "we share those concerns" and called for further political reform.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2003, 12:01:18 pm
PARTIAL RESULTS (97.87% OF VOTES COUNTED)
United Russia (Yedinaya Rossiya) 37.1%
Communist Party 12.7%
"Liberal" Democratic Party 11.6%
Motherland (Rodina) 9.1%
Yabloko 4.3%
Union of Right Forces (SPS) 4%
Against all parties 4.7%
Source: Election Commission


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2003, 12:05:06 pm
I care!
Look... redistricting can really f*** up political maps.
Example:

PA-14 is the old PA-18 with Pittsburgh added to it.
PA-18 has nothing to do with the old PA-18.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 08, 2003, 12:29:36 pm
Pity about the SPS(basically the "nice" wing of the GOP) and Yabloko getting crushed... :(

...And those evil bastards in the LDPR did very well... :( :( :(


Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: © tweed on December 08, 2003, 06:37:26 pm
Howard Looks like he will be the Tory leader.  And he got no votes here?  Was it a good decision.  I don't see how it will help...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Nym90 on December 08, 2003, 07:22:18 pm
I agree, I like the names of the districts. Keep up the good work RealPolitik!
By the way, you've moved to the US now? I'm guessing you probably haven't, and are just identifying with the state and party that you feel most at home with. ;)


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on December 09, 2003, 06:06:23 am
I think the Daily Mail should face charges for inciting hatred against both gays and ethnic minorities. It is the most obnoxious, poisonous, hate filled rubbish ever to grace the breakfast tables of Britain. This is the newspaper that condemned the policy of accepting jews fleeing persecution in Nazi Germany! Absolute evil.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: English on December 09, 2003, 07:59:24 am
Someone please explain why the Liberal Democrat party in Russia is so named? Since it is neither liberal or Democratic. In fact it is extremely unliberal and would probably turn Russia into a fascist dictatorship.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 10:40:50 am
It was set up by the KGB to discredit the terms liberal and democratic.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 10:43:26 am
...and endorsed the B.U.F...


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 09, 2003, 10:50:13 am
Because "Fascist Dictatorship Party" doesn't give you a whole lot of votes.  I think they are disgusting but as long as they balance out the Commies, so be it.  It's really sad though when your true political alternatives to an incumbent government are Communists and Fascists.

Studying political party names of parties in other countries is very interesting.  My favorite example is the "Left" party in Denmark that is rather center-right :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 10:51:07 am
I'm guessing you probably haven't, and are just identifying with the state and party that you feel most at home with. ;)

That's it! I felt it was only fair that people knew which party I support.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 11:29:11 am
And the fascists usually votw with the government...


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: English on December 09, 2003, 11:59:10 am
Because "Fascist Dictatorship Party" doesn't give you a whole lot of votes.  I think they are disgusting but as long as they balance out the Commies, so be it.  It's really sad though when your true political alternatives to an incumbent government are Communists and Fascists.

Studying political party names of parties in other countries is very interesting.  My favorite example is the "Left" party in Denmark that is rather center-right :)

Absolutely! Some alternative! Vote for anyone other than the incumbant party and it may be the last time you ever get to vote! Vladimir Zhiranovsky is truely a frightening prospect. Imagine him with his finger on the button?!


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on December 09, 2003, 12:01:51 pm
Yes, add treacherous to the list as well! It's not fit to wipe a certain part of the anatomy on!


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: DarthKosh on December 09, 2003, 12:09:46 pm
I care!
Look... redistricting can really f*** up political maps.
Example:

PA-14 is the old PA-18 with Pittsburgh added to it.
PA-18 has nothing to do with the old PA-18.

They just renumbered some of the districts.  They did this in Arizona as well.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 12:35:47 pm
Goodnight Alaska!


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 12:38:23 pm
That really confused me :(


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: DarthKosh on December 09, 2003, 12:44:34 pm

Mine didn't change so it didn't confuse me.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 09, 2003, 02:29:25 pm
The submarine is a good analogy... in fact Canadian politics can be summed up as:
A huge Aircraft Carrier painted red
A little fishing boat painted orange
Two submarines(one green, one blue) having just collided, have decided to weld their submarines together, although some on the blue sub' are unhappy about this and might try to swim to safety...
...And the shattered wreck of what appears to be a light blue dingy, scattered across the sea floor...



Title: Re:UK Conservative Leadership
Post by: ABD on December 09, 2003, 03:43:53 pm
To be honest there were only three candidates that were serious - Clarke, Howard and Davis.  People like Michael Ancram (future Michael Lothians!) stood to try and knock David Davis out of any possible two-horse ballot for the membership.

I would have voted here on the poll for Howard but I haven't spent enough time on this site yet to work out how to click on the polling button (will do so when I get home from work tonight perhaps).


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 09, 2003, 05:51:23 pm
Speaking of movies, have you seen Love actually?

I loved it :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 10, 2003, 10:14:49 am
No...but I have heard that it's an improvement on the stuff Grant usually appears in.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on December 10, 2003, 11:04:30 am
The Mail endorsed Oswald Mosley?!

On second thoughts, it shouldn't really surprise me...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 10, 2003, 02:42:30 pm
And now Brison has defected to the Liberals... why would someone vote FOR the merger and then leave?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 10, 2003, 04:42:05 pm
And now Brison has defected to the Liberals... why would someone vote FOR the merger and then leave?
In one word: opportunism


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on December 10, 2003, 04:44:34 pm
No...but I have heard that it's an improvement on the stuff Grant usually appears in.
Grant's not the lead actor in that movie ... Am I making a link ? ;)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 11, 2003, 12:17:03 pm
No...but I have heard that it's an improvement on the stuff Grant usually appears in.
Grant's not the lead actor in that movie ... Am I making a link ? ;)

Aha...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 12, 2003, 12:00:57 pm
Paul Martin has been sworn in as the new Prime Minister of Canada.


Title: Re:Japanese Diet Elections 2003
Post by: jaichind on December 13, 2003, 05:03:45 pm
For sure the system is rigged in favor of LDP.  Bascially the LDP has a lock on the rural vote and used to count on non-redisctricting to maintain a majority in the Diet based on sparse rural disctricts.  The 180 seats based in PR, redistricting, and move to single magnitute election disctrict was suppose to reform that.  It did to some extent.  Problem is that the PR system got diluted by splitting Japan into 9 zones and allocate the 180 seats based on PR within each zone.  Hence despite support in urban areas for DP, strong performances in the rural zones by the LDP led to more PR seats for the LDP than it deserved it PR was applied across Japan as a unit.  This followed by seat adjustments with Komeito Party, a LDP, ally, helped the LDP win some extra seats the constituency seats.  Hence, with a vote well less than 50% the LDP-KP surged with a majority.  


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: jaichind on December 13, 2003, 05:07:21 pm
Heck, United Russia did not even take part in the debates.  But because of so much pro-United Russia propaganda on TV, most Russians polled thought that United Russia won the debates.  An amazing feat given they were not even there.  The Communists claim election fraud which I am sure is true.  In Chechnya, the United Russia candidate took 95%+ of the vote with 90%+ turnout.  Sounds really fishy.  


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: M on December 13, 2003, 10:45:07 pm
What is Rodina's platform? Are they pro democracy, and are they for or against Putin?


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: jaichind on December 13, 2003, 11:02:02 pm
Rodina is a party hatched up by Putin's gang months before the election headed up by an ex-Communist.  Its purpose was to take votes away from the Communist.  Its platform is radical leftist nationalist.  It is suppose to be pro-Putin although during the election it kept is distance as to play the role of capturing protest votes.  It did much better than expected in the electin.  Some say that Putin created a Frankenstien as Rodina now has enough seats to have its own seperate role and not have be slavishly pro-Putin.  I doubt it.  It will vote with Putin's gang as needed and can be counted on for the 2/3 majority Putin needs to enact constitutional changes to make him de facto President for life.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 14, 2003, 05:28:14 am
Rodina are a lure to get people who would normally vote KPRF to vote for a Pro-Kremlin party.

BTW the turnout was 30%
Even you Americans can look at that with disgust!


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: jaichind on December 14, 2003, 12:03:18 pm
The official reported turnout was just below 50%.  If it had fallen below 25% the election would have been invalid.  Also about 6% vote for "Againist All."  Of course these numbers are being disputed by the Communists who are doing their own recount.  

In a bizzare alliance of strange bedfellows, the Communists also are sticking up for both the Neo-liberal Yablabo and Pro-business Union of Rightist Forces.  Both parties failed to clear 5% to get into the Duma under PR.  The Communist recount have both of them about 5% and they are demanding that the two parties should be given seats that they deserve.  The Communist recount has United Russia at 31% instead of 37% of the vote.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Beet on December 14, 2003, 08:21:51 pm
Districting is really terrible. They should have proportional representatoin on the state for congress level and sequential run-off on the state for president level.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 08:37:09 pm
Districting is really terrible. They should have proportional representatoin on the state for congress level and sequential run-off on the state for president level.

It's fine the way it is.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Beet on December 14, 2003, 09:01:24 pm
Under the current plurality system of determining a state's electors, you could have a candidate carry all of a state's electoral votes with only a third of it's popular vote. Thus if Perot won 33% in Montana in 1992, Bush H.W. won 33%-1, and Clinton won 33%+1, the whole state goes for Clinton even though 67%-1 voted against him! Surely there is something undemocratic about that.

Similarly, districting has made about 90% of Congressional seats uncompetitive.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: DarthKosh on December 14, 2003, 09:45:54 pm
Under the current plurality system of determining a state's electors, you could have a candidate carry all of a state's electoral votes with only a third of it's popular vote. Thus if Perot won 33% in Montana in 1992, Bush H.W. won 33%-1, and Clinton won 33%+1, the whole state goes for Clinton even though 67%-1 voted against him! Surely there is something undemocratic about that.

Similarly, districting has made about 90% of Congressional seats uncompetitive.

So?


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Gustaf on December 19, 2003, 12:36:10 pm
Because "Fascist Dictatorship Party" doesn't give you a whole lot of votes.  I think they are disgusting but as long as they balance out the Commies, so be it.  It's really sad though when your true political alternatives to an incumbent government are Communists and Fascists.

Not just centre-right but the main right-wing party in Denmark. The Swedish Right is called the "Moderate Party" and we also have the Centre Party. Btw, I agree with the points on having to choose between communists (who want the Soviet Union back, I've seen their ads), fascists and the corrupt.

Studying political party names of parties in other countries is very interesting.  My favorite example is the "Left" party in Denmark that is rather center-right :)

Absolutely! Some alternative! Vote for anyone other than the incumbant party and it may be the last time you ever get to vote! Vladimir Zhiranovsky is truely a frightening prospect. Imagine him with his finger on the button?!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Kevinstat on December 19, 2003, 05:52:37 pm
Hey, I like Hugh Grant.  "Four Weddings and a Funeral" is my favorite Romantic Comedy.  His movies since then that I've seen haven't been as good, but they're still enjoyable, although "Mickey Blue Eyes" was kind of stupid.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 19, 2003, 09:40:57 pm
Weekly Leading Index Rises  
12/19/2003  
NEW YORK, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy should ring in the new year with strong growth that should last at least through the next few quarters, a research group said on Friday.
The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its leading index rose to 131.2, near its 2003 high of 131.7, in the week ended Dec. 12, from 129.9 the preceding week.

The growth rate, which has remained strong for the past six months between 11.3 percent and 13.3 percent, slipped a touch to 11.4 percent from 11.7 percent. The drop suggests a moderating trend in the recovery, but the ECRI analyst who conducted the survey stressed growth will remain steady.

"It is going to be a prosperous New Year," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of ECRI.

"For the next few quarters, we'll be coasting along," he said.

The growth rate for the index is an annualized rate for the four week moving average of the index that evens out weekly fluctuations.
 
http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=603

----

Mid-Atlantic factories power ahead
 
Philly Fed says regional manufacturing activity soared to 32.1 in Dec. from 25.9 in prior month.
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Manufacturing in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region surged powerfully and unexpectedly in December as new orders jumped to a 23-year high, in one of the clearest signs yet that factories have emerged from a two-year slump.

New orders, a harbinger of future growth, surged 21 points to 41.8 in December from 20.8 in November, while employment, which has so far lagged the recovery in production, showed its first solid rise, soaring to 21.9 from 3.3 last month.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/news/economy/philly_fed.reut/index.htm

---

Industrial output surges
 
Federal Reserve says November production at factories, mines and utilities stronger than expected.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Production from the nation's factories, mines and utilities rose at a faster pace in November, the Federal Reserve said Friday, beating Wall Street expectations.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/16/news/economy/industrial/index.htm


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 19, 2003, 10:55:08 pm
I was hoping for a .2 drop, but .1 is still progress.  Still coming along.

Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

"Not as fast as expected"?!  

FYI - the unemployment rate was expected to be flat and remain at 6.0%, so the 5.9% was BETTER than expected.




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 20, 2003, 07:05:11 am
O.K... he isn't that bad... but does he have to play himself all the time???(although he does it very well)


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Michael Z on December 20, 2003, 08:41:05 am
Vladimir Zhiranovsky is truely a frightening prospect. Imagine him with his finger on the button?!

Wow, that is a frightening thought. He makes Kim Jong-Il look like the Pope.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 20, 2003, 10:08:04 am
He wants to conquer all the old U.S.S.R countries+Afghanistan+Iran+Poland+Finland+Most of the rest of Eastern Europe+Ex-East Germany+Alaska+Parts of the Yukon+Mongolia


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 20, 2003, 12:55:43 pm
I was hoping for a .2 drop, but .1 is still progress.  Still coming along.

Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

"Not as fast as expected"?!  

FYI - the unemployment rate was expected to be flat and remain at 6.0%, so the 5.9% was BETTER than expected.


We're cool.

But, notice how JNB has repeatedly refused to give an estimate on the current quarter (2003Q4).  LOL!  He loves to spout doom and gloom about the future, but he is unable to acknowledge current conditions.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, Q3 was excellent and Q4 is going to good, but...", he just can NOT bring himself to allow a single ray of sunshine to pass through his lips.

Sad.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: jaichind on December 20, 2003, 07:13:25 pm
He wants to conquer all the old U.S.S.R countries+Afghanistan+Iran+Poland+Finland+Most of the rest of Eastern Europe+Ex-East Germany+Alaska+Parts of the Yukon+Mongolia

I really do not see why he is considered that dangerous.  Sure he is a Russian nationalist with the creation of a Greater Russia as a goal.  But why is that so evil.  For me he is no different from French politicians before WWI that demanded the return of Alsase-Lorriane to France and right after WWI pushed for the annexation of Rhineland to France.  For sure he is no different from American politicans that demanded the annexation of California, Oregon, Florida, Cuba, Haiwai and so on into USA.  One could argue about those postions they took.  But I hardly seem them as evil or dangerous, or no more evil/dangerous than the others I mentioned.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 20, 2003, 08:59:50 pm
I see the 4Q having growth and producing more jobs.

However, i see a lot of jobs being made in 1Q next year.  


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: 2,868,691 on December 20, 2003, 11:08:59 pm
Well i know here in MS, there's no way our US representatives are ever gonna change until one of them retires, as gerrymandering has made them invincible.  I guess it can be good and bad in different ways.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 21, 2003, 04:45:55 am
Yes but Russia does not have the right to go around conquering countries it used to own 100 years ago.
Imperialism is Imperialism(and no. All Slavs are not Russians)


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Gustaf on December 21, 2003, 07:14:25 am
He wants to conquer all the old U.S.S.R countries+Afghanistan+Iran+Poland+Finland+Most of the rest of Eastern Europe+Ex-East Germany+Alaska+Parts of the Yukon+Mongolia


I really do not see why he is considered that dangerous.  Sure he is a Russian nationalist with the creation of a Greater Russia as a goal.  But why is that so evil.  For me he is no different from French politicians before WWI that demanded the return of Alsase-Lorriane to France and right after WWI pushed for the annexation of Rhineland to France.  For sure he is no different from American politicans that demanded the annexation of California, Oregon, Florida, Cuba, Haiwai and so on into USA.  One could argue about those postions they took.  But I hardly seem them as evil or dangerous, or no more evil/dangerous than the others I mentioned.

It is perhaps not different, but it was wrong then and it is wrong now! Also, the Elssass-Lothringen conflict contributed to the loss of millions of human lives in three great wars, som it kind of proves the point, don't you think? If the US tried to pursue such imperialist policies today they would get heavily criticized (at least by me!).


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Michael Z on December 21, 2003, 07:37:07 am
He wants to conquer all the old U.S.S.R countries+Afghanistan+Iran+Poland+Finland+Most of the rest of Eastern Europe+Ex-East Germany+Alaska+Parts of the Yukon+Mongolia

I really do not see why he is considered that dangerous.  Sure he is a Russian nationalist with the creation of a Greater Russia as a goal.  But why is that so evil.  For me he is no different from French politicians before WWI that demanded the return of Alsase-Lorriane to France and right after WWI pushed for the annexation of Rhineland to France.  For sure he is no different from American politicans that demanded the annexation of California, Oregon, Florida, Cuba, Haiwai and so on into USA.  One could argue about those postions they took.  But I hardly seem them as evil or dangerous, or no more evil/dangerous than the others I mentioned.

You're totally right of course. I now declare that France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, India, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, the USA, Mexico and Brazil all belong to the United Kingdom. I will think of some half-baked "historic" reason, then start a war and kill millions of people to achieve my goal.

After all, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of imperialistic zeal, is there? ::)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 21, 2003, 02:30:18 pm
AP Poll Finds Bush Getting Good Marks    
1 hour, 24 minutes ago  Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
 

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid rising consumer confidence, President Bush (news - web sites) gets good marks for his handling of the economy from a clear majority of voters for the first time in more than a year, an Associated Press poll finds.


AP Photo
 
   

Many offered only qualified support, however.


The uptick in Bush's rating on an issue certain to be central to the upcoming presidential campaign comes as overall public confidence in the economy is as high as it's been since early 2002, according to the national poll conducted last week for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.


In all, 55 percent of registered voters said they approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43 percent disapproved, according to the survey. That's Bush's best number on this measure in Ipsos polls since the third quarter of 2002, though he briefly came close to this level — at 52 percent — in July of this year.


A month ago, 46 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved of Bush on the economy.


In the new survey, 23 percent said they strongly approve of Bush's handling of the economy, 19 percent said they somewhat approve, and 13 percent initially reported mixed feelings but leaned toward approval. Bush's strong approval score on the economy has hovered in the 20 percent area in Ipsos polls since sliding in early 2002 from around 30 percent.


Also, the public's overall feelings on the economy have risen steadily over the past few months.


"Confidence has improved sharply since the spring, when we were all worried about the war with Iraq (news - web sites)," said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Economy.com.


The economy, primed by low interest rates and tax cuts, is showing mixed signs of recovery.


There are projections of rapid growth for 2004, signs of an improving job picture and a rebound in the stock market. But the nation has lost more than 2 million jobs, economists are uncertain about the turnaround in employment and states are reeling from revenue losses.


The AP-Ipsos index of consumer attitudes, a composite measure of attitudes about the economy generally and consumers' own personal finances, reached 100 in December.


That is the same level as the baseline number at the start of 2002, when Ipsos' index of consumer attitudes and spending by household, known as the CASH index, was set up. It stayed close to that level through May 2002.


At that time, the economy was starting to bounce back from the shock of the Sept. 11 attacks. In the months before the 2001 attacks, the economy was faltering and other surveys found consumer confidence was, too.


According to the Ipsos consumer index, confidence dipped sharply into the 60s in early 2003 leading up to the Iraq war and rallied in April during the war.


Since October, consumers have grown increasingly optimistic. They are more upbeat about their local economy in the next six months, more comfortable making a major purchase and more confident about their job security, according to the poll.


"There is a general sense that some of the geopolitical uncertainties in the world are abating," Zandi said. "Those concerns are not as much on our minds as a year ago."


Groups that have shifted toward approval of Bush on the economy in the past month in the poll are less-educated women, suburbanites, swing voters and Republicans.

   



Thomas Riehle, Ipsos-Public Affairs president, said improving consumer attitudes are driven largely by optimism about the future of the economy rather than by their current personal finances. Bush's overall job approval rating was 59 percent, boosted by the rising confidence and the capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) more than a week ago.

"I'm optimistic, things are starting to turn around a little bit," said Jan Polendey, a mother of four from Canby, Ore. "Gas prices have gone down a little bit."

While some people are gaining confidence the economy will grow stronger, many are not convinced.

Almost four in 10 respondents, or 37 percent, said they expect their local economy to get stronger in the next six months. But half, 51 percent, said they expect it will stay the same.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 22, 2003, 03:54:37 pm
An election year rally?
 
History says election years are good for the market. Here's why 2004 will likely prove that.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - People who think the market tends to follow the cycle of the presidency expect good things for 2004.

Not only are the economy and corporate profits expected to keep improving, but interest rates are low and are expected to stay that way for some time and the impact of large tax cuts will keep being felt. Plus, Saddam Hussein's in jail.

 
If history is an example, election years tend to be good for stocks as the party in power does what it can to stay there, including keeping investors happy. But there are exceptions: most recently, in 2000, when the country sat through a presidential nail biter. That year, the Dow lost more than 6 percent.

This time things are different though and analysts say regardless of which party wins, 2004 is promising to be in line with the rule, rather than another exception.

"The focus on the election is going to shift from overseas to domestic issues, and that means the economy," said J. Taylor Brown, vice president of the Hirsch Organization, the publishers of Stock Trader's Almanac. "Particularly when you have an incumbent, you're going to see that administration is paying a great deal of attention to the economy, because the party that is perceived as being most likely to propel economic growth is the party that's going to get elected."

Election year goodies
According to the Stock Trader's Almanac and other measures of presidential election cycle theory, the market trend coincides more often than not with the cycle of the presidency.

The theory says that the first and second year after an election are more uneven for the market as the new administration in power makes tougher decisions on the economy, taxes and other policies. Then the pre-election and election year are usually strong ones for stocks as the administration does everything it can to stimulate the economy enough to keep its party in power for four more years. This tends to be true whether it's an incumbent running for reelection or someone new.

Usually, the pre-election year is the best of the four. The Dow rose in 20 pre-election years of the last 24 election cycles, since Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1905, according to the Almanac.

In the last 24 election cycles, in the year of the election, the Dow gained 16 times.

 
So far, the current presidency seems to fit the trend of two down years for the market, one very strong year and one less strong, but still positive year. In George W. Bush's first two years in office, the Dow lost 7.1 percent and 16.8 percent, respectively, and in the current pre-election year, the Dow is up 23 percent as of late December. Historic trends suggest next year should be good, too.

"Theoretically, the incumbent wants the economic recovery to coincide with the election, but really it's a coincidence that those years tend to be positive," said Ned Riley, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. "I think it's more that there's a good feeling overall during that year -- everyone is promised the world and no one says anything bad to upset the markets."

Adding to the "coincidental" factor, the first two years of Bush's presidency coincided with the events of September 11, the recession, massive layoffs and the aftermath of the bursting of the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. Considering all these external factors, chances are the stock market would have reacted just as it did regardless of the presidential cycle.

So does it matter?
After surviving a three-year bear market, the major indexes have recovered handily this year, in a rally that started in March as the United States waged its war in Iraq. Year-to-date, as of Thursday's close, the Dow is up nearly 23 percent, the S&P 500 is up nearly 24 percent and the Nasdaq composite is up 46.5 percent. The Dow recently blew through 10,000 for the first time in more than 18 months.

Many analysts say next year is unlikely to be quite as strong for stocks, but they do believe the trend remains to the upside.

The latest economic reports seem to point toward a continued recovery -- U.S. gross domestic product growth surged to a 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter and even the labor market is starting to show signs of perking up. Earnings in the third quarter have been robust and are forecast to improve in the fourth quarter and 2004. Interest rates are at more than 40-year lows and are expected to stay that way. Although Democratic candidates have talked about repealing some portion of the Bush Administration's tax cuts should they win, that can't happen until 2005 at the earliest.

So while many analysts say next year's rally won't be as robust as that of 2003, with the same factors in place that spurred this year's bull market, 2004 has the potential to be reasonably upbeat, election year or not.  
 

 


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 23, 2003, 11:44:02 am
Former NDP leader(1975-89) Ed Broadbent has announced that he is returning to federal politics.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on December 23, 2003, 04:24:38 pm
U.S. GDP growth unrevised
 
Economy grew at 8.2% rate in third quarter, unrevised from previous report, fastest in 20 years.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/23/news/economy/gdp.reut/index.htm



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: WONK on December 23, 2003, 04:58:53 pm
Doesn't matter. Prez has very little, if anything to do with economy.  This is another favorite of the Dems, where if they repeat something over and over ("Bush lost x number of jobs") it will become truth to the ill-informed 1/3 of our population known as "liberals".  Maybe someone could explain to me how it is that George W. Bush lost anyone their job?


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 26, 2003, 12:35:39 pm
The results!

EDIN  37.6%   222 seats
KPRF  12.6%     51 seats
LDPR  11.5%     36 seats
R-NPS 09.0%     37 seats
Yab.    04.3%      4 seats
SPS     04.0%      3 seats
APR     03.6%      3 seats
NPRF   01.2%    16 seats
Ind.        -          67 seats
Oth.    16.2%    11 seats


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 02:09:32 pm
The results!

EDIN  37.6%   222 seats
KPRF  12.6%     51 seats
LDPR  11.5%     36 seats
R-NPS 09.0%     37 seats
Yab.    04.3%      4 seats
SPS     04.0%      3 seats
APR     03.6%      3 seats
NPRF   01.2%    16 seats
Ind.        -          67 seats
Oth.    16.2%    11 seats
Is that a good thing or a bad thing?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 02:11:01 pm
Hugh Grant is very good.  I liked Nine Months. and About a Boy.  That kid Marcus was great also....


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 26, 2003, 02:47:59 pm
Objectively, a bad thing.  Relatively, a very very good thing.  


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Gustaf on December 26, 2003, 02:52:58 pm
Objectively, a bad thing.  Relatively, a very very good thing.  

Why is it relatively a very, very good thing?? WORSE?? WORSE!! How could it possibly be WORSE!!!???


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 26, 2003, 03:05:47 pm
Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Gustaf on December 26, 2003, 05:20:00 pm
Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.

OK, but they weren't gonna win anyway. I wish Yabloko would win, they seem to be the only decent party left in Russia (together with the secret service right wingers, who despite being just that, didn't seem too bad). The communists actually want the good old days of the Soviet Union back, I saw one of their tv-ads on the Swedish news. Scary stuff.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on December 26, 2003, 05:24:46 pm
I prefer SPS myself - but I'm afraid either of our hopes are nothing but wishful thinking -- wishing that Russia would join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.

OK, but they weren't gonna win anyway. I wish Yabloko would win, they seem to be the only decent party left in Russia (together with the secret service right wingers, who despite being just that, didn't seem too bad). The communists actually want the good old days of the Soviet Union back, I saw one of their tv-ads on the Swedish news. Scary stuff.


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: Gustaf on December 26, 2003, 05:30:20 pm
I prefer SPS myself - but I'm afraid either of our hopes are nothing but wishful thinking -- wishing that Russia would join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.

OK, but they weren't gonna win anyway. I wish Yabloko would win, they seem to be the only decent party left in Russia (together with the secret service right wingers, who despite being just that, didn't seem too bad). The communists actually want the good old days of the Soviet Union back, I saw one of their tv-ads on the Swedish news. Scary stuff.

Yeah, I'm afraid so. It is really very disappointing. It is all there for them, the possibility to have a good future and they are jeopardizing it a lot. I saw an interview with a middle-class couple living in Moscow and they seemed to be like any normal people anywhere. And I just couldn't udnerstand how they ended up with this mess despite these nice intellectual people. Parts of Russia don't seem that bad but it just keeps getting messed up.  


Title: Re:Russian Duma Election 2003
Post by: © tweed on December 26, 2003, 05:37:13 pm
I would rather have Putin in charge than the leftover Soviets.  So I guess I agree with Don.  We can't afford to let that part of the world turn back to communism.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on December 28, 2003, 02:13:36 pm
I think it will be a long time be for Blair is Re-placed.

I shouldn't be so certain. Saddam's capture has definitely lifted a weight off Blair's shoulders, but he is still facing rancour from within the Labour Party over tuition fees and the part-privatisation of hospitals.

In a recent survey 45% of those asked believe Blair will not be Prime Minister in twelve months' time.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Gustaf on December 28, 2003, 06:56:15 pm
Peter Hain isnt exactly viable as he negoitiated the European Constitution, good job their Peter.

This country would never elect David Blunkett and you would have to be blind not to see it.

Prescott or Short would be a disaster for this country, perhaps worse than Michael Howard.

Jack Straw doesnt exactly have any good credentials after Iraq, neither does Geoff Hoon who will probably lose his job when Hutton reports.

A couple of names I often heard banded around are Yvette Cooper and personally I think Alan Milburn will be back.

Still, Gordon Brown has done wonders with the economy considering global trends, I am a natural Conservative voter, but I won't vote Tory unless they give me a radical social agenda that stops living in the last century. Blair/Brown still looks to be the most attractive ticket around.


What do you mean by good job??


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on December 29, 2003, 06:09:39 am
In a recent survey 45% of those asked believe Blair will not be Prime Minister in twelve months' time.

But that means that 55% OF THOSE asked believe Blair will be PM in Twelve Months time.

Doesn't matter. 45% is still a high number.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: afleitch on December 30, 2003, 10:32:06 am
Gordon Brown is odds on to succeed Blair, simple as that. Its a job he has been groomed for since the 80's under Neil Kinnock. Blair is still the most consistently popular PM since polling began, and Brown has name recognition. I can see circumstances with  Blair being in power until 2011/12 if he wins his third term and spends out its duration. If this is the case, then it does start to become more unlikely that Brown will be the next leader, or indeed that any of the present front bench will be. The following is a list of names to look out for in this case.

Alan Milburn- former health minister, resigned due to family and personal reasons. Could still be tempted.

Estelle Morris- former education minister, resigned because she felt she was not up to the job. A rare example of an honest politician.

Yvette Cooper- A 'Blair Babe'

David Lammy- Youngest sitting MP. Blairite and Black.

Stephen Twigg- Gay. Bet Portillo in Enfield Southgate in 1997




Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 09:13:55 am
New Jobless Claims at Lowest Level in Three Years
 
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
 
WASHINGTON  — New claims for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level since President Bush took office in January 2001, a sign that America's businesses are feeling more confident that the economic recovery is genuine.

 
 
The Labor Department (search) reported Wednesday that new applications filed for unemployment insurance dropped by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 339,000 for the week ending Dec. 27. Last week's drop marked the third week in a row that claims went down and left claims at their lowest level since Jan. 20, 2001 — Bush's inauguration day.

The latest snapshot of the labor market suggested that businesses may be feeling less inclined to hand out pink slips to workers as the economy shows signs of gaining traction.

The report was better than economists were expecting. They were forecasting a smaller decline that would have pushed claims down to a level of around 350,000.

Claims have been below 400,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, something economists view as a sign that the fragile labor market may be turning a crucial corner.

The more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out week to week fluctuations, decreased last week by 6,500 to 355,750, the lowest level since Feb. 10, 2001.

New claims hit a high this year of 459,000 in the middle of April and have slowly declined, a development cited by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) and other economists who say the pace of layoffs is stabilizing.

The labor market has displayed other signs of improvement in recent months. The nation's unemployment rate currently stands at 5.9 percent — down from a high this summer of 6.4 percent.

But job growth has been slow.

Since Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.3 million jobs, a development that Democrats hope to use against the president as he seeks re-election in 2004. The Bush administration contends that stronger economic growth will eventually lead to more meaningful job creation on a sustained basis.

The uncertain job climate is on Americans' minds.

Consumer confidence dipped in December amid anxiety about the job market, the Conference Board (search) reported Tuesday. The board's consumer confidence index slipped to 91.3 in December, following a surge in November to a revised figure of 92.5, its highest level in more than a year.

Economists believe the labor market will be the last part of the economy to recover even as the economy expands solidly.

The economy grew at a breakneck 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best performance in nearly two decades. Analysts believe the economy slowed to a rate in the range of around 4 percent or 5 percent in the current quarter, which would still mark a solid showing.

Wednesday's report also showed that the number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week rose by 81,000 to 3.3 million for the week ending Dec. 20, the most recent period for which that information is available. This suggests that jobs are still hard to find for some workers.

Economists believe that as companies' profits improve they will feel even more comfortable about ramping up investment and hiring new people, two crucial ingredients to the recovery's staying power.
 


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 09:41:32 am
Another re-election economy


By Lawrence Kudlow/William P. Kucewicz



    President Bush should win re-election handily if history is any guide. In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter and the first President Bush).
    The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.
    The exception was Gerald Ford. At the time he sought election (as opposed to re-election, having assumed the presidency following Richard Nixon's resignation), gross domestic product was growing, and the rates of inflation and unemployment were on the decline. Yet voters turned thumbs down on Mr. Ford, largely on concern about his competence and in response to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon. Still, the election was close: Mr. Ford and Jimmy Carter split the popular vote 48 to 50 percent.
    Only one incumbent's defeat, Jimmy Carter's, can rightly be attributed to a poor economy. When the 1980 election was held, the country was just exiting a brief recession. Worse, though, consumer price inflation had reached 14.6 percent, and the jobless rate had hit 7.8 percent. That's not to mention the public's frustration with gasoline lines and the seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran.
    Voters, not surprisingly, jumped at the chance of implementing the supply-side policies advocated by Ronald Reagan. He won 51 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Carter's 41 percent.
    In 1992, George H. W. Bush — Mr. Reagan's political heir — also lost his re-election bid. While the nine-month recession of 1990-91 had raised voter concerns, it's certain that other factors were in play — notably, the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot and Mr. Bush's own abandonment of his "read my lips" no-new-taxes pledge. Bill Clinton secured 43 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Bush's 37 percent, with third-party challenger Ross Perot capturing 19 percent. All in all, the sizeable Perot vote handed Mr. Clinton the victory.
    Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year's balloting are Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Mr. Reagan's impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984.
    On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing. In 1972, unemployment was on the decline and inflation was under control. Nixon's re-election was made easier by the fact that the Democrats had nominated a left-winger as their standard-bearer. Nixon won by a landslide 61 to 38 percent, carrying 49 states.
    The election of 1984 was, in effect, a referendum on supply-side economics, and voters gave it an unmistakable stamp of approval. Once the Federal Reserve had wrung inflation out of the system and Mr. Reagan's 5-10-10 tax cuts came into full effect, the economy surged, with GDP rising 8.5 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 1984. By election time, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent from a high of 10.8 percent in 1982, and inflation had fallen to a bearable 4.2 percent from the 11.8 percent rate that Mr. Reagan had inherited from Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Reagan won a resounding victory with 59 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Mondale's 41 percent. As for the remaining presidents in the good-economy six, timing was almost everything. Harry Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 by 50 to 45 percent.
    Ironically, economic activity peaked around election time. By December, the economy started into a nearly year-long slump.
    Two-termer Dwight Eisenhower weathered two economic contractions, but his re-election bid of 1956 fell in the middle of a three-year economic expansion. He easily beat Adlai Stevenson, winning the popular vote by 58 to 42 percent.
    Lyndon Johnson, who assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, beat Barry Goldwater a year later. Economic times were good, and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam had yet to arouse controversy.
    Finally, the strong, technology-driven economy of the 1990s gave Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election effort a major boost. He garnered 49 percent of the vote to Robert Dole's 41 percent and Mr. Perot's 8 percent.
    As the current economic and stock market revival continues to work for Mr. Bush, it seems near certain that he will win in a landslide. Huge progress in the war against terrorism will add to his totals, with the GOP picking up three tour seats in the Senate and 10 to 12 in the House.
    And Mr. Bush will make it seven out of 10 presidents since the end of World War II who rode a good economy back to the Oval Office.
     
    Lawrence Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, and CNBC's economics commentator. William P. Kucewicz is editor of Geoinvestor.com and a former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on December 31, 2003, 09:48:33 am
Another re-election economy


By Lawrence Kudlow/William P. Kucewicz



    President Bush should win re-election handily if history is any guide. In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter and the first President Bush).
    The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.
    The exception was Gerald Ford. At the time he sought election (as opposed to re-election, having assumed the presidency following Richard Nixon's resignation), gross domestic product was growing, and the rates of inflation and unemployment were on the decline. Yet voters turned thumbs down on Mr. Ford, largely on concern about his competence and in response to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon. Still, the election was close: Mr. Ford and Jimmy Carter split the popular vote 48 to 50 percent.
    Only one incumbent's defeat, Jimmy Carter's, can rightly be attributed to a poor economy. When the 1980 election was held, the country was just exiting a brief recession. Worse, though, consumer price inflation had reached 14.6 percent, and the jobless rate had hit 7.8 percent. That's not to mention the public's frustration with gasoline lines and the seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran.
    Voters, not surprisingly, jumped at the chance of implementing the supply-side policies advocated by Ronald Reagan. He won 51 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Carter's 41 percent.
    In 1992, George H. W. Bush — Mr. Reagan's political heir — also lost his re-election bid. While the nine-month recession of 1990-91 had raised voter concerns, it's certain that other factors were in play — notably, the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot and Mr. Bush's own abandonment of his "read my lips" no-new-taxes pledge. Bill Clinton secured 43 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Bush's 37 percent, with third-party challenger Ross Perot capturing 19 percent. All in all, the sizeable Perot vote handed Mr. Clinton the victory.
    Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year's balloting are Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Mr. Reagan's impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984.
    On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing. In 1972, unemployment was on the decline and inflation was under control. Nixon's re-election was made easier by the fact that the Democrats had nominated a left-winger as their standard-bearer. Nixon won by a landslide 61 to 38 percent, carrying 49 states.
    The election of 1984 was, in effect, a referendum on supply-side economics, and voters gave it an unmistakable stamp of approval. Once the Federal Reserve had wrung inflation out of the system and Mr. Reagan's 5-10-10 tax cuts came into full effect, the economy surged, with GDP rising 8.5 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 1984. By election time, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent from a high of 10.8 percent in 1982, and inflation had fallen to a bearable 4.2 percent from the 11.8 percent rate that Mr. Reagan had inherited from Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Reagan won a resounding victory with 59 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Mondale's 41 percent. As for the remaining presidents in the good-economy six, timing was almost everything. Harry Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 by 50 to 45 percent.
    Ironically, economic activity peaked around election time. By December, the economy started into a nearly year-long slump.
    Two-termer Dwight Eisenhower weathered two economic contractions, but his re-election bid of 1956 fell in the middle of a three-year economic expansion. He easily beat Adlai Stevenson, winning the popular vote by 58 to 42 percent.
    Lyndon Johnson, who assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, beat Barry Goldwater a year later. Economic times were good, and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam had yet to arouse controversy.
    Finally, the strong, technology-driven economy of the 1990s gave Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election effort a major boost. He garnered 49 percent of the vote to Robert Dole's 41 percent and Mr. Perot's 8 percent.
    As the current economic and stock market revival continues to work for Mr. Bush, it seems near certain that he will win in a landslide. Huge progress in the war against terrorism will add to his totals, with the GOP picking up three tour seats in the Senate and 10 to 12 in the House.
    And Mr. Bush will make it seven out of 10 presidents since the end of World War II who rode a good economy back to the Oval Office.
     
    Lawrence Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, and CNBC's economics commentator. William P. Kucewicz is editor of Geoinvestor.com and a former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal.



The Perot thing seems mostly wrong, though, at least accordin to numbers stated in this forum, which have yet to be contradicted. The article sounded a little biased to me, to tell the truth...

Still, yes, Bush will most likely win. But that the economy is improving is one thing, recovery another. The analysts always exaggerate, since it is generally in their interest, we saw this thoughout this entire crisis, so I am not convinced of the boom yet. I think the recession is at an end, but I woudln't be too sure about the real economy improving rapidly upto the election.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on December 31, 2003, 11:07:51 am
Well for one thing the market always goes up during an election year.  which makes sense as with all te spending going on by both parties and others.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 11:08:42 am
Well for one thing the market always goes up during an election year.  which makes sense as with all te spending going on by both parties and others.
Didn't it go down in 2000?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on December 31, 2003, 03:27:03 pm
Martin is going to win in 2004, but he'll crash and burn as nothing but an echo of the Cretien legacy (sorry for the spelling of his name, but I never get it right and i've stopped trying).

My predictions is that a dark horse emerges from the new Conservative party and wins 4-5 years down the line when Martin is forced to call an election.  ANy ideas who?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:30:15 pm
Martin is going to win in 2004, but he'll crash and burn as nothing but an echo of the Cretien legacy (sorry for the spelling of his name, but I never get it right and i've stopped trying).
Agreed.

C-H-R-E-T-I-E-N


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on December 31, 2003, 03:34:05 pm
CHRETIEN...got it....

nah, that's not gonna stuck.  The one good thing about AMerican politics is that I can spell the candidate's names easier ;-)

Je ne parl pa!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 03:38:49 pm
CHRETIEN...got it....

nah, that's not gonna stuck.  The one good thing about AMerican politics is that I can spell the candidate's names easier ;-)

Je ne parl pa!
Paul Martin is easy enough to spell.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on December 31, 2003, 05:43:06 pm
I would think that Martin is too right wing for that to happen, but the NDP could be a threat in 4 years time IF(and it's a big if) they can tap into Western and Eastern alienation from the dominance of Central Canada(Ontario+Quebec)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: migrendel on December 31, 2003, 06:12:30 pm
I believe you mean Je ne parle pas.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on December 31, 2003, 06:45:31 pm
I would think that Martin is too right wing for that to happen, but the NDP could be a threat in 4 years time IF(and it's a big if) they can tap into Western and Eastern alienation from the dominance of Central Canada(Ontario+Quebec)
Martin isn't that right wing, but he is to the right of Chreiten.  
The NDP will not be a threat nationally for a long, long, long time.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2004, 07:58:39 am
I said it's a BIG if.
They certainly won't win an election in 4 years time, but IF(big if) they can tap into the alienation of the West and the East they could give Martin a scare.
But won't beat him.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 01:14:10 pm
I said it's a BIG if.
They certainly won't win an election in 4 years time, but IF(big if) they can tap into the alienation of the West and the East they could give Martin a scare.
But won't beat him.
The NDP has success in Nova Scotia, right?

But I just don't see them being a national threat.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2004, 01:46:53 pm
I can't either. But it's a possibility.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 03:09:15 pm
I can't either. But it's a possibility.
Isn't the NDP popular in Nova Scotia?  


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2004, 03:40:36 pm
Yes it is.
Nova Scotia is poor(even for the Atlantic) with serious economic(ex-coal, ex-fishing) and social problems(have a guess), especially in Cape Breton.
The only odd thing about the NDP's strength there is the fact that it is very recent(mid '90's)

BTW "I can't" was in referance to it's threat to Martin.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on January 01, 2004, 04:42:28 pm
The NDP never have been anything but a vote splitter.  It is possible that they could take away some federal support for the liberals across the country and help the Conservatives down the road by damaging the liberals (for example, in interior Toronto).

However, I still think that Canadians will soon get tired of the Liberals and move to the Conservatives (as much as I'd hate to admit it).  They won't care how right winged Martin is, but rather just turn for a fresh face.  Martin will be the death of the liberal party, mark my words.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2004, 04:50:37 pm
That's certainly true of Ontario.
But in Saskatchwan the NDP think that the Liberals are the vote splitters(!)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on January 01, 2004, 04:56:30 pm
That's certainly true of Ontario.
But in Saskatchwan the NDP think that the Liberals are the vote splitters(!)

As a native of Ontario, I can't help but reiterate the importance of Ontario in winning the federal elections.  No offense to the West, but all the liberals need to do is keep Ontario strong and all the NDP need to do is to split the vote in Ontario.  Nothing else matters...sorry if I'm sounding contemptuous to the rest of the country, but it's a sort of dry realism that I've developed over the years.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 01, 2004, 05:01:12 pm
Oh I know.
Ontario has over 100 seats. Sask has 14.
I was reflecting on the irony of politics in the Praries ;)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on January 01, 2004, 05:04:09 pm
Fair enough.  Personally, I wish things were a little more mixed up here, but we can't have it all.  

ru from Canada, or just an observer?  


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on January 01, 2004, 06:03:49 pm
Maybe Canada needs some sort of Electoral College to balance things out :)

Oh I know.
Ontario has over 100 seats. Sask has 14.
I was reflecting on the irony of politics in the Praries ;)



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:06:24 pm
The NDP never have been anything but a vote splitter.  It is possible that they could take away some federal support for the liberals across the country and help the Conservatives down the road by damaging the liberals (for example, in interior Toronto).

However, I still think that Canadians will soon get tired of the Liberals and move to the Conservatives (as much as I'd hate to admit it).  They won't care how right winged Martin is, but rather just turn for a fresh face.  Martin will be the death of the liberal party, mark my words.
I agree.  Good post.  the NDP splits the lib vote.  Without the NDP, the Libs would have broken 60% in the Ontario Provincial election this October.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Gustaf on January 01, 2004, 07:08:45 pm
Maybe Canada needs some sort of Electoral College to balance things out :)

Oh I know.
Ontario has over 100 seats. Sask has 14.
I was reflecting on the irony of politics in the Praries ;)

Don't try spreading your mess to unsuspecting neighbours! :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 01, 2004, 07:15:32 pm
Maybe Canada needs some sort of Electoral College to balance things out :)

Oh I know.
Ontario has over 100 seats. Sask has 14.
I was reflecting on the irony of politics in the Praries ;)

Don't try spreading your mess to unsuspecting neighbours! :)
LOL... :) :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 02, 2004, 06:52:51 am
ru from Canada, or just an observer?  

I have a second cousin originally from B.C who later moved to Manitoba.
I also have an interest in mining regions, so I've always liked Cape Breton.
Oh I'm also part Viking ;)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 02, 2004, 10:52:47 am
Economists Predict Drop in Unemployment    

NEW YORK - Companies are expected to step up hiring in 2004 after a year in which household spending boosted the economy more than business investment, according to a group of economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal.

The 54 economists surveyed for the Journal's 2004 economic-forecast report said they thought the unemployment rate could fall to 5.5 percent by November.


Hiring fueled by increasing corporate profits and economic growth could lead to as many as 1.5 million new jobs, the Journal said.


Though they did not predict a boom, the respondents said they expected the recovery to continue, with strong growth in the first part of the year expected to slow toward the year's end.


"The economy will be producing a message that employment is growing at a pretty good pace, but not booming," Richard Rippe, chief economist at Prudential Equity Group Inc., told the Journal.


Real gross product was expected to grow at an annual rate of 4.5 percent in the first quarter, 4.3 percent in the second quarter and 4 percent in the second half of the year, the economists said.


Half of the respondents said they thought the Dow Jones Industrial Average could exceed 11000 by year end, and 93 percent said they had increased the amount they had personally invested in the stock market in the past year.






Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 02, 2004, 12:54:21 pm
ru from Canada, or just an observer?  

I have a second cousin originally from B.C who later moved to Manitoba.
I also have an interest in mining regions, so I've always liked Cape Breton.
Oh I'm also part Viking ;)
Realpolitik pays attention to elections in every country.  scary, really. ;)


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on January 03, 2004, 02:53:01 am
Labour would be unwise to remove Tony Blair.  The UK is essentially a small-c conservative country.  Blair is the face of Labour acceptability and electability.  Remove Blair and Labour will make it that much harder for itself.

Brown may give the Labour faithful and assorted lefties a collective feelgood factor but that won't win elections.  That's not to say Brown can't win elections - but it's not a good enough reason to simply replace Blair with Brown.




 


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 03, 2004, 06:44:27 am
No ABD the U.K is not a small c conservative country.
In every election since 1945 the total vote of the centre-left(Lab+Lib) has been higher than the total vote of the centre-right(Con)
This was even the case in 1983(!)


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on January 03, 2004, 07:46:20 am
Labour would be unwise to remove Tony Blair.  The UK is essentially a small-c conservative country.  Blair is the face of Labour acceptability and electability.  Remove Blair and Labour will make it that much harder for itself.

Not entirely true, as RP pointed out. It's primarily the Southeast that can be described as conservative, and that applies to rural areas only (as for London... well, look at our mayor). The rest of England, particularly the North, is more centre-left.

However, bearing in mind that this applies to voting patterns, not necessarily social attitudes.

Quote
Brown may give the Labour faithful and assorted lefties a collective feelgood factor but that won't win elections. That's not to say Brown can't win elections - but it's not a good enough reason to simply replace Blair with Brown.

Yet another rightist statement which is somewhat detached from reality (you may face less rancour if you avoided using patronising terms like "lefties"). The person you're talking about is someone like Robin Cook, not one of the most popular Chancellors in modern political history.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: mr_president on January 03, 2004, 10:10:31 am
In a recent survey 45% of those asked believe Blair will not be Prime Minister in twelve months' time.

But that means that 55% OF THOSE asked believe Blair will be PM in Twelve Months time.

Doesn't matter. 45% is still a high number.

As is 55%, that a majorty. There will always be a minority.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 11:13:40 am
1-Bernie Sanders of vermont, who is a socialist.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: DarthKosh on January 03, 2004, 01:07:32 pm
1-Bernie Sanders of vermont, who is a socialist.

That tells you alot about Vermont.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 01:15:12 pm
1-Bernie Sanders of vermont, who is a socialist.

That tells you alot about Vermont.
Why's that?  You think vermont is a commie hideout?


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: NHPolitico on January 03, 2004, 02:49:22 pm
1-Bernie Sanders of vermont, who is a socialist.

That tells you alot about Vermont.
Why's that?  You think vermont is a commie hideout?

They call it social justice, not communism/socialism.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: 12th Doctor on January 03, 2004, 03:17:27 pm
1-Bernie Sanders of vermont, who is a socialist.

That tells you alot about Vermont.
Why's that?  You think vermont is a commie hideout?

They call it social justice, not communism/socialism.

A rose by any other name....


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 05:02:33 pm
VT- bernie sanders socialist

Sen Leahy, next best thing to Bernie

Sen Jumping Jim Jeffords, Independant to give Dem power


Civil union laws

Howard Dean

enough said about VT and its lefties


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: © tweed on January 03, 2004, 05:14:21 pm
VT- bernie sanders socialist

Sen Leahy, next best thing to Bernie

Sen Jumping Jim Jeffords, Independant to give Dem power


Civil union laws

Howard Dean

enough said about VT and its lefties
How is Jeffords a lefty?  He is an anti-GOP centrist libertarian.  McCain hates his own party too, and he isn't a lefty.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 03, 2004, 06:28:41 pm
First off Mccain does not hate his party.  That is a bit over the top.  Plus he has a great convservative voting record.  He disagrees with them ona  few issues which the press loves to trumpet but not on a great majority of them.

Jeffords has some extreme environmental views for one and that is one of the reasons he switched to get control of that committee, when GOP didn't give it to him he was fuming.  

VT- bernie sanders socialist

Sen Leahy, next best thing to Bernie

Sen Jumping Jim Jeffords, Independant to give Dem power


Civil union laws

Howard Dean

enough said about VT and its lefties
How is Jeffords a lefty?  He is an anti-GOP centrist libertarian.  McCain hates his own party too, and he isn't a lefty.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on January 04, 2004, 03:52:50 am
Labour would be unwise to remove Tony Blair.  The UK is essentially a small-c conservative country.  Blair is the face of Labour acceptability and electability.  Remove Blair and Labour will make it that much harder for itself.
Quote

Not entirely true, as RP pointed out. It's primarily the Southeast that can be described as conservative, and that applies to rural areas only (as for London... well, look at our mayor). The rest of England, particularly the North, is more centre-left.

However, bearing in mind that this applies to voting patterns, not necessarily social attitudes.

Quote
Quite so, which is why I used the small-c term, rather than talk about voting habits.  And you're quite right that Lab+Lib > Con. (Even though I think that's a little bit of a simplification.)  What I meant is that Britons don't like change.  They do not like rocking the boat.  Blair is not someone to scare the kiddies or rock the boat.  That's partly how he got in in the first place.  He is 'nice' Labour, somone you can trust the economy with, and talks the talk on better public services.  But Brown?  Er....as I said, the oldschool Labour luvvies will love him, but will the swinging punters?

Quote
Brown may give the Labour faithful and assorted lefties a collective feelgood factor but that won't win elections. That's not to say Brown can't win elections - but it's not a good enough reason to simply replace Blair with Brown.
Quote

Yet another rightist statement which is somewhat detached from reality (you may face less rancour if you avoided using patronising terms like "lefties"). The person you're talking about is someone like Robin Cook, not one of the most popular Chancellors in modern political history.

Er....I've been called far worse than a "rightist" (and although I am a tribal party "true believer", I would definitely describe myself as centre-right in Australian politics, and saw myself as a fairly moderate  Tory in the UK).  "Leftie" ain't exactly a damning term.  And  I seem to recall a few people looking benignly on Mark Latham's fairly bald statements, listed on this site shortly after he became leader.... about how Aussies are outspoken in a way only we can be.... : )


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: RhodeRage on January 04, 2004, 01:43:25 pm
Wow!  Realpolitic has my total respect as an international observer.  Anyone who can take interest in THAT much politics is good in my books


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 04, 2004, 03:47:23 pm
Wow!  Realpolitic has my total respect as an international observer.  Anyone who can take interest in THAT much politics is good in my books
And he isn't even 20 years old yet.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 04, 2004, 07:45:18 pm
Factory New Orders at 54 year high!

The Institute for Supply Management (ISM) said its new orders index jumped to 77.6, the highest level since 80.3 in July 1950, from 73.7 in November.

The ISM index of manufacturing activity jumped to 66.2 from 62.8 in November. Economists, on average, expected an ISM index of 61, the highest since 69.9 in December 1983 and has been above 50, a number that indicates expansion in the sector, for six straight months.

The ISM's employment index rose to 55.5 from 51 in November, marking the second straight month above 50, following 37 months below that mark. That raises the chances that December saw the first gain in manufacturing payrolls since July 2000.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/02/news/economy/ism/index.htm


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: afleitch on January 04, 2004, 08:54:44 pm
Blair may not be universally popular, that is true, but he is far far more popular (and populist) than Michael Howard. Even with a low turn out in 2005/06, Labour are a shoe in. What we do have is a 'Blair Effect'. In the 1980's as Thatcher herself once admitted to a backbencher, people voted for her, rather than for the party, or even for their own MP. This same effect is apparent with Blair, leader for 10 years, Prime Minister for 7, people are comfortable with him, especially when faced with the alternatives.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 05, 2004, 04:30:28 am
A bit scary though ;)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 05, 2004, 04:22:12 pm
How old are you?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Gustaf on January 05, 2004, 06:09:13 pm
Wow!  Realpolitic has my total respect as an international observer.  Anyone who can take interest in THAT much politics is good in my books

He even read up on Finnish and Swedish politics recently...

Damn! He will soon know more about that than I do! :(


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 05, 2004, 08:19:20 pm
Wow!  Realpolitic has my total respect as an international observer.  Anyone who can take interest in THAT much politics is good in my books

He even read up on Finnish and Swedish politics recently...

Damn! He will soon know more about that than I do! :(
He knows just as much or more about American politics than most Americans at the forum do.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 05, 2004, 08:58:44 pm
Construction spending at ALL TIME HIGH for 5th straight month!

Construction spending jumped 1.2 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of $934.5 billion in the month from an upwardly revised $923.8 billion in October, the Commerce Department said. Analysts polled by Reuters were expecting a 0.5 percent increase.

It was the fifth month in a row in which total construction spending hit a new high. Total private construction, total public construction, private residential construction and state and local construction all climbed to fresh records.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/05/news/economy/construction.reut/index.htm


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 06, 2004, 04:19:59 am
I'm under 20. No more information will be given :)

And I don't think that knowing more about U.S politics than PD is much of an achievment ;)



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: English on January 06, 2004, 10:14:20 am
I can't either. But it's a possibility.
Isn't the NDP popular in Nova Scotia?  

I understand the NDP are popular in Halifax NS, but not so elsewhere in Nova Scotia, except perhaps Sydney. Personally I love Nova Scotia, it suffers high unemployment especially in Cape Breton however the people are incredibly friendly. Nova Scotia is one of the few places were the Tories still do fairly well. The NDP's best province is Saskatchewan. Largely due to the socialist voting farmers.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on January 06, 2004, 10:21:35 am
I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Peter on January 06, 2004, 12:17:28 pm
Been away for a while, so just catching up:

What I meant by good job with reference to Peter Hain is that (at the time) the EU Constitution looked a rather dangerous prospect for Britain, and therefore Peter Hain would not be viable as he negoitiated it on the UKs behalf.

I see Milburn as the longer term successor to Blair, however, I do wonder whether Labour could elect another Blairite. Brown is still waiting in the shadows, and if anything were to happen to Blair (politically or health), then he would take over. I dont see Estelle Morris as a viable candidate, especially after the A-levels fiasco (I had to live thro' that, didnt really endear me to her). Stephen Twigg is an intereting thought, although I think the country may need twenty more years to be ready for a gay PM (not that is a good thing).

Whoever has been reading the Mail ought to stop buying it, it just encourages the right wing lunatics to print more of their crap.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on January 06, 2004, 12:52:47 pm
Twigg hardly features at all. I can't imagine him being very popular. Morris and Milburn made a hash of their departments so would be out of the running. Robin Cook looks like a garden knome and Blunkett is too authoritarian. There's only Brown who looks like leader material.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 06, 2004, 01:55:48 pm
Speaking of statistics that may effect the election - check out the unemployement rate by state and its change over the year:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstch.htm

I think this has a strong effect on certain swing states, though all states may be so improved by November it won't matter.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Michael Z on January 06, 2004, 07:19:38 pm
"Leftie" ain't exactly a damning term.

Sorry, I'll admit I am quite sensitive about the term. It just reminds me of when The Sun were at their most slanderous. More of a connotation thing.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 06, 2004, 07:30:50 pm
I'm under 20. No more information will be given :)

And I don't think that knowing more about U.S politics than PD is much of an achievment ;)
I'll find you age somewhere.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 07:55:52 pm
great site, going right into the favorites column!

good job!

Speaking of statistics that may effect the election - check out the unemployement rate by state and its change over the year:
http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstch.htm

I think this has a strong effect on certain swing states, though all states may be so improved by November it won't matter.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 06, 2004, 11:07:47 pm
Check out the next lady you can add on to the list as members of the HOuse.  From the great state of Kentucky!


http://nrcc.org/cgi-data/news/files/103.shtml

Alice Forgy Kerr


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on January 07, 2004, 05:37:28 am
I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).

Indeed.  Remember though, that we still don't know who Michael Howard will face at the next general election (I remain a dissenter here on the electoral appeal of Gordon Brown), and you're right - Howard has a big task ahead of him.  But don't forget, his namesake here in Australia was the deeply (politically) unsexy "Mr 16%" during the '80s... and John Howard will now probably finish as Australia's second longest serving PM when he goes (he's already no.3).

Possible message?  The souffle can rise twice.

Or maybe not. : )


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on January 07, 2004, 05:38:43 am
"Leftie" ain't exactly a damning term.

Sorry, I'll admit I am quite sensitive about the term. It just reminds me of when The Sun were at their most slanderous. More of a connotation thing.

Cool, no worries mate.  : )


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: English on January 07, 2004, 06:40:11 am
I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).

Indeed.  Remember though, that we still don't know who Michael Howard will face at the next general election (I remain a dissenter here on the electoral appeal of Gordon Brown), and you're right - Howard has a big task ahead of him.  But don't forget, his namesake here in Australia was the deeply (politically) unsexy "Mr 16%" during the '80s... and John Howard will now probably finish as Australia's second longest serving PM when he goes (he's already no.3).

Possible message?  The souffle can rise twice.

Or maybe not. : )

As a card carrying Tory, can you please explain why the Tory party did not elect Ken Clarke as leader? If they had I'm sure Blair would be looking at a 15% lag in the polls rather than a 5% lead! Anyone would think they like losing elections!!


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 09:36:23 am
Been away for a while, so just catching up:

What I meant by good job with reference to Peter Hain is that (at the time) the EU Constitution looked a rather dangerous prospect for Britain, and therefore Peter Hain would not be viable as he negoitiated it on the UKs behalf.

I see Milburn as the longer term successor to Blair, however, I do wonder whether Labour could elect another Blairite. Brown is still waiting in the shadows, and if anything were to happen to Blair (politically or health), then he would take over. I dont see Estelle Morris as a viable candidate, especially after the A-levels fiasco (I had to live thro' that, didnt really endear me to her). Stephen Twigg is an intereting thought, although I think the country may need twenty more years to be ready for a gay PM (not that is a good thing).

Whoever has been reading the Mail ought to stop buying it, it just encourages the right wing lunatics to print more of their crap.

Oh, so the Hain comment was ironic, then? I thought you literally meant that he had done a good job with the EU-constitution, which seemed odd.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: Gustaf on January 07, 2004, 09:37:54 am
I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).

Indeed.  Remember though, that we still don't know who Michael Howard will face at the next general election (I remain a dissenter here on the electoral appeal of Gordon Brown), and you're right - Howard has a big task ahead of him.  But don't forget, his namesake here in Australia was the deeply (politically) unsexy "Mr 16%" during the '80s... and John Howard will now probably finish as Australia's second longest serving PM when he goes (he's already no.3).

Possible message?  The souffle can rise twice.

Or maybe not. : )

As a card carrying Tory, can you please explain why the Tory party did not elect Ken Clarke as leader? If they had I'm sure Blair would be looking at a 15% lag in the polls rather than a 5% lead! Anyone would think they like losing elections!!

I would guess, for the same reason why Dems will nominate Howard Dean or the GOP nominated Goldwater in 1964... :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 10:28:54 am
Quote
I understand the NDP are popular in Halifax NS, but not so elsewhere in Nova Scotia, except perhaps Sydney. Personally I love Nova Scotia, it suffers high unemployment especially in Cape Breton however the people are incredibly friendly. Nova Scotia is one of the few places were the Tories still do fairly well. The NDP's best province is Saskatchewan. Largely due to the socialist voting farmers.

I like Nova Scotia a lot as well(my second cousin lived there before moving to BC(!) then Manitoba), and in many ways the Atlantic provinces can be seen as a northern extension of Appalachia. The problems are depressingly similer...

The NDP dominate the Halifax area, and are a strong second party in Cape Breton(and if Martin acts the way I think he might...)
The rest of the province, the "Mainland" is fishing territory, and although the NDP do better there than in similer areas in the rest of Canada, they are relativly weak in the Mainland.

Saskatchwan has a long tradition of left wing farmers, and the NDP pushed the Liberals into third there in 2000!


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 07, 2004, 11:50:48 am
realpolitik, can you do the members of the TEXAS delegation?  That might be helpful with the changing district lines.  Thx.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 07, 2004, 11:58:01 am
Texas is a bit of a mystery to me(South? no. West? no. South West? no. etc), but I'll give it a go tomorrow.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 07, 2004, 11:59:52 am
sounds good thanks.  It was part of the confederacy, but because of its size it covers many regions.  SW in the west, Midwest int eh north and South by culture and confederacy heritage.  


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: NHPolitico on January 07, 2004, 02:07:52 pm
NEW HAMPSHIRE (2)
1. Manchester
2. Concord-Granite

NH-1: Queen's City-Seacoast

I'll come up with something for NH-2 later.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 08, 2004, 01:02:17 pm
[names done like in France, which also has numbered districts etc]

One GOP congressman retired and was replaced by another. I don't know which one but will update list when I know.

This is part one: districts 1 to 6. When they are all done I'll do a composite list.

Texas

01. Texarkana=Max Sandlin D
02. Texas East=Jim Turner D
03. Dallas North=Sam Johnson R
04. Red River Valley=Ralph Hall D(R)
05. Dallas South=Jeb Hensarling R
06. Tarrent, Ellis=Joe Barton R


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 08, 2004, 04:02:57 pm
thanks, reading lots about this and studying which ones are most at risk.  6 more DEm are said to be in trouble with Frost at the top of the list.


[names done like in France, which also has numbered districts etc]

One GOP congressman retired and was replaced by another. I don't know which one but will update list when I know.

This is part one: districts 1 to 6. When they are all done I'll do a composite list.

Texas

01. Texarkana=Max Sandlin D
02. Texas East=Jim Turner D
03. Dallas North=Sam Johnson R
04. Arkansas Valley=Ralph Hall D(R)
05. Dallas South=Jeb Hensarling R
06. Tarrent, Ellis=Joe Barton R


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 09, 2004, 01:25:36 pm
thanks jravnsbo,
I like bls.gov a lot.  Today it was announced that the unemployment rate nationally was down .2 percent to 5.7%, but job growth was supposedly weak.  I am pretty suspicious right now of the job growth number as the household survey seems more accurate.


Title: Re:Successor to Blair?
Post by: ABD on January 09, 2004, 06:20:04 pm
Quote

As a card carrying Tory, can you please explain why the Tory party did not elect Ken Clarke as leader? If they had I'm sure Blair would be looking at a 15% lag in the polls rather than a 5% lead! Anyone would think they like losing elections!!
Quote

I suppose there's the obvious one - Europe - but in truth I think there was a deeper one of which Europe was merely a symptom.  I'm not sure Clarke wanted the leadership to be a two-way conversation with the membership.  I think he saw it as him telling everyone what they were to believe and do, regardless of anyone else's views, and the members didn't like that idea much.  It's not much of a strategy when the electorate you have to convince is your own party membership!  

Who knows what would have happened if he had projected more of an image of wanting to connect with the membership more.

Some of Clarke's reported comments since 2001 have been interesting - I'm not sure he would have enjoyed being Opposition leader at all, actually.  And if he'd really wanted it in 2002-3, I think he would have expressed his views on Iraq differently.  I don't think he's demonstrated a hunger for the role.



Title: Re:2003: Mississippi, Louisiana and Kentucky
Post by: NHPolitico on January 12, 2004, 09:51:58 am
Wow, I've only had 3 wrong out of the last 50 some odd elections I've predicted and 2 of those 3 misses were in LA.

Never did care much for the state. Too much French influence! :)

I've decided to treat them like the Red Sox, except I like the Red Sox. I will predict no Republican statewide victories except in presidential races.  No matter how possible it seems, I now know that the state is hopeless.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 12, 2004, 05:12:54 pm
Real--got the rest of the Texas delegation yet?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 13, 2004, 12:49:16 pm
ECRI : 2004 is Off to a Great Start  

Every sector is now expanding at a rapid rate, the jobs picture is improving and the U.S. recovery is helping to pull the world along.  

The leading indicators for jobs have also turned smartly up, says the Economic Cycle Research Institute, meaning that "overall job growth is about to increase notably," despite its softness now.

http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=609


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2004, 01:03:25 pm
I've almost got the next 5 done, sorry it's been a bit slow but it's exam time at the moment...
I've changed the name of Hall's seat after checking an atlas for the name of the river.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: DarthKosh on January 13, 2004, 01:36:56 pm
I've almost got the next 5 done, sorry it's been a bit slow but it's exam time at the moment...
I've changed the name of Hall's seat after checking an atlas for the name of the river.
I'd wait on the names until the lines are finished.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2004, 01:56:43 pm
The names are for the current map, not the DeLay map, as lots members have decided to stand down and/or don't know which seat to stand in.
At least one has no incumbent.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 02:07:42 pm
Yes, I want the current ones, that way I can compare the people with new districts and see who is running vs who for the coming electiuons.

Thanks again real.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 02:28:56 pm
good piece.  As you find good articles on economics, post em I enjoy them.

ECRI : 2004 is Off to a Great Start  

Every sector is now expanding at a rapid rate, the jobs picture is improving and the U.S. recovery is helping to pull the world along.  

The leading indicators for jobs have also turned smartly up, says the Economic Cycle Research Institute, meaning that "overall job growth is about to increase notably," despite its softness now.

http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=609


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 13, 2004, 02:34:31 pm
07. Harris= John Culberson R
08. Harris-Montgomery=Kevin Brady R
09. Gulf Coast=Nick Lampson D
10. Austin=Lloyd Doggett D
11. Waco=Chet Edwards D


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 13, 2004, 02:38:46 pm
good piece.  As you find good articles on economics, post em I enjoy them.

I haven't had the time to keep this thread updated.  

But the ECRI's stats are THE stats to look at, IMO.  They've had the best track record over the last 20 years and they were one of only two groups which correctly predicted the last two recessions ('91 & '01) .

Last summer ('03) they warned that job growth would be slow, now their job growth index is expecting much higher job growth in the very near future.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:42:46 pm
good piece.  As you find good articles on economics, post em I enjoy them.

I haven't had the time to keep this thread updated.  

You haven't been posting much at all lately.  What's up?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 13, 2004, 02:50:13 pm
You haven't been posting much at all lately.  What's up?

simply too busy


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on January 13, 2004, 02:50:51 pm
You haven't been posting much at all lately.  What's up?

simply too busy
Yeah, that's descriptive.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: jravnsbo on January 13, 2004, 10:34:12 pm
I see President Bush has welcomed teh Canadians in on the bidding to the contracts in Iraq.  Good move.  Welcome aboard.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: NHPolitico on January 14, 2004, 03:13:49 pm

Other Georgia Democrats will join Zell in endorsing Bush.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: NHPolitico on January 14, 2004, 03:15:59 pm
(Although I see nothing to prove this, i.e no Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein).

We're halfway there.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 03:19:04 pm
Fed Reports Economy Gathering Strength    
WASHINGTON - The economy was continuing to rebound as the new year began with many regions of the country reporting that retailers enjoyed a boost from a rush of last-minute holiday shopping, the Federal Reserve (news - web sites) said Wednesday.

Even the nation's beleaguered manufacturing sector showed further signs of life, and the central bank said reports from its 12 regional banks suggested the economic rebound that began in the second half of last year was gathering momentum in late December and early January. Housing and auto sales remaining strong amid scattered signs that manufacturers were beginning to rehire some of the 2.8 million workers laid off over the last three years.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040114/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_9


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 14, 2004, 03:25:28 pm
Over here: unemployment drops again. Now almost at pre-Thatcher levels.
Exception is (suprise, suprise) Northern Ireland where unemployment has risen again.


Title: Re:Democrats for Bush in 2004
Post by: Gustaf on January 14, 2004, 03:41:54 pm
<<Don't you mean "democrat"?>>


No, rather Im talking about a large portion of Southern Dems that reject the national Democrats.

You really need to read Zell Miller's book.  He compares the modern Dem party with the Whigs.

here is an excerpt:

"...I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer who was elected that state's governor in 1862. He opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig" and many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South.

When he was approached to do so in 1865, Vance was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."

Like that Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party of today has become dangerously fragmented, and considering the present leadership it can only get worse. Compromise will become increasingly difficult and no leader's goal will be to reach consensus or common ground. Instead, they will more than ever blindly champion this group and that group...."

Sounds a lot like the Cal recall, doesn't it?!

---

Zell continued...

"...A demagogue is defined by Webster as "a political leader who gains power by arousing people's emotions and prejudices." Isn't that exactly what some of them are doing? Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt! Its demagogy, pure and simple.

Howard Dean, while not alone, is the worst offender, and it says a lot about the current Democratic base that he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. He likes to say he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but I say he belongs to the whining wing of the Democratic Party...."


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/02miller.html



I thought populism and demagougery pretty much WAS the same thing...but I think the term is used differently in English than in Swedish, so that would probably be the explanation.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 14, 2004, 03:42:07 pm
Over here: unemployment drops again. Now almost at pre-Thatcher levels.

...the [UK] rate remained unchanged at 3 per cent, a 28-year low

On the government's preferred International Labour Organisation measure, unemployment surprised economists by falling from 5 per cent to 4.9 per cent, the lowest since May 2001.

However, Alan Castle at Lehman Brothers said that the improvement in the number of people in employment was "solely due to sky-rocketing self-employment".

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281018080 (http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1073281018080)

---

The article backs up Realpolitik’s post, but I don’t understand the “However”, nor the Lehman Brothers comment of “solely due…” in the FT article.  It seems to me that “sky-rocketing self-employment” is an extreme positive and worthy of better praise than simply “However…solely due…”


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Huckleberry Finn on January 14, 2004, 07:55:27 pm
I like James Jeffords! He has principles and  courage! Moderate centrist that I like! He should be full Democrat! Also other GOP eastcoast moderates: ME Snowe,  RI Chafee and perhaps PA Spencer and ME Collins. They all have pretty moderate voting records. Let them jumping!


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 08:10:45 pm
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/

REal--check this site out it has all the congressional districts listed and more.  I know you'll like it.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 14, 2004, 08:11:07 pm
oh real obviously i have the Texas delegation now, but thanks.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on January 15, 2004, 12:27:25 pm
I see President Bush has welcomed teh Canadians in on the bidding to the contracts in Iraq.  Good move.  Welcome aboard.
Based on what I remember from reading the news, Canadian enterprises are generally going to bid for contracts related to building and repairing utilities and public infrastructures.

More and more Canadian companies are owned by US business and I suspect that influenced Bush on doing an exception for Canada.  Hence, Canada and US will both prosper ... (Of course, we must take notice that an increasing number of US companies are owned by Canadians)

Canadian firms can bid for most of the US military contracts.  That began with the signature of the Ogdensburg Agreement in 1940.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2004, 12:40:26 pm
Nice to see you back again :)

Anyhow... some rumours (not sure how accurate any of them are) :

1. Dennis Mills (LPC, Toronto-Danforth) will not seek re-election
2. The NDP and the LPC have both been trying to recruit former Saskatchwan Premier, Roy Romanow and former BC Premier, Ujjal Dosanjh as candidates for the 2004 elections.
3. Stockwell Day will run for leadership of the CPC.

Again I repeat that I can't be sure of the accuracy of any rumour.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on January 15, 2004, 12:56:27 pm
Nice to see you back again :)

Anyhow... some rumours (not sure how accurate any of them are) :

1. Dennis Mills (LPC, Toronto-Danforth) will not seek re-election
2. The NDP and the LPC have both been trying to recruit former Saskatchwan Premier, Roy Romanow and former BC Premier, Ujjal Dosanjh as candidates for the 2004 elections.
3. Stockwell Day will run for leadership of the CPC.

Again I repeat that I can't be sure of the accuracy of any rumour.

1. That would be surprising, he really seems wanting to keep his seat and bar Layton the access to the Commons, a thing Martin may like if it occurs.  The only way the rumour might be true is if the PM proposes him a patronage nomination (i.e., an embassy in a far away land ... ;) )

2. That has credibility.  I heard more about the rumour Romanow would more tempted to run with the LPC than the NDP.

3. I don't think so.  If he felt very uncomfortable during the 2000 election, he may follow the French proverb : Chat échaudé craint l'eau froide.



Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2004, 12:57:55 pm
Excellent site!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 15, 2004, 01:21:29 pm
I'd guess that the second one is almost certainly true (although neither party is likely to be sucessfull), I'm not sure about Mills standing down, but it does seem possible, and I also doubt that Day will run for leadership of the CPC, but you never know what way Day's ego will go sometimes...

One rumour I have also heard is that Bernard Lord will stand for CPC leader.
He has however, emphatically denied this (including an official statement), and besides... I can't see a Red Tory with an NDP-leaning past wanting to lead a party based around Albertan rednecks anyway...


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: jravnsbo on January 15, 2004, 04:06:58 pm
thanks, I agree, glad you like it.

Very informative.




Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on January 16, 2004, 10:50:30 am
U.S. December Michigan Sentiment Index Rises to 103.2 From 92.6 Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. consumer sentiment surged this month as stocks continued to climb and unemployment declined, a University of Michigan survey showed.

The university's preliminary January consumer sentiment index jumped to 103.2 from 92.6 in December. Economists projected an increase to 94 this month, based on the median of 53 estimates in a Bloomberg News survey.

"There's a lot of consumer momentum in the economy at the moment,'' said John Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia Corp. in Charlotte, North Carolina, before the report. Consumers are feeling better "given the improvement in the equity market, as well as the general tone of the job market and the expectation that jobs are available out there.''

The economy will expand 4.6 percent this year, the fastest pace since 1984, according to the latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey. The unemployment rate fell in December to 5.7 percent from 5.9 percent. The Standard & Poor's 500 stock has risen more than 20 percent in the past year.

The preliminary Michigan index is based on a poll of about 250 households. A final reading, with a sample of 500 households, is due Jan. 30.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: PD on January 18, 2004, 06:00:43 pm
Texas is a bit of a mystery to me(South? no. West? no. South West? no. etc), but I'll give it a go tomorrow.
My mother was born and raised in Texas. We go there AT LEAST once a year. It is a Southern State.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on January 18, 2004, 06:50:43 pm
It depends on what part of the state you are in.... the eastern part is the south, the panhandle and middle is the west, and the southern part is the north.... of Mexico :)


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: PD on January 18, 2004, 06:57:10 pm
It depends on what part of the state you are in.... the eastern part is the south, the panhandle and middle is the west, and the southern part is the north.... of Mexico :)
Whatever. I consider it a Southern State, as does my World Book.


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 19, 2004, 12:18:42 pm
The eastern border of Texas is Southern, but the rest of the state isn't.

The one part of Texas I can't place are Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth and their attached legions of suburbs.
Are they completly unique?


Title: Re:Members of the House
Post by: PD on January 19, 2004, 05:04:18 pm
The eastern border of Texas is Southern, but the rest of the state isn't.

The one part of Texas I can't place are Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth and their attached legions of suburbs.
Are they completly unique?

The only part of Texas that isn't Southern is the El Paso region and the Amarillo region. Trust me, I know. I don't know if you heard me earlier or not, but my mother was born and raised in Texas, and we go there AT LEAST once a month. Also, I have a ton of relatives there. So just consider it a Southern state, okay. It WAS a member of the Confederacy, you know.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Justin on January 20, 2004, 04:11:23 pm
What are the chances of the Conservatives either forming a government on thier own or forcing the Liberals into a coalition government?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on January 20, 2004, 09:49:28 pm
Somewhere between none, nil, and 0% I'm afraid.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 21, 2004, 09:16:13 am
Justin... the CPC have a fight on their hands... for second place.
They are not going to come close to beating Martin.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 23, 2004, 12:04:33 pm
Weekly Leading Index Rises to ALL-TIME HIGH

01/23/2004  

NEW YORK, Jan 23 (Reuters) - A record number of new mortgage applications pushed a leading index of the U.S. economy to a new high, a report showed on Friday.
The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its weekly leading index (WLI) rose to 133.1 in the week ended Jan. 16 compared with the preceding week's revised reading of 131.4. The most recent reading is an all-time high for the index.

The index's components reflected broad-based growth across the country's economy, particularly in the housing sector. On Wednesday, the U.S. Commerce Department reported that December housing starts rose at the quickest pace in nearly 20 years.

Separate ECRI indexes suggested that payroll growth will accelerate soon and inflation pressures will continue to remain low.

"This is a return to a 'Goldilocks' economy," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of ECRI, revisting a popular term during the late 199os describing U.S. economy's robust -- but not inflationary -- growth.

The annualized growth rate, a four-week moving average that evens out weekly fluctuations, broke a seven-week streak of declines and increased to 9.6 percent from a revised 8.9 percent.
 
---

And don't forget, Q4 GDP numbers come out next week - more bad news for Dems!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 23, 2004, 02:05:39 pm
Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 23, 2004, 02:18:34 pm
Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.


I'd say 5.5% +/-1.5%


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 23, 2004, 02:43:10 pm
when do the 4Q numbers come out?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 23, 2004, 02:44:39 pm

Fri, Jan 30th.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 25, 2004, 07:52:15 am
Latest Ipsos-Reid poll:

LPC 48%
CPC 19%
NDP 16%
BQ   10%
Grn   04%

And Ipsos-Reid has a right wing bias...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on January 25, 2004, 12:26:25 pm
Latest Ipsos-Reid poll:

LPC 48%
CPC 19%
NDP 16%
BQ   10%
Grn   04%

And Ipsos-Reid has a right wing bias...
The NDP could catch the progressive conservatives????


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 25, 2004, 07:00:45 pm
Mortgage rates reach 6-month low
 
30-year falls to 5.64%, 15-year to 4.95% and ARM to 3.56% with low rates seen through first half.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/pf/yourhome/q_weekly_rates/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/pf/yourhome/q_weekly_rates/index.htm)

---

Leading indicators rise
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/lei.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/lei.reut/index.htm)

---

Jobless claims slip

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/jobless/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/22/news/economy/jobless/index.htm)

---

Housing starts hit 25-year high

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/news/economy/housing_starts/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/news/economy/housing_starts/index.htm)

---

Demand for new mortgages hits record

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/news/economy/mortgage_apps.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/news/economy/mortgage_apps.reut/index.htm)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 25, 2004, 07:24:53 pm

 I stand by what I said, the numbers you put out are what the WSJ and the likes of Kudlow spins, and I stand by what I have said, the problems I have listed. If you are not parroting spin, ok, but to me, it sounds almost identical to a collum Kudlow wrote recently. The serious economists I have read and the people I know who have been invested in 25+ years realise the warning signs of a economy that depends too much on fiscal stimulus, and too little on savings, and I trust these people far more than I trust the hype.

  Bury myself in my own words, are we not laying on a bit thick? I gave my opinion on 2004 twice allready

I was hoping for a .2 drop, but .1 is still progress.  Still coming along.

Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

"Not as fast as expected"?!  

FYI - the unemployment rate was expected to be flat and remain at 6.0%, so the 5.9% was BETTER than expected.


We're cool.

But, notice how JNB has repeatedly refused to give an estimate on the current quarter (2003Q4).  LOL!  He loves to spout doom and gloom about the future, but he is unable to acknowledge current conditions.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, Q3 was excellent and Q4 is going to good, but...", he just can NOT bring himself to allow a single ray of sunshine to pass through his lips.

Sad.


This coming Friday, January 30th, everyone is going to know why JNB refused to give a prediction on 2003Q4 GDP!



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 25, 2004, 08:07:29 pm
This is a very good presentation by Macroeconomic Advisers, an extremely respected group:

http://www.missouriventureforum.org/Presentations/Prakken_1103.pdf


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on January 26, 2004, 02:56:56 pm


 You really like talking to yourself in this thread, dont you. Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt to keep the Yen at depressed levels and China buying US debt to continue its currency peg to the dollar intact, combined with tax cuts that come with spending increases, you get a upward move in the economy.

   The way the economy has been stimulated in the last 3 years can not work forever, a political change in Japan would be enough to throw a wrech in the works as far as intrest rates are concerned. As for Sunshine JMC, I guess as I said before I am a realist, but I guess what passes today as conservatism(as far as the WSJ is concerned) is being blind and happy at what ever GOP propaganda is out there.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Beet on January 26, 2004, 02:59:43 pm
Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 03:00:17 pm
JNB- I read the economic articles and a while back asked him to post thema s he found good sites.  Some are very informative.  So he is not talking to no one, just posting.



 You really like talking to yourself in this thread, dont you. Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt to keep the Yen at depressed levels and China buying US debt to continue its currency peg to the dollar intact, combined with tax cuts that come with spending increases, you get a upward move in the economy.

   The way the economy has been stimulated in the last 3 years can not work forever, a political change in Japan would be enough to throw a wrech in the works as far as intrest rates are concerned. As for Sunshine JMC, I guess as I said before I am a realist, but I guess what passes today as conservatism(as far as the WSJ is concerned) is being blind and happy at what ever GOP propaganda is out there.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 03:00:39 pm
Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Beet on January 26, 2004, 03:02:40 pm
There's a difference between national debt and debt  owed to foreigners. The U.S. national debt is about 60% of GDP, but what percentage of that is owed to foreigners I don't know.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 26, 2004, 03:03:23 pm
OUCH!!  can you imagine that here, ow.  Hey where is the mob to knock off some of those creditors! :)

Quote

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...
Quote


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on January 26, 2004, 03:06:02 pm


  He brought up my name from a post over a hundred posts ago. What I find ironic is those who screem like schoolgirls yelling "Free Market" have been helped by forces that are anything but the free market. From runaway spending by the Bush admin to Asian nations and their currency interventions, the economy is more controlled now that it was in the days of FDR and LBJ.

   In any event, consumers because of the fact their homes have c ontinued to go up in value because of artificlaly low intrest rates will continue to spend. Though, and yes this is off topic, can Bush keep his conservative base intact because of anger over wreckless spending and immigration? Over at Free Republic, a good representation of grass roots conservatism, many are quite angry. But that should be the subject of a new thread.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on January 26, 2004, 03:22:22 pm
Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...
That makes our debt look small.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 03:42:01 pm
Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...
That makes our debt look small.

Belgium and Greece have similar debts, all 100%+. Kind of scary, especially considering the fact that many of these countries have both budget deficits and stagnant, or even falling, GDP.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 04:18:38 pm
You really like talking to yourself in this thread, dont you.

No, simply pointing out that it seems quite odd that you can give predictions for 2004 but were unable to give a prediction for 2003Q4.  Would anyone listen to the predictions of a weatherman who couldn’t tell you the current conditions?

---

<<Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt to keep the Yen at depressed levels>>

Let me try to explain this to you very carefully:  The Bank of Japan (BOJ) does NOT buy US debt to boost the dollar because relative lower US rates depresses the dollar.  What is going on is that the BOJ is selling yen to buy dollars on the open market, thus increasing the supply of yen while lowering the supply of dollars in an effort to boost the dollar’s value.

As a result, the BOJ is holding a large amount of dollars with which it then turns around and buys US debt (purchased in dollars) in order to earn interest on all the dollars the BOJ is holding.

So, the effect on the value on the dollar of the BOJ purchase of dollars (increasing the dollar’s value) is partly being offset by the BOJ buying US debt (decreasing the dollar’s value).

If you’ll take a look at the pdf link I posted yesterday, you’ll find that the dollar’s value is still well above the level of the mid 1990’s.  In fact the bleeding of US manufacturing is closely tied to the sharp spike in the dollar’s value during the late 1990’s.
 


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 04:20:35 pm
You really like talking to yourself in this thread, dont you.

No, simply pointing out that it seems quite odd that you can give predictions for 2004 but were unable to give a prediction for 2003Q4.  Would anyone listen to the predictions of a weatherman who couldn’t tell you the current conditions?

---

<<Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt to keep the Yen at depressed levels>>

Let me try to explain this to you very carefully:  The Bank of Japan (BOJ) does NOT buy US debt to boost the dollar because relative lower US rates depresses the dollar.  What is going on is that the BOJ is selling yen to buy dollars on the open market, thus increasing the supply of yen while lowering the supply of dollars in an effort to boost the dollar’s value.

As a result, the BOJ is holding a large amount of dollars with which it then turns around and buys US debt (purchased in dollars) in order to earn interest on all the dollars the BOJ is holding.

So, the effect on the value on the dollar of the BOJ purchase of dollars (increasing the dollar’s value) is partly being offset by the BOJ buying US debt (decreasing the dollar’s value).

If you’ll take a look at the pdf link I posted yesterday, you’ll find that the dollar’s value is still well above the level of the mid 1990’s.  In fact the bleeding of US manufacturing is closely tied to the sharp spike in the dollar’s value during the late 1990’s.
 


The Japanese cannot allow the dollar to weaken too much against the yen, b/c if it did they would go down even worse than they already have. In reality, they're pegged to the dollar.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 04:44:26 pm
The Japanese cannot allow the dollar to weaken too much against the yen, b/c if it did they would go down even worse than they already have. In reality, they're pegged to the dollar.

Japan is screwed (as are many countries other than the US) because they rely on exports as their engine for growth.  The US is a consumer led economy that generates its own wealth rather quickly.

The public debt of the US is roughly 40% of GDP and is owed in US dollars.  Japan’s public debt well over 100% of GDP.

The US currently has the:
1)Lowest inflation in 40 years
2)Lowest interest rates in 40 years
3)Highest productivity growth in 50 years
4)Highest GDP growth in 20 years
5)Highest home ownership on record
6)Highest business profits (>$1 Trillion/year) on record
7)Hottest housing market in 25 years

The US also has the most nibble economy of any of any of the G8 countries.  And the US is the most technologically advanced country in the world.  The US remains the envy of the world.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 05:02:08 pm
Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt

One further note:  US interest rates are currently IN-LINE with what is prescribed by the Meyer version of Taylor's Rule.  Thus, they are NOT "artifically low".  

We have the lowest inflation in 40 years and the lowest interest rates in 40 years.  

Simple.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 05:18:56 pm
Existing home sales surge
 
Sales of pre-owned homes, biggest sector of housing market, grow faster than forecast in December.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/26/news/economy/existing_homes/index.htm

---

interesting quote from article: "interest rates have stayed stubbornly low, keeping housing demand high"

This is the second time in a week CNNfn has characterized interest rates as “stubbornly low”.  I’ve always hate going to a “stubbornly” good party, don’t all of you?

CNNfn continues to try to throw a wet blanket on the economy due to CNN’s bias against Bush’s economic policies.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 05:28:33 pm
The Japanese cannot allow the dollar to weaken too much against the yen, b/c if it did they would go down even worse than they already have. In reality, they're pegged to the dollar.

Japan is screwed (as are many countries other than the US) because they rely on exports as their engine for growth.  The US is a consumer led economy that generates its own wealth rather quickly.

The public debt of the US is roughly 40% of GDP and is owed in US dollars.  Japan’s public debt well over 100% of GDP.

The US currently has the:
1)Lowest inflation in 40 years
2)Lowest interest rates in 40 years
3)Highest productivity growth in 50 years
4)Highest GDP growth in 20 years
5)Highest home ownership on record
6)Highest business profits (>$1 Trillion/year) on record
7)Hottest housing market in 25 years

The US also has the most nibble economy of any of any of the G8 countries.  And the US is the most technologically advanced country in the world.  The US remains the envy of the world.

Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it. You still have a problem with pensions coming up, though it isn't as bad as in many other countries. Fundamentally, it comes down to Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, just like at everything else.

I am a free-trader, and I don't think that reliance on the home market is a good idea in the long run, it only works as long as you're really, really, really good, and that you have been for a long time, but I think it increases the risk of protectionism and lowers creativity.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 05:47:55 pm
Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it.

Not overdoing it at all.  Simply posting well known facts.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 26, 2004, 05:56:13 pm
Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it.

Not overdoing it at all.  Simply posting well known facts.

Well, "the envy of the world" and "many countries are screwed" I felt was overdoing it a little.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 26, 2004, 06:01:04 pm
Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it.

Not overdoing it at all.  Simply posting well known facts.

Well, "the envy of the world" and "many countries are screwed" I felt was overdoing it a little.

I didn't know there was any doubt that the US is the envy of the world.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 28, 2004, 02:45:38 pm
The BLS just came out with the latest state-by-state unemployment statistics.  Over-the-month change:

http://www.bls.gov/web/laumstcm.htm



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on January 28, 2004, 04:43:00 pm
Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 29, 2004, 09:13:01 am
I'm going to give this yet another go...

District's will be listed by Number (eg. NY-1, 2, 3 etc), and the number will be followed by the name.

Former congressmen/president's name's may be used as well as and on combination with geographical names.
Whether said congressman was defeated will not make a differance.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 29, 2004, 10:58:50 am
Alabama

1. Mobile-Baldwin
2. Montgomery-Dothan
3. Montgomery-Auburn
4. Gadsden-Hamilton
5. Tennessee Valley
6. Jefferson-Shelby
7. Birmingham

Arkansas

1. Jonesboro-West Memphis
2. Little Rock
3. Fayetteville-Ozarks
4. Pine Bluff-Clinton


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 29, 2004, 03:57:21 pm
New York

01. Suffolk East
02. Suffolk West
03. Nassau East
04. Nassau West
05. Queens-Nassau
06. Queens South East
07. Queens-Bronx
08. Manhatten-Brooklyn
09. Queens-Brooklyn-Jamaica Bay
10. Brooklyn-Bays
11. Brooklyn Central
12. Manhatten-Queens-Brooklyn
13. Staten Island
14. Manhatten-Queens
15. Harlem
16. South Bronx
17. Bronx-Rockland
18. Westchester-Rockland
19. Hudson Valley
20. Saratoga Springs-Glens Falls
21. Albany-Troy
22. Catskills
23. Adirondacks
24. Utica-Rome
25. Syracuse
26. Roosevelt
27. Buffalo
28. Niagara-Rochester
29. Allegany-Steuben


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: bejkuy on January 29, 2004, 06:28:38 pm
Oregon

1 West Portland suburbs and north coast

2 Loggers, ranchers, and farmers southern and eastern part of the state.  Huge district.

3 Inner Portland.

4 SouthCentral, including Eugene

5 Mid valley- including Salem


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: © tweed on January 29, 2004, 06:31:09 pm
Realpolitik--you fogot to include my birthplace of Coney Island in your district titles.  Please do so, it hurts me not to see it :(


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: bejkuy on January 29, 2004, 07:09:21 pm
MiamiU-

I figured you were born in an amusement park.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: © tweed on January 29, 2004, 08:25:56 pm
MiamiU-

I figured you were born in an amusement park.
Huh?


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on January 30, 2004, 04:12:05 am
IOWA

1. East Iowa (Dubuque is a town further up from me, I wouldn't want to live in a district named after the town :))
2. Cedar (Cedar Rapids, Cedar county, etc)
3. Hoover-the Iowan president! :p
4. Winnebago will do :)
5. Siouxlands


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 30, 2004, 09:58:39 am
Realpolitik--you fogot to include my birthplace of Coney Island in your district titles.  Please do so, it hurts me not to see it :(

Which district is Coney Island in?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2004, 10:16:23 am
2003 Q4 rate of growth in broadest measure of economy healthy at 4%, but half of Q3's pace

Consumer spending rose at a pace of 2.6 percent in the fourth quarter, compared with a rate of growth of 6.9 percent in the third quarter.

Business spending grew at a healthy 6.9 percent pace, compared with a 12.8 percent annualized rate in the third quarter.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 30, 2004, 10:36:09 am
Iowa

1. Waterloo-Dubuque*
2. Cedar
3. Des Moines-Hoover
4. Winnebago
5. Sioux

*Could also be called Upper Mississippi

Illinois

01. Chicago Southside
02. Chicago Heights
03. Chicago West
04. Chicago Cicero
05. Chicago Northside
06. DuPage
07. Chicago Central
08. Lake-McHenry
09. Chicago Northside
10. North Chicago
11. Joliet
12. East St Louis and the Valleys
13. Will-DuPage
14. Batavia-Henry
15. Wabash
16. Rockford
17. Rock Island-Springfield
18. Springfield-Peoria-Lincoln
19. Kaskakia


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2004, 10:44:28 am
Weekly Leading Index Slips  (see 1st chart on opening post of this thread)

01/30/2004  

NEW YORK, Jan 30 (Reuters) - A drop in mortgage applications pulled down a leading index of the U.S. economy, but the growth improved on higher commodity prices and healthy stock market gains, a report showed on Friday.
The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its weekly leading index (WLI) fell to 132.7 in the week ended Jan. 23 compared with the preceding week's upwardly revised reading of 133.3.

The annualized growth rate, a four-week moving average that evens out weekly fluctuations, increased to 10.8 percent from an upwardly revised 10.1 percent.

"It's clear evidence that the economy will continue to experience above trend growth even in light of this morning's GDP number," said ECRI managing director Lakshman Achuthan.
 
http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=612 (http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=612)

---

Michigan sentiment revised up
 
Closely watched measure of consumer confidence stronger than expected in January.
 
The University of Michigan's preliminary consumer sentiment index for January jumped to a revised 103.8 from 92.6 in December

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/michigan/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/michigan/index.htm)

---

Midwest manufacturing surges
 
The National Association of Purchasing Management-Chicago said its business barometer rose to 65.9 from 61.2 in December, the highest level since July 1994. Economists had forecast the index at 62.0.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/napm.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/30/news/economy/napm.reut/index.htm)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 11:14:56 am
very good manufacturing numbers, outstanding in fact!

Thought the GDP growth would be around 4%, frotm the job numbers we saw before, good.  Keep on chugging economy.  Now we just need to continue making jobs.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 01:43:57 pm
Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 01:50:20 pm
Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 01:57:04 pm
Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?

Oh.. AR is Arkansas isn't it?  Yeah I guess you're right - I don't see it as in any doubt, but a lot of democrats on the forum seem to think so.  It had fairly high unemployment so its nice to see it coming down.  I also like the look of PA's numbers, as well as WV.  I don't really care about the unemployment level in solid states - like say the Carolinas or Alaska.  Its high there but won't make any difference.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 02:39:59 pm
Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.


I'd say 5.5% +/-1.5%

Hey, jmfcst, hats off to you - 4%, just at the lower end of your range.  Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on January 30, 2004, 02:43:22 pm


Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.


Uhhh.... yeah. You could say that.

:)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 30, 2004, 02:45:39 pm


Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.



Uhhh.... yeah. You could say that.

:)

Hey it was off the top of my head.  I think there's a noticable tendency for very high growth quarters to be followed by much lower.. and then it bounces up again a quarter later.  You don't often see two exceedingly high ones in a row.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 03:16:56 pm
Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?

Oh.. AR is Arkansas isn't it?  Yeah I guess you're right - I don't see it as in any doubt, but a lot of democrats on the forum seem to think so.  It had fairly high unemployment so its nice to see it coming down.  I also like the look of PA's numbers, as well as WV.  I don't really care about the unemployment level in solid states - like say the Carolinas or Alaska.  Its high there but won't make any difference.

AR is at least pretty unlikely to go Dem, it COULD, but it wouldn't be my first worry, especially not if the Dem nominee is a northeastern liberal, like Kerry.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2004, 03:30:53 pm
Hey jmfcst,

Care to hazard a prediction of 4Q growth?  I'm guessing 6.2%.  That's just off the top of my head.


I'd say 5.5% +/-1.5%

Hey, jmfcst, hats off to you - 4%, just at the lower end of your range.  Turns out my 6.2% was way too optimistic.


The first ("Advanced") GDP report has an error range of +/- 1%, so let's hope this number is revised upward and not downward.

4% is not good considering the momentum the economy had coming out of the 3rd quarter.  December must have been bad.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2004, 03:58:20 pm

I don't know how to respond to such a comment.  Maybe it would help if I pointed out to you that in 2000 anyone with an IQ over 75 could have gotten a job and the unemployment rate was still 4.0%.

Some people are simply unemployable.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on January 30, 2004, 04:37:13 pm
<<There are many intelligent people who can't find jobs.>>

OK, then hopefully they will match their intelligence with the wisdom to retool their skills in order to make themselves more employable in today’s maketplace.

--

<<you are missing the main point which is that we are in, and have been in, a recession since Bush took office.>>

1)Your definition of “recession” is unconventional.
2)The recession started in 2000Q4, BEFORE Bush took office.

--

 <<If you look at the facts you see that the number of jobs Bush has lost is the worst in decades. Compare this to the successes of the Clinton administration.>>

Clinton NEVER had to deal with a recession.  The economy was expanding 20 months before Clinton took office and was in recession when he left office.  But I don’t blame Clinton for the recession that started in 2000Q4, it’s simply due to what is know as the “Business Cycle”.

---.

<<Also, under Clinton, the beginning of fiscal responsibility began>>

You mean when the GOP swept the Congress in 1994.  And the surplus was do in part to all the capital gains the Fed was raking in during the stock market boom.  

Clinton and the GOP congress did seem to make a good team for the economy by hardly being able to pass anything through Congress.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 04:56:53 pm
let me ask you this, when did Clinton introduce a balanced budget?  in 1993, 1994, NOPE.  HE never did untilt he GOP took over and said WHOA! Rep John Kasich wrote the balanced budget, it is widely known but Clinton gets the credit.


I don't know how to respond to such a comment.  Maybe it would help if I pointed out to you that in 2000 anyone with an IQ over 75 could have gotten a job and the unemployment rate was still 4.0%.

Some people are simply unemployable.

There are many intelligent people who can't find jobs. There is a real serious problem here and I think that while you have a point, you are missing the main point which is that we are in, and have been in, a recession since Bush took office. If you look at the facts you see that the number of jobs Bush has lost is the worst in decades. Compare this to the successes of the Clinton administration.

Also, under Clinton, the beginning of fiscal responsibility began, in terms of dealing with the deficit and the national debt. Bush has exacerbated this problem by creating huge deficits as far as the eye can see. It is no wonder that the economy is in such dire straits.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:05:58 pm
There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on January 30, 2004, 05:07:22 pm
you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on January 30, 2004, 05:35:43 pm
I don't really like geographical names all that much; especially when they involve one town out of twenty.

Upper Mississippi is OK< though :)

I think IL 17 should be called Riverside; it stretches right along the Mississippi.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 30, 2004, 05:36:41 pm
Yeah, I think that's what I was saying... ;)

you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on January 30, 2004, 08:54:28 pm
Latest Ipsos-Reid poll:

LPC 48%
CPC 19%
NDP 16%
BQ   10%
Grn   04%

And Ipsos-Reid has a right wing bias...
The NDP could catch the progressive conservatives????

I will believe it when I see it in May ...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 04:31:48 am
I don't think they will (the CPC has Alberta...)

BTW Ralph Klein has done it again.
He seems to have said that Health Care is not sustainable (translation: he want's it privatised).
Not exactly news, but that man is an embarrassment.
He's already helped to re-elect the NDP in Saskatchwan (!)...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 04:34:55 am
Upper Mississippi does have a nice ring to it.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 05:14:01 am
Canadians always vote tactical... that's why Canadian elections can be so hard to predict and throw up so many upsets (eg. Dingwall going down in 1997)

National numbers are not any use for working out how well the BQ will do, most of the numbers from Quebec show them in serious trouble though.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on January 31, 2004, 07:40:02 am
you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

True I suppose, but at levels below 4 or 5 % I suspect that 'unemployement' is entirely voluntary.  In that it is 1) union/blue collar types enjoying maxing out their unemployment benefits before returning to work, knowing very well a job will be there when they want one.  This is especially common in construction.  and 2) people who are enjoying a few months off collecting unemployment while waiting for another well paid job to come along rather than taking something poorly paid (such jobs are always redily available) to make do.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 31, 2004, 07:57:25 am
you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

True I suppose, but at levels below 4 or 5 % I suspect that 'unemployement' is entirely voluntary.  In that it is 1) union/blue collar types enjoying maxing out their unemployment benefits before returning to work, knowing very well a job will be there when they want one.  This is especially common in construction.  and 2) people who are enjoying a few months off collecting unemployment while waiting for another well paid job to come along rather than taking something poorly paid (such jobs are always redily available) to make do.

Well, there's also people who don't get jobs.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: © tweed on January 31, 2004, 08:44:31 am
Realpolitik--you fogot to include my birthplace of Coney Island in your district titles.  Please do so, it hurts me not to see it :(

Which district is Coney Island in?
I believe in Brooklyn-quuens-Manhattan on your names.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 08:46:54 am
That would be the 12th district?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 08:49:36 am
Full Employment is a good thing, but zero unemployment is not.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 31, 2004, 10:27:38 am
Full Employment is a good thing, but zero unemployment is not.


Then I suppose you're not defining full employment as zero unemployment, huh? :)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on January 31, 2004, 10:51:22 am
If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on January 31, 2004, 11:00:36 am
If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%


I think we're all making the same point. There will always be a small group of people without a job, at any given time, and trying to force the unemploymentlevel below that point is only counterproductive.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on January 31, 2004, 06:44:51 pm
If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%


Actually, I think it used to be like 6% during the 80s.  Now, it's thought to be about 5%. It can't be as low as 2.5% because the pressure on wages would be too high, inflation would result, businesses would sell less and they'd have to lay off workers and raise the unemployment rate.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 01, 2004, 04:18:30 pm
If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%


Actually, I think it used to be like 6% during the 80s.  Now, it's thought to be about 5%. It can't be as low as 2.5% because the pressure on wages would be too high, inflation would result, businesses would sell less and they'd have to lay off workers and raise the unemployment rate.

We used to have 1% in the 50s...I think it could be lower than 5%, we have that in Sweden and we still have a very regulated labour market.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 01, 2004, 06:59:29 pm
Is 10% nationally for the Bloc good or bad? (From its own ersective, I mean)

10% nationally means that the BQ is at 38-40% in Quebec. A recent poll in January put the sovereignist party at 38%.  That's an improvement for them in terms of poll numbers. Last year they were sinking under 25%. However one must keep in mind that polls tend to overestimate the sovereignist support in Quebec. Still, my guess is the BQ's going to get a hard time at keeping 12 seats or more in the next election.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon on February 01, 2004, 07:20:50 pm
Since the sum (PC+CA) doesn't equal the sum of its parts (CPC) then where are those voters going and where are they coming from?  Are former PC voters switching to Liberal (or even former CA voters?)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 03:31:36 am

It's nowhere near the twelfth district. It's at the southern end of Brooklyn. I think it's split between the 8th and the 11th. (It might depend on which part of that area exactly is usually referred to as Coney Island).
"Once upon a time in America" is set there. Woody Guthrie lived there in the forties and fifties.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 03:38:11 am
I'll give my names in Geographical order (as per the Census Bureau), not in Aphabetical. I believe it's easier readable that way.
Also, let's not forget that Bureaucrats would be giving out these names, so let's not be too imaginative.

ME 1 Maine South
ME 2 Maine North
NH 1 New Hampshire East
NH 2 New Hampshire West
VT     Vermont
MA 1 Massachusetts West (or, Pittsfield & Leominster)
MA 2 Springfield
MA 3 Worcester
MA 4 Taunton & New Bedford* (asterisks mark districts that are an eyesore. Absence of asterisks does not necessarily imply that all is well, though)
MA 5 Lowell
MA 6 Salem
MA 7 Medford & Framingham*
MA 8 Boston North
MA 9 Boston South
MA 10 Plymouth & Cape Cod
RI 1 Rhode Island East
RI 2 Rhode Island West
CT 1 Hartford
CT 2 Connecticut East
CT 3 New Haven
CT 4 Bridgeport & Stamford
CT 5 Waterbury (or, Connecticut Northwest)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 03:54:27 am
NY 1 Long Island East (or, Brookhaven, or, Suffolk East)
NY 2 Brentwood (or, Suffolk West)
NY 3 Levittown (or, Nassau East)
NY 4 Hempstead (or, Nassau West) All these towns are the largest of their districts and pretty centrally located
NY 5 Queens North East
NY 6 Queens South East (or, Jamaica)
NY 7 Bronx East - Queens North
NY 8 Manhattan West Side - Coney Island* (to please miamiu)
NY 9 Jamaica Bay (or, Queens South West)
NY 10 Brooklyn Central
NY 11 Flatbush
NY 12 Williamsburgh* (two thirds of the District are in Brooklyn, WIlliamsburgh seems to be pretty much in the middle, I may be mistaken)
NY 13 Staten Island
NY 14 Manhattan East Side - Queens East (or, Hyde Park)
NY 15 Harlem
NY 16 Bronx South
NY 17 Bronx North & Yonkers West
NY 18 Yonkers East
NY 19 Lower Hudson Valley
NY 20 Upper Hudson Valley
NY 21 Albany
NY 22 Binghampston & Catskills
NY 23 Oswego & Saint Lawrence
NY 24 Utica
NY 25 Syracuse
NY 26 Amherst* (largest township in this Buffalo and Rochester suburban district)
NY 27 Buffalo South
NY 28 Rochester & Buffalo North*
NY 29 Elmira*
NJ 1 Camden
NJ 2 New Jersey South
NJ 3 Pinelands* (or, Pinelands South, or Dover after the largest township)
NJ 4 Trenton South & Freehold* (or Trenton South & Pinelands North)
NJ 5 New Jersey Northwest (or, Ramapo Mountains)
NJ 6 Edison & Plainfield*
NJ 7 New Jersey Central* (these two could also be called Edison East and West, as Edison is the largest city in both of them)
NJ 8 Paterson
NJ 9 Bergen (after the county) & Jersey City North*
NJ 10 Newark West & Elizabeth*
NJ 11 Morris (after the County)
NJ 12 Trenton North & East Brunswick*
NJ 13 Newark East & Jersey City South*
The tenth and thirteenth both include parts of Newark, Jersey City and Elizabeth.
Pennsylvania, corrected
PA 1 Philadelphia South
PA 2 Philadelphia Central
PA 3 Erie
PA 4 Beaver Valley*
PA 5 Alleghany Plateau
PA 6 Norristown & Reading East*
PA 7 Delaware (County)
PA 8 Bucks (County)
PA 9 Altoona
PA 10 Pennsylvania North East
PA 11 Scranton & Wilkes-Barre
PA 12 Westmoreland North & Cambria (Counties)*
PA 13 Philadelphia North
PA 14 Pittsburgh
PA 15 Allentown (& Bethlehem)
PA 16 Lancaster & Reading West
PA 17 Harrisburg & Pottsville
PA 18 Westmoreland South (County) & Mount Lebanon (Pittsburgh suburb)*
PA 19 York & Gettysburg


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 04:05:07 am
OH 1 Cincinnati West
OH 2 Cincinnati East
OH 3 Dayton East*
OH 4 pick two from Lima, Masfield and Findlay
OH 5 Ohio North West
OH 6 Ohio River Valley
OH 7 Columbus SOuth & Springfield (or, & Lancaster)
OH 8 Dayton West*
OH 9 Toledo
OH 10 Cleveland West
OH 11 Cleveland East
OH 12 Columbus East
OH 13 Akron West  & Lorain
OH 14 Ohio North East (or, for the historically minded, Connecticut Reserve)
OH 15 Columbus West
OH 16 Canton
OH 17 Youngstown & Akron East
OH 18 Zanesville (former state capital)
IN 1 Gary
IN 2 South Bend
IN 3 Fort Wayne
IN 4 Tippecanoe (largest county, and famous battle, of course)
IN 5 Marion & Indianapolis East
IN 6 Muncie
IN 7 Indianapolis
IN 8 Evansville
IN 9 Indiana South East (or, Bloomington & New Albany)
IL 1 Chicago South East. I don't know enough about Chicago for these names to be anything but geographical. Sorry!)
IL 2 Chicago South
IL 3 Chicago SOuth West
IL 4 Chicago West & Cicero* (the only honest way to name this absurdly shaped district is CHicago Mexican)
IL 5 Chicago North West
IL 6 DuPage (County)
IL 7 Chicago West Side*
IL 8 Schaumburg
IL 9 Chicago North (& Skokie)
IL 10 Lake (County)
IL 11 Joliet & Kankakee
IL 12 Illinois South West*
IL 13 Naperville*
IL 14 Aurora
IL 15 Champaign - Urbana*
IL 16 Rockford
IL 17 Rock Island*
IL 18 Peoria & Springfield North*
IL 19 Illinois South East (or add your favorite town name) & Springfield South*
MI 1 Michigan North
MI 2 Muskegon (or, West Shore)
MI 3 Grand Rapids
MI 4 Michigan North Central (or, Midland & Traverse City)
MI 5 Flint
MI 6 Kalamazoo
Mi 7 Jackson & Battle Creek*
MI 8 Lansing*
MI 9 Pontiac* (town, but of course there's the car too)
MI 10 Port Huron & The Thumb
MI 11 Livonia*
MI 12 Warren
MI 13 Detroit East
MI 14 Detroit West
MI 15 Ann Arbor*
WI 1 Kenosha - Racine
WI 2 Madison
WI 3 Wisconsin South West
WI 4 Milwaukee
WI 5 Waukesha (County)
WI 6 Sheboygan - Oshkosh
WI 7 Wisconsin North West
WI 8 Green Bay
 


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 04:10:33 am
MN 1 Minnesota South
MN 2 Twin Cities SOuth (or Eagan, after the largest town)
MN 3 Twin Cities West (or Bloomington, see above)
MN 4 Saint Paul
MN 5 Minneapolis
MN 6 Twin Cities North (or Blaine) & Saint Cloud
MN 7 Minnesota North West
MN 8 Minnesota North East (or Duluth, of course. Mn NE is just for consistency's sake)
IA 1 Dubuque & Davenport (that okay with you, hughento?)
IA 2 Burlington & Cedar Rapids
IA 3 Des Moines
IA 4 Ames
IA 5 Iowa West (or Sioux City & Council Bluffs, whic sounds much nicer and is also totally accurate)
MO 1 Saint Louis North
MO 2 Saint Charles
MO 3 Saint Louis South
MO 4 Missouri Valley
MO 5 Kansas City East
MO 6 Saint Joseph (or, Missouri North West)
MO 7 Springfield (and Ozarks)
MO 8 Missouri South East (or, Cape Girardeau)
MO 9 Missouri North East (or, Columbia)
ND    North Dakota
SD    South Dakota
NE 1 Lincoln (or, Nebraska East)
NE 2 Omaha
NE 3 Nebraska West
KS 1 Kansas West
KS 2 Topeka (or, Kansas East)
KS 3 Kansas City East
KS 4 Wichita


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on February 02, 2004, 04:40:44 am
As I sais, i'm not a big fan of geographical names, in terms of counties or towns.

things like rivers are good though. Here are my proposals form Alabama and Alaska; using suggestions by others as my basic and changing/editing them where I thought it would be better.

Alabama
1-La Mobile
2-Escambia (River in the area)
3-Cherokee
4-Pickney
5-Lesser Cumberlands (Using htmldon's Upper Cumberlands as reference here, not sure if it fits geographically, but it does ound nice :))
6-Jefferson
7-Warrior (Black Warrior River; the Black would be a bit too controvertial for an Alabaman river, I believe)

Alaska
1-Bering (although I also quite like Seward)

more to come :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on February 02, 2004, 04:54:23 am
Arizona
1-Painted Lands (After the Painted Desert)
2-Mojave (proper spelling :p)
3-Maricopa (County)
4-Pheonix (it is so completely dominant in the distrcit, it couldnt be overlooked)
5-Roosevelt (Roosevelt Dam, and two presidents...)
6-Apache (Apache Junction)
7-Gila (River)
8-Chiricahua (mountain in SE AZ)

I especially like Chiricahua, lovely name :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on February 02, 2004, 05:00:19 am
It's late, and i'm tired-snow day tomorrow, at least-so these are trhe last for tonight/this mornign :p

Arkansas
1-Monroe
2-Little Rock
3-Clinton (He was a President from Arkansas. Seems like if he gets one, it should be down there)
4-Quapaw

See you all later :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 05:05:54 am
The CPC is seen by a lot of PC voters (especially in the Atlantic provinces) as a CA takeover, so they seem to be switching to the LPC.
Either that or they are not going to vote.
Meanwhile the NDP are trying to get the "Orchardites" to vote for them. They are only a significant force in one riding in Saskatchwan (Prince Albert), but for a party with as few M.P's as the NDP, a gain is a gain.

Quote
However one must keep in mind that polls tend to overestimate the sovereignist support in Quebec

True. That happend in the Provincial election last year (I think).


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:04:58 am
After a blackout killed my south atlantic names just as I was going to post them, I went to have lunch. Now I'm back fresh:
DE    Delaware
MD 1 Maryland Eastern Shore
MD 2 Baltimore North*
MD 3 Baltimore East & Annapolis*
MD 4 Prince George's (County)*
MD 5 Maryland South (or Saint Mary's, colonial capital)
MD 6 Maryland West (or Frederick & Hagerstown)
MD 7 Baltimore West
MD 8 Montgomery (County)
VA 1 Williamsburg (former capital)
VA 2 Virginia Beach
VA 3 Norfolk & Richmond East*
VA 4 Chesapeake & Petersburg*
VA 5 Virginia Central (or Danville)
VA 6 Roanoke & Shenandoah (sounds lovely, don't you think?)
VA 7 Richmond West*
VA 8 Arlington
VA 9 Virginia South West
VA 10 Manassas & Winchester
VA 11 Mount Vernon (George Washington's old plantation, now a DC suburb, right in the middle of the district)
WV 1 West Virginia North
WV 2 West Virginia Central
WV 3 West Virginia South
Corrected North Carolina
NC 1 Rocky Mount*
NC 2 Raleigh East*
NC 3 Pamlico Sound*
NC 4 Durham
NC 5 Winston-Salem North*
NC 6 Greensboro West*
NC 7 Cape Fear
NC 8 Charlotte East & Concord*
NC 9 Charlotte West & Gastonia*
NC 10 Catawba (County)
NC 11 Great Smoky Mountains (or Nantahala)
NC 12 Winston-Salem South & Charlotte Central* (this terrible district also takes in part of Greensboro)
NC 13 Raleigh West & Greensboro East*



Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:14:21 am
SC 1 Charleston
SC 2 Columbia West
SC 3 Anderson
SC 4 Spartanburg
SC 5 Rock Hill
SC 6 Columbia East
GA 1 Georgia Southeast*
GA 2 Columbus South & Albany
GA 3 Macon (or Georgia Central)*
GA 4 DeKalb (County)
GA 5 Atlanta
GA 6 Alpharetta*
GA 7 Gwinnett (County)*
GA 8 Columbus East & Peachtree City* (Hey, it's the Peachtree State!)
GA 9 Georgia North East*
GA 10 Georgia North West
GA 11 Columbus North & Marietta
GA 12 Savannah River
GA 13 Clayton (County)*
Or the Greater Atlanta Area could be treated as "Atlanta":
GA 4 Atlanta East
GA 5 Atlanta Central
GA 6 Atlanta North Central
GA 7 Atlanta North
GA 8 Atlanta South & Columbus East
GA 11 Atlanta West & Columbus North
GA 13 Atlanta South Central

FL 1 Pensacola (or East Florida East)
FL 2 Tallahassee* (or East Florida West)
FL 3 Saint Johns River* (includes parts of Jacksonville, Gainesville and Orlando)
FL 4 Jacksonville North*
FL 5 Pasco - Hernando (Counties)
FL 6 Gainesville* (includes parts of Jacksonville and Tallahassee)
FL 7 Saint Augustine & Daytona Beach
FL 8 Orlando South
FL 9 Clearwater
FL 10 Pinellas (County)
FL 11 Tampa
FL 12 Lakeland - Winter Haven
FL 13 Sarasota
FL 14 Fort Myers (or, Naples & Fort Myers)
FL 15 Melbourne - Palm Bay
FL 16 Lake Okeechobee* (district stretches right across Florida, including East Coast and West Coast suburbs)
FL 17 Miami North - Miramar*
FL 18 Miami South - Key West
FL 19 Palm Beach West
FL 20 Hollywood - Sunrise* (the largest town fragments in this district)
FL 21 Hialeah
FL 22 Palm Beach East*
FL 23 Fort Lauderdale*
FL 24 Orlando East*
FL 25 Tamiami


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:23:46 am
KY 1 Kentucky West
KY 2 Owensboro (& Bowling Green)
KY 3 Louisville
KY 4 Ashland (or Kentucky North East)
KY 5 Kentucky East (or South East)
KY 6 Lexington (& Frankfort)
TN 1 Blue Ridge (or Johnson City, named for a president from the state)
TN 2 Knoxville
TN 3 Chattanooga
TN 4 Cumberland (or Tennessee Central, but Cumberland is nicer)
TN 5 Nashville
TN 6 Murfreesboro (if there had to be a Lower Cumberland, it's this one)
TN 7 Clarksville East & Memphis East*
TN 8 Clarksville West & Jackson (or just Tennessee North West)
TN 9 Memphis
AL 1 Mobile
AL 2 Montgomery South & Dothan
AL 3 Montgomery North & Talladega
AL 4 Alabama North Central (or Gadsden)
AL 5 Huntsville (or Tennessee River Valley)
AL 6 Birmingham North*
AL 7 Birmingham South*
If they's be named thus, they might actually start to look the part after the next redistricting...
MS 1 Delta Country
MS 2 Mississippi North East (or Tupelo - sounds nicer)
MS 3 Mississippi Central
MS 4 Mississippi Coastal (or Gulf Coast)
AR 1 Arkansas North East
AR 2 Little Rock (or Arkansas Central)
AR 3 Fort Smith (or Arkansas North West, or Ozark)
AR 4 Arkansas South
LA 1 Pontchartrain (after the lake)
LA 2 New Orleans
LA 3 Acadia (in the sense of land of the Acadiens)
LA 4 Shreveport, or Louisiana North West
LA 5 Monroe - Alexandria, or Louisiana North East
LA 6 Baton Rouge
LA 7 Lake Charles, or Louisiana South West
OK 1 Tulsa
OK 2 Oklahoma East
OK 3 Oklahoma North West
OK 4 Oklahoma South West (or SOuth)
OK 5 Oklahoma City
There cannot be enough districts named Oklahoma as it's just about the most beautiful word in the English lexicon


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 06:25:19 am
Pennsylvania

01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia Central
03. Erie
04. Beaver Valley
05. Alleghany Plateau
06. Pottstown and Reading+
07. Delaware and Chester+
08. Bucks
09. Altoona+
10. Pennsylvania North East
11. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre
12. Alleghanies+
13. Philadelphia North
14. Pittsburgh-Steel Valley*
15. Allentown-Bethlehem
16. Reading-Lancaster
17. Harrisburg-Pottsville
18. Westmoreland-Mount Lebanon+
19. York-Gettysburg

*Although "Pittsburgh" would be easier, "Pittsburgh-Steel Valley" is more accurate as the old PA-14 was in effect abolished by re-districting, with the City of Pittsburgh being added to the old PA-18 (which lost Monroeville to the new PA-18).

+Name modified from original


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 06:30:43 am
I've decided where ever possible to name districts after mountain ranges.

This is very useful for heavily gerrymandered districts like PA-12 (Alleghanies) :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:31:27 am
Pennsylvania

01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia Central
03. Erie
04. Beaver Valley
05. Alleghany Plateau
06. Chester-Berks
07. Chester-Delaware
08. Bucks
09. Pennsylvania South
10. Pennsylvania North East
11. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre
12. Johnstown-Alleghanies
13. Philadelphia North
14. Pittsburgh-Steel Valley*
15. Allentown-Bethlehem
16. Reading-Lancaster
17. Harrisburg-Pottsville
18. Westmoreland-Washington
19. York-Gettysburg

*Although "Pittsburgh" would be easier, "Pittsburgh-Steel Valley" is more accurate as the old PA-14 was in effect abolished by re-districting, with the City of Pittsburgh being added to the old PA-18 (which lost Monroeville to the new PA-18).
Aha.
We're quite close apart from that. Let's see.
4 Beaver Valley - nice
5 Alleghany Plateau - okay. I'll take those
6 & 7 too complicated
9 too inaccurate
12 mmh...don't like it...don't really like my own name for it either
14 I'll stick with Pittsburgh anyway
15 just as well
16 the city of Reading is split pretty exactly down the middle according to the census bureau
17 What's Pottsville? Harrisburg is not exactly in the center of the district though, so a double name makes sense
18 Mount Lebanon sounds cooler
19 Good. I'll take that one, too


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:36:47 am
MT   Montana
ID 1 Idaho North West
ID 2 Idaho South East
WY   Wyoming
CO 1 Denver (or Denver Central, if we define Denver as MetroDenver)
CO 2 Boulder
CO 3 Colorado West
CO 4 Colorado East
CO 5 Colorado Springs
CO 6 Littleton (or Denver South)
CO 7 Arvada - Aurora (or Denver North)
NM 1 Albuquerque
NM 2 New Mexico North
NM 3 New Mexico South
AZ 1 Flagstaff (or Navajo, or Arizona North East)
AZ 2 Glendale (or Maricopa North) & Grand Canyon*
AZ 3 Phoenix North
AZ 4 Phoenix South
AZ 5 Scottsdale (or Maricopa North East)
AZ 6 Mesa (or Maricopa South East)
AZ 7 Tucson West (- Yuma)
AZ 8 Tucson East (- Tombstone, of Wild West fame)
UT 1 Utah North
UT 2 Utah East*
UT 3 Utah West*
NV 1 Las Vegas (North)
NV 2 Nevada. Just like that.
NV 3 Henderson (or Las Vegas South)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 06:43:20 am
Pennsylvania

01. Philadelphia South
02. Philadelphia Central
03. Erie
04. Beaver Valley
05. Alleghany Plateau
06. Chester-Berks
07. Chester-Delaware
08. Bucks
09. Pennsylvania South
10. Pennsylvania North East
11. Scranton and Wilkes-Barre
12. Johnstown-Alleghanies
13. Philadelphia North
14. Pittsburgh-Steel Valley*
15. Allentown-Bethlehem
16. Reading-Lancaster
17. Harrisburg-Pottsville
18. Westmoreland-Washington
19. York-Gettysburg

*Although "Pittsburgh" would be easier, "Pittsburgh-Steel Valley" is more accurate as the old PA-14 was in effect abolished by re-districting, with the City of Pittsburgh being added to the old PA-18 (which lost Monroeville to the new PA-18).
Aha.
We're quite close apart from that. Let's see.
4 Beaver Valley - nice
5 Alleghany Plateau - okay. I'll take those
6 & 7 too complicated
9 too inaccurate
12 mmh...don't like it...don't really like my own name for it either
14 I'll stick with Pittsburgh anyway
15 just as well
16 the city of Reading is split pretty exactly down the middle according to the census bureau
17 What's Pottsville? Harrisburg is not exactly in the center of the district though, so a double name makes sense
18 Mount Lebanon sounds cooler
19 Good. I'll take that one, too


I've been using the maps on nationalatlas.gov/congdistprint (http://nationalatlas.gov/congdistprint).

I've changed 12 to just "Alleghanies", as along with mining, they are the only things that different parts of the district have in common... it could also be called: 12. Upside down Chinese Dragon...

17 is a merger of the old 6th and the old 17th.

I might change 18 to Westmoreland-Mount Lebanon, as Mount Lebanon is a nice name.

16th might be better as Lancaster-Reading.

I haven't got a clue what to call PA-9 though...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 06:49:02 am
WA 1 Redmond
WA 2 Bellingham (or Washington North West)
WA 3 Vancouver - Olympia West (or Washington South West)
WA 4 Yakima (or Washington Central)
WA 5 Spokane (or Washington East)
WA 6 Tacoma West - Grays Harbor
WA 7 Seattle
WA 8 Bellevue
WA 9 Tacoma East - Olympia East
OR 1 Portland West
OR 2 Oregon East
OR 3 Portland East
OR 4 Willamette
OR 5 Salem
CA 1 Lost Coast
CA 2 Sacramento Valley (or Redding)
CA 3 Sacramento East
CA 4 Roseville - Lake Tahoe (or California North East)
CA 5 Sacramento
CA 6 Marin - Sonoma
CA 7 San Pablo Bay (or East Bay North)
CA 8 San Francisco
CA 9 Oakland
CA 10 Fairfield & Antioch (or East Bay North East)*
CA 11 Stockton North*
CA 12 Daly City (or San Francisco South. Daly City just makes me think of Daly City Train by Rancid)
CA 13 Fremont (or East Bay South to keep with that theme)
CA 14 Silicon Valley
CA 15 San Jose East
CA 16 San Jose West
CA 17 Monterey
CA 18 Stockton South & Fresno North*
CA 19 Fresno East
CA 20 Fresno South & Bakersfield North*
CA 21 Visalia
CA 22 Bakersfield
CA 23 Ventura South - Santa Barbara
CA 24 Ventura North. (Ventura refers to the County here, though the city is also split. The part of Santa Barbara County in the 24th is very sparsely populated)
CA 25 Santa Clarita - Victorville (Death Valley is in this district, but only 30,000 people live in those two Northern counties. 22,000 of the district's inhabitants are within Los Angeles city limits!) Santa Clarita and Victorville are the largest cities in the district's parts of LA and SB counties, respectively)
CA 26 Arcadia - Rancho Cucamonga
CA 27 San Fernando Valley North
CA 28 San Fernando Valley South
CA 29 Glendale - Pasadena
CA 30 Hollywood
CA 31 Los ANgeles Central
CA 32 El Monte - West Covina
CA 33 Los Angeles South Central
CA 34 Los Angeles East - Downey
CA 35 Los ANgeles South - Inglewood
CA 36 Los Angeles South West - Torrance
CA 37 Long Beach North
CA 38 Pomona - Norwalk*
CA 39 Whittier - Paramount* (nowhere near the largest towns, but fairly well known and sum up the area well. The largest places are called South Gate and Lakewood)
CA 40 Orange
CA 41 San Bernardino East - Redlands
CA 42 Yorba Linda (cuz Nixon was born there, and it's centrally located)
CA 43 San Bernardino West - Ontario
CA 44 Riverside
CA 45 Palm Springs
CA 46 Long Beach South*
CA 47 Santa Ana
CA 48 Irvine*
CA 49 Oceanside
CA 50 San Diego Noirth - Escondido
CA 51 San Diego South - Imperial (County)
CA 52 San Diego East
CA 53 San Diego Central
AK      Alaska
HI 1 Honolulu
HI 2 Hilo (or Hawaii Outer)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 06:55:45 am
Michigan

01 Michigan North
02 Muskegon and Holland
03 Grand Rapids
04 Midland and Mount Pleasant
05 Flint
06 Kalmazoo
07 Battle Creek-Jackson
08 Lansing
09 Oakland
10 Macomb and Port Huron
11 Livonia
12 Warren
13 Detroit East
14 Detroit West
15 Dearborn Heights-Ann Arbor

North Carolina

01 Roanoke
02 Raleigh East
03 Pamlico Sound
04 Durham
05 Winston-Salem North
06 Greensboro West
07 Cape Fear
08 Charlotte, Concord and Kannapolis
09 Charlotte-Gastonia
10 Catawba
11 Great Smoky Mountains
12 Winston-Salem and Charlotte*  
13 Raleigh and Greensboro

*Aaaagh!


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 07:04:24 am
Texas pre- and post re-redistricting
OLD
1 Texarkana - Nacogdoches
2 Huntsville
3 Plano
4 Tyler - Denison
5 Dallas South - Palestine
6 Arlington South - Corsicana
7 Houston South West
8 Houston North - The Woodlands
9 Beaumont - Galveston
10 Austin
11 Waco, or Texas Central
12 Fort Worth West
13 Amarillo - Wichita Falls
14 Victoria
15 McAllen - Edinburg
16 El Paso
17 Abilene (- San Angelo)
18 Houston Central
19 Lubbock - Midland
20 San Antonio Central
21 Austin West - San Antonio North
22 Fort Bend - Brazoria (Counties)
23 Texas South West
24 Fort Worth East - Arlington North
25 Houston South East
26 Denton (more the county than the place, I guess)
27 Corpus Christi - Brownsvile
28 Rio Grande City - San Antonio East
29 Houston North East
30 Dallas Central
31 Bryan
32 Dallas North

NEW (numbers in brackets denote incumbent running in this district)
1 Tyler - Nacogdoches (1)
2 Beaumont - Houston North (9). Error corrected.
3 Plano (3)
4 Texarkana - Denison (4)
5 Mesquite - Palestine (5)
6 Arlington - Corsicana (6)
7 Houston West (7)
8 Huntsville - The Woodlands (8)
9 Houston South (25)
10 Austin North - Harris (County) West (open)
11 Midland - San Angelo (open)
12 Fort Worth West (12)
13 Amarillo - Wichita Falls (13)
14 Victoria - Galveston (14)
15 Edinburg - (some place in this district's pretty pointless northern extension) (15)
16 El Paso (16)
17 Waco - Bryan (11)
18 Houston Central (18)
19 Lubbock - Abilene (17, 19)
20 San Antonio Central (20)
21 Austin West - San Antonio North (21)
22 Fort Bend - Harris South West (Counties) (22)
23 Texas South West (23)
24 Grand Prairie (open)
25 Austin South - McAllen (10)
26 Denton - Fort Worth East (26)
27 Corpus Christi - Brownsville (27)
28 Laredo - San Antonio East (28)
29 Houston East (29)
30 Dallas Central (or South) (30)
31 Temple - Killeen (31)
32 Dallas North (24, 32)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 02, 2004, 07:08:32 am
North Carolina

01 Roanoke Valley
02 Raleigh East
03 Pamlico Sound
04 Durham
05 Winston-Salem North
06 Greensboro West
07 Cape Fear Valley
08 Concord and Kannapolis
09 Charlotte-Gastonia
10 Catawba
11 Great Smoky Mountains (or Blue Ridge Mountains)
12 Winston-Salem and Charlotte*  
13 Raleigh and Greensboro

*Aaaagh!

01-not really a valley. How about "Great Dismal Swamp"?
03-yeah, why not?
07-Cape Fear will do.
08-It's got quite a bit of Charlotte, too
11-I used Blue Ridge in Tennessee
Aagh-Georgia and Florida are even worse. Those two tie for worst place, definitely.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 09:26:24 am
1. Great Dismal Swamp? Hmm... accurate but... Maybe just Roanoke?

7. Good point. Great name for a river :)

8. True.

11. Fine.

I always like feedback :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 02, 2004, 09:32:51 am
Some of GA districts are pretty horrible (GA-13 especially), but I've never really looked at the FL map (though will do now)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Platypus on February 02, 2004, 03:00:19 pm
I try to avoid geographic names unless:

1. They are natural geographic names, like rivers, mountains, etc.
2. One city/town/county is so dominant it cannot be overlooked
3. Two or more cities/counties/towns share a similar name
4. That name is historic.

They just sound too boring, and similar.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 02, 2004, 06:19:04 pm
Canadian Observer is back after a long absence :)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2004, 08:49:15 am
How about Roanoke River?
Or River Roanoke?


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 03, 2004, 01:32:51 pm
()

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 12:55:14 pm
Home ownership rate hits new record

The Census Bureau said 68.6 percent of homes were occupied by their owners in the fourth quarter of 2003, up slightly from a 68.3 percent home ownership rate in the fourth quarter of the previous year.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/03/news/economy/homeownership.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/03/news/economy/homeownership.reut/index.htm)

---

Service sector jumps

Growth in the U.S. service sector accelerated in January, the nation's purchasing managers said Wednesday, beating analysts' expectations.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/economy/ism_services/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/economy/ism_services/index.htm)

---

Factory orders top estimates
 
Dec. gain of 1.1% beats views for growth of 0.2%, helped by strong demand for machinery.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/economy/factory_orders.reut/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/04/news/economy/factory_orders.reut/index.htm)




Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 02:07:03 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 02:08:31 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 02:13:38 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.

Actually so many Americans own their own home - nearly 70% - that some must be Democrats.  In fact I'd say that very few non-home-owners even vote.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 02:15:33 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.

Actually so many Americans own their own home - nearly 70% - that some must be Democrats.  In fact I'd say that very few non-home-owners even vote.

Well, I admit that that's a good point. I concede that I might have been wrong. But it seems like a lot, 70%, I think the numbers are similar in Sweden, but I thought we had different traditions.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 02:16:03 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

I don't believe in trickle down economics. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 1000 new jobs is not a recovery, not in this universe.

What, you think there's a fixed amount of goods and wealth?  A zero-sum game?  How do you explain things like a rising standard of living coupled with rising population?  GDP must be going up somewhere - WE'RE MAKING THE PIE HIGHER!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 02:20:59 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

I don't believe in trickle down economics. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 1000 new jobs is not a recovery, not in this universe.

What, you think there's a fixed amount of goods and wealth?  A zero-sum game?  How do you explain things like a rising standard of living coupled with rising population?  GDP must be going up somewhere - WE'RE MAKING THE PIE HIGHER!

Then why is it so hard for so many to get a job?
Many qualified people get layed off and can't find work.
That is the reality that I have seen personally. My company has been forced to lay off workers and they have not been replaced.
If the economy is doing so well why aren't new jobs being created?
1000 new jobs is not a recovery.
That's a no brainer.

Because of the impressive increase in productivity.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 02:22:26 pm
And what about all these jobs going overseas?

That is a lesser factor than productivity growth, but it also helps increase profits.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 02:23:11 pm
Bush will lose this election against any Democrat, because Americans know that the economy is bad. Really bad. Joblessness is a serious problem, with no end in sight.

The economy is "really bad"?  "Bad" for whom?  Bad for the record number of Americans who own their own home?

With change comes opportunity.

I don't believe in trickle down economics. When the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. 1000 new jobs is not a recovery, not in this universe.

What, you think there's a fixed amount of goods and wealth?  A zero-sum game?  How do you explain things like a rising standard of living coupled with rising population?  GDP must be going up somewhere - WE'RE MAKING THE PIE HIGHER!

Then why is it so hard for so many to get a job?
Many qualified people get layed off and can't find work.
That is the reality that I have seen personally. My company has been forced to lay off workers and they have not been replaced.
If the economy is doing so well why aren't new jobs being created?
1000 new jobs is not a recovery.
That's a no brainer.

Because of the impressive increase in productivity.

Growth tends to make all people richer, in relative terms I think poorer people benefit more, but rich people probably benefit more in absolute terms. Growth does NOT however affect unemployment - if that was the case there would be no unemployment after the hundreds of thousands of % of growth we've had since the stone age. It does however increase the real wages.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 02:33:51 pm
Here's one connection that worries me - the more likely a Democrat victory seems, the worse the stock market will get.  Which will not reflect well on Bush or on the state of the economy, making Democrat victory more likely.  Sort of a downward spiral. Wall Street fears losing Bush.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 02:33:54 pm
There is a correlation between unemployment and growth, since the government loses money when people lose their jobs, but they can also be independent of each other. It depends a lot on the government's policies.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 02:40:49 pm
No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.

Home ownership in America is at 68%!  That's much higher than the number of conservatives and/or Republicans.  There is probably another 10% who choose to rent but are indeed able to own a home.  The wealth of America is astounding.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 02:43:21 pm

Good, then go out and start your own business and employ your own workers, then you won't have to worry about waiting for something to trickle down to you.  But most of all, stop whining.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 02:47:31 pm
That is the reality that I have seen personally. My company has been forced to lay off workers and they have not been replaced.

It is a well known fact that US corporate profits are at an all-time high and are over $1 TRILLION dollars per year.  Yes, some companies are hurting; but overall corporate America is extremely healthy and productive.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 02:54:27 pm
And what about all these jobs going overseas?

Because you're not as talented as you lead yourself to believe.  There are people in third world countries that can replace you at lower costs and thus they provide more VALUE to the company than you.

If you want to be secure, then equip yourself to add more value to your employer than the next guy.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:02:32 pm

Good, then go out and start your own business and employ your own workers, then you won't have to worry about waiting for something to trickle down to you.  

Not a good idea. Most businesses fail.
And don't worry you'll be the one whining soon, because Bush's defeat is almost a certainty.

And that sums up your problem in a nutshell:  You blame others instead of taking personal responsibility for your own success and you are unwilling to take risks.  You want the benefits of success that others have earned through their own initiative and hard work.

"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." (Ecc 11:4)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 03:05:06 pm
Bingo. The only way to add more value to the company then the 3rd-world workers offer is to be willing to work for very low wages, often below the U.S. minimum wage even. That's not fair to expect people to take a huge cut in their standard of living just to be able to maintain their jobs.

The reason that we are such a great nation is because of the great wealth of the poor and middle class relative to other countries, not the great wealth of the rich.

It's unpatriotic for corporations to move their factories overseas and show no loyalty whatsoever to American workers. How can they expect any loyalty from us as US consumers if they show us no loyalty in return?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 03:05:27 pm
No, probably bad for those who have lost their jobs...people who own their own homes are most likely even Republicans already, or idelogical Democrats.

Home ownership in America is at 68%!  That's much higher than the number of conservatives and/or Republicans.  There is probably another 10% who choose to rent but are indeed able to own a home.  The wealth of America is astounding.

The wealth of America is astounding ??? Don't kid yourself, a large majority of Swedes own their homes as well, and we don't think our wealth is astounding b/c of that.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 03:06:20 pm
Well, yes, I admit I'm guilty of not being willing to take the risk of working for $1/hour.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:10:44 pm
or is it because they can be employed at sub-standard wages?

What "standard" are you using?  Certainly not their standard, for they're very grateful for the opportunity to work.  

What we now call "poor" would have been called "rich" just a few generations ago in America; and it is still considered "rich" by a large majority of the world TODAY.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 03:12:50 pm
Bingo. The only way to add more value to the company then the 3rd-world workers offer is to be willing to work for very low wages, often below the U.S. minimum wage even. That's not fair to expect people to take a huge cut in their standard of living just to be able to maintain their jobs.

The reason that we are such a great nation is because of the great wealth of the poor and middle class relative to other countries, not the great wealth of the rich.

It's unpatriotic for corporations to move their factories overseas and show no loyalty whatsoever to American workers. How can they expect any loyalty from us as US consumers if they show us no loyalty in return?


Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:14:20 pm
Well, yes, I admit I'm guilty of not being willing to take the risk of working for $1/hour.

I explicitly referred to the risk of starting your own business instead of waiting for someone to offer you a job.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:22:14 pm
Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 03:33:16 pm
Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You are right that the poor have a much higher standard of living in this country than in others, and higher than we had in the past. That is what makes America a great nation, the relatively high standard of living that everyone, even those on the bottom, have. We shouldn't be expected to have to sacrifice that so that the corporations can make a few more dollars.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 03:36:41 pm
Its called a Market.  If you're selling something for $20 an hour I can get for $1 an hour somewhere else, I'd be an ass to pay your inflated rate.  You'ld be quite literally ripping me off.

And consumers will always buy the cheapest product they can of equivalent quality, whoever was employed making it.  

Neither companies nor individuals live by your Mercantilist philosophy.

Correct.  Only a fool pays more than neccessary.  These liberals believe they should have the right to demand a higher price than the going rate.

That depends on your definition. Most people value other than things than just money, and then it can be perfectly reasonable to pay more. This is one of the benefits of capitalism that a lot of people fail to see.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 03:42:14 pm
All you are doing is expressing economic *theory*, opinions and
ideology. Economic theory is just that: *theory*.

How about dealing with the facts: HIGH unemployment and HIGH deficits.
The theories and opinions you are expressing are meaningless unless
you look at the facts. Record job losses and record deficits. Bush
has had a Republican House for the last three years, so you can't blame
the realities on the Democrats.

Compare the Clinton years of more jobs and a balanced budget.

Unemployment is not very high at all - only 5.7%.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:46:25 pm
All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:49:06 pm
"Whoever watches the wind will not plant; whoever looks at the clouds will not reap." (Ecc 11:4)
Mark 8:36   "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

I don't see your point for the passages are not in conflict with each other.  But the bible does have a lot to say about whiners and those that are unwilling to work day and night to provide for themselves.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 04, 2004, 03:50:11 pm
All I am asking is that the Republicans do what I do. I pay my debts. The Republicans should be paying off the debt, not increasing it.

No, you're asking for something, success, for which you are unwilling to pay the price.

And FYI, I am a Republican and I pay more taxes than the vast majority of Democrats.  The national debt transcends parties, it is owed by all of us, but it will be paid by the most productive of society.

You also act like you have no clue of history.  During WWII this country ran deficits equal to 30% of GDP, dwarfing the 4-5% we're now running by fighting the War on Terror and trying to stimulate the economy.

Yes, I will pay my taxes.  I always have.  And along with paying taxes, I will continue to search out opportunities while constantly retooling my skills.  I work 60-70 hours a week on the job and another 10 hours a week improving my skills through self study.  

I don't wait around hoping for a change in administrations, I work for my living.


One thing's for sure, if any taxpayers ever 'pay off' these deficits the Dems are so worried about, they'll be the so-called rich along with the uppermost upper-middle-class.  High earners pay the great majority of the taxes.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 03:59:29 pm

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You show favoritism by paying more for American products yet you invoke morality?  Don't you know that the bible explicitly forbids favoritism?

Also, tell me how it is immoral for a company to outsource work to areas where people are willing to do the same work at lower wages?  What gives you the right to control the way a company spends its own money?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 04:06:14 pm

No, I don't believe it is and I would like you to explain your understanding of the verses that you quoted.

Are you under the impression that:

1) that all those who pour themselves into their careers only do so for the "love of money"?
2) that God does not wish for his people to prosper?
3) that a man can not be rich in wealth and please God?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 04:22:18 pm

No, because it is not foolish to be willing to pay more to support a cause that you believe in. I would be willing to pay slightly more for an American made product than for a foreign made product, even if they were of the same quality, because I want to support American workers.

Not everything should revolve around the almighty dollar. There are moral principles involved in how you spend your money, too. I don't think that it's too much to ask the corporations to have some morals as well.

You show favoritism by paying more for American products yet you invoke morality?  Don't you know that the bible explicitly forbids favoritism?

Also, tell me how it is immoral for a company to outsource work to areas where people are willing to do the same work at lower wages?  What gives you the right to control the way a company spends its own money?


Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 04:36:22 pm
"The point is that those who are well off should be willing to help those who are not. That is the morality of the Bible. It is very clear on that. "

No, I don't think rich people are 'evil'. I just am saying that I believe in a progressive tax.

First, the idea of a progressive tax does NOT come from the bible, rather it is contrary to scripture.  The bible's tax is a flat tax so that everyone gives back the same percentage according to how they have prospered.

Second, unless you are hungry or naked or don't have a roof over your head, the bible does ask NOT anyone to provide for you, unless you are truly helpless.  Also, the bible's commands are at the individual and church level - the bible never attempts to impose its code at a national secular level.

Also, the Good Samaritan helped someone who truly could not help himself and even then only provided for one night of the most basic of needs.  This temporary help is also verified by:  “if anyone gives EVEN a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward." (Mat 10:42)

There is no biblical requirement for me to pay higher taxes to keep you, during hard economic times, from having to scale down from a three-bedroom-house to an efficiency apartment.  And if you think you have the right to expect that kind of help, then you are the one idolizing your possessions.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 04:43:05 pm
I think that you are getting Macfarlane and I confused. I never mentioned the Bible. While I am a Christian I do not take every word of the Bible as literal truth, because it was written by men and not by God himself and thus I think that the men who wrote it probably made a lot of mistakes in their interpretation of what God was trying to tell them. But if you wish to discuss that further we should start a new thread.

If you buy a product because it is cheaper, you are showing a favortism towards cheaper products. Why is that any better than showing favoritism towards American products, or towards any other cause? My point is that there are other values besides money that can be taken into account when deciding what to purchase. Many people show brand loyalty because they have had good luck with a particular brand in the past. Or they choose to shop at a store with higher prices because they get better service and the people are friendlier there. Whichever value you choose to emphasize is favoritism for that particular value.

Personally I feel that corporations have an obligation to the less fortunate to show loyalty and not move overseas. All of us have this obligation to society to help the less fortunate, I believe. I do not think that they should be forced to remain here, but there should be government policy to provide incentives to keep them here. I feel that government has an obligation in this case to do the right thing because having corporations stay in this country rather than fleeing overseas is in the best interests of America.

I agree that workers need to improve themselves to stay competitive, but why do only the workers have a responsibility to improve themselves? Shouldn't the corporations also have a responsibility to the workers and to their country to provide them with a high enough wage to keep up the standard of living that they have that helps to keep America strong and vital? Corporations and workers are both dependent on each other for livlihood--it shouldn't be a one way street.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 04:46:04 pm
Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

No, but it is certainly wrong trying to invoke morality while championing favortism, like Nym90 did.  

After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.  I can be cheap and only buy the least expensive goods, or I can run the corner convience store every time I need a loaf of bread and pay top dollar.  Morality doesn't play a role is such things.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 04:47:34 pm
Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 04:50:22 pm
I never said that my moral choices were better than anyone else's, I was merely pointing out that it isn't foolish to buy a product that isn't the cheapest. There are other moral values that one can consider in spending one's money, not just the pursuit of the cheapest products. You were the one who said that it was foolish to buy a product that wasn't the cheapest, and I was trying to point out that there are other values that one can invoke in making that decision.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 04:50:45 pm
Favoritism? Do you mean that it would somehow be immoral to buy a product that is not the cheapest possible?

No, but it is certainly wrong trying to invoke morality while championing favortism, like Nym90 did.  

After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.  I can be cheap and only buy the least expensive goods, or I can run the corner convience store every time I need a loaf of bread and pay top dollar.  Morality doesn't play a role is such things.

Well, but if you would not want to buy genetically modified food, for example, and bought a more expensive type that wasn't. Would that be immoral favoritism?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on February 04, 2004, 04:51:25 pm
<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 04:53:06 pm
<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know? ;)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: © tweed on February 04, 2004, 04:58:47 pm
<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know? ;)
:)
That's about the size of it.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 05:05:17 pm
Also, regarding a flat tax, what is truly "flat"? Is it all income, or just disposable income? The differences in income between the rich and poor are much greater when you take away necessary expenses such as food, shelter, and clothing. So a flat tax on all income would actually be a regressive tax on disposable income.

From a biblical perspective, the tithe was on everything.  If they raised a pumpkin crop of ten pumpkins, then one pumpkin (the highest quality one of the crop) would be given back to God.  

And the tithe was always the first 10% of the crop, not the last, meaning that God didn't accept leftovers, he wanted your best.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 05:12:04 pm
Well, but if you would not want to buy genetically modified food, for example, and bought a more expensive type that wasn't. Would that be immoral favoritism?

You're taking it out of context.  The favoritsim the bible forbids is towards people, not products.  Meaning it would be a sin for me to give a job to a white person simply because he is white.  

Likewise, if I found a two starving people, one American and one foreigner, it would be a sin for me to show favoritism towards the American while ignoring the foreigner.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 05:14:49 pm
<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know? ;)
:)
That's about the size of it.

I find it strange that you two mock the fact that churches need money to keep the lights on.  Everything takes money.  Church is no different.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 04, 2004, 05:32:17 pm
<<After I have given back to God and provided for my family, the bible gives me free reign to do whatever I want with my money.>>

How do you financially give back to god?

Lol...you burn the bills on an altar, didn't you know? ;)
:)
That's about the size of it.

I find it strange that you two mock the fact that churches need money to keep the lights on.  Everything takes money.  Church is no different.

Calm down, it was just an innocent joke, that's all.

I didn't know that you had such an altruistic view towards the world, the whole "foreigner shuoldn not be on the forum" and "we are the envy of the world" business had led me to believe otherwise. But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 05:41:32 pm
I didn't know that you had such an altruistic view towards the world, the whole "foreigner shuoldn not be on the forum" and "we are the envy of the world" business had led me to believe otherwise.

My statements about foreigners on this forum had to do with being busybodies.  That's a different subject than showing favoritism.  My statements regarding both subjects are in no way contradictory.

---

But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.

The corner stores around me sale products made from all over the world (except food items), therefore the corner store is going to remain regardless of which items, domestic or foreign, I buy.

But I understand what you are saying and certainly you have a moral right to spend money in the way that most benefits yourself.  After all, it is your money.  


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 04, 2004, 05:54:39 pm
But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.

The corner stores around me sale products made from all over the world (except food items), therefore the corner store is going to remain regardless of which items, domestic or foreign, I buy.

But I understand what you are saying and certainly you have a moral right to spend money in the way that most benefits yourself.  After all, it is your money.  

In fact the corner stores around me aren't even owned by Americans!  LOL!


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Nym90 on February 04, 2004, 07:00:28 pm
Lol, I know what you mean, though it is worth pointing out that those two goals are not one and the same. They were just both cited as examples of goals that people may choose to pursue rather than low prices.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 04, 2004, 08:20:32 pm
Canadian Observer is back after a long absence :)

Eh... University keeps me quite busy :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 04, 2004, 09:54:29 pm
Since the sum (PC+CA) doesn't equal the sum of its parts (CPC) then where are those voters going and where are they coming from?  Are former PC voters switching to Liberal (or even former CA voters?)

Former CA voters seem to follow the new Conservative party, but I wouldn't bet on the behavior of former PC voters before the CPC leadership vote and the upcoming federal election.  Of course, a couple of them are making their mind and voting for the Liberals or the New Democrats.

The CPC leadership vote is decided on a county-by-county basis(calculated with accumulated points).  I'm not aware of the details, but it makes the contest more challenging for Stephen Harper (former CA leader), and easier for Belinda Stronach (Ontarian businesswoman, former CEO of Magna Int'l) and Tony Clement (Former Minister of heath in Ernie Eves government).  Belinda gets an even more easier ride now that bulk bying of party membership cards had been permitted again (She has the money ! ).

()
Belinda Stronach

()
Stephen Harper

()
Tony Clement

If I'm right, currently no polls among the supporters have been done on the upcoming CPC leadership contest.  So in the possible event that an Ontarian wins the leadership, Conservative MP's in the Atlantic might have more chances to get re-elected, and the hemorrage of support from the old PC to the Liberals may stop.

In Quebec, almost any former PC organizer now works for the Liberals.  It’s a desert for the Conservative, and yet it’s going to account for roughly 25% of the leadership vote.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2004, 07:20:40 am
Virginia

1 Williamsburg (or '' '' and Chesapeake Bay)
2 Virginia Beach (or '' '' and Chesapeake Bay)
3 Norfolk & Richmond East
4 Chesapeake & Petersburg
5 Virginia Central (or Danville)
6 Roanoke & Shenandoah
7 Richmond West
8 Arlington
9 Clinch Mountains
10 Manassas & Winchester
11 Mount Vernon (or Fairfax)

West Virginia

1. Wheeling and Morgantown
2. Charlston and Martinsburg
3. Coal District (or Clinch and Alleghanies)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 05, 2004, 07:28:45 am
Hmmm... Only differences in or south of WV as far as I can see... I never heard of the Clinch Mountains. Whenever I've come upon references to that corner of Va. that is (apparently-I've never been there) way more like WV or KY than like the rest of Virginia, they called it South West Virginia. So I figured that even though it's highly boring, it'd do.
Same goes for the WV names, really. Highly boring, but there's only three districts in the state, so what's the point in giving them nice names? Especially as lots of people would probably react by saying "I live nowhere near these two cities! Is that really my district?"


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2004, 07:36:57 am
The Clinch Mountains cover almost all of VA-9 and are sort of a southern extension of the Alleghanies.

A better name for WV-3 might be Alleghanies-Sandy River.

WV-2 might be Kanawha Valley and the Eastern Panhandle?

WV-1 is dominated by the Wheeling (or Northern) Panhandle, so that might work as a name.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2004, 08:44:40 am
A few ideas...

I've got to go now, but when I'm back (half-hour to 2 hours) I'll put my Missouri ones up and have a go at NJ and CA.

I'll probably start a thread on Gerrymandering soon...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 05, 2004, 10:34:49 am
Missouri

1 Saint Louis North
2 Saint Charles
3 Saint Louis South
4 Missouri Valley
5 Kansas City ('' '' East?)
6 Saint Joseph ('' '' and Kansas City?)
7 Springfield and the Ozarks
8 Cape Girardeau and Sikeston
9 Columbia and Hannibal (or something involving "Twain"?)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 05, 2004, 11:38:38 am
But I am also in favour of free trade, I just think that it OK to show support to different ideas through consuming. I try to buy from my local shop, b/c I like to have a local shop, even though the prices aren't that good.

The corner stores around me sale products made from all over the world (except food items), therefore the corner store is going to remain regardless of which items, domestic or foreign, I buy.

But I understand what you are saying and certainly you have a moral right to spend money in the way that most benefits yourself.  After all, it is your money.  

In fact the corner stores around me aren't even owned by Americans!  LOL!

Same here... :)

Thanks for letting me spend my money freely! ;)

I agree that they aren't directly contradictory, just indications of different opinions. That's why I used the phrase "led me to believe...".


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 10:30:48 am
Unempolyment drops to 5.6% as January added either 112k new jobs or 496k new jobs!

The establishment survey said payrolls outside the farm sector grew by 112,000 jobs, compared with an upwardly revised gain of 16,000 in December.

The household survey -- which includes the self-employed -- said employment grew by nearly 496,000 people in January.

The average work week expanded to 33.7 hours from 33.5 in December, indicating businesses increased activity.

()

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm (http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/06/news/economy/jobs/index.htm)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on February 06, 2004, 10:30:54 am
Jobless Rate Drops to 5.6% in January; 112,000 Jobs Added    


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 10:34:10 am
6 seconds apart?  scary


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 12:01:09 pm
Some economists think hiring really is occurring in the economy, but it is not being reflected in the Labor Department's monthly survey of business payrolls. In the separate survey of households, employment jumped by 496,000 last month.

The household survey counts self-employed workers and contract workers, which are increasing. The survey of businesses does not.

"They're not recording the outside contractors - they're not reflecting something that is tremendously fundamental now to the American corporate scene, and that's outsourcing to outside contractors," said Ken Mayland, president of ClearView Economics.

Friday's report showed that workers are indeed putting in longer hours, with the average work week climbing by 0.2 hour to 33.7 hours. The manufacturing work week increased by 0.3 hour to 40.9 hours.

"Employers are working their workers longer hours instead of hiring more bodies. For the economy, that counts," Mayland said, noting that it produces more income for consumers to spend, keeping the economy afloat. "This is telling you the economy really is growing very fast."

About 8.3 million people remained unemployed in the United States last month.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040206/D80HRJ080.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040206/D80HRJ080.html)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on February 06, 2004, 12:09:07 pm
great minds think alike.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 01:11:21 pm
jmf vs. JNB: Early Conclusions at end of Jan04...

Unemployment:

JNB's Unemployment prediction of 5.8-6.3% for 2004 is slightly above the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

jmf's Unemployment prediction of 5.3-5.7% for Oct04 is in agreement with the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

---

Job Growth:

JNB's Job Growth prediction, while slightly lower than the  reported actual numbers, is matching well with the Establishment report.

jmf's Job Growth prediction is matching well with the Household survey.

---

GNP Growth:

JNB's 2004 2.0% GNP prediction covering 2004Q1-2004Q4 cannot yet be elavuated.  2004Q1 numbers will be out at the end of April.

jmf's GNP prediction covering 2003Q4-2004Q3 of >4% growth is roughly in line with the 4.0% reported for 2003Q4.  The Q4 number will be revised at the end of Feb and again at the end of March.

---

it's still early in the race, so stay tuned :)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 06, 2004, 01:26:51 pm
jmf vs. JNB: Early Conclusions at end of Jan04...

Unemployment:

JNB's Unemployment prediction of 5.8-6.3% for 2004 is slightly above the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

jmf's Unemployment prediction of 5.3-5.7% for Oct04 is in agreement with the reported 5.6% for Jan04.

---

Job Growth:

JNB's Job Growth prediction, while slightly lower than the  reported actual numbers, is matching well with the Establishment report.

jmf's Job Growth prediction is matching well with the Household survey.

---

GNP Growth:

JNB's 2004 2.0% GNP prediction covering 2004Q1-2004Q4 cannot yet be elavuated.  2004Q1 numbers will be out at the end of April.

jmf's GNP prediction covering 2003Q4-2004Q3 of >4% growth is roughly in line with the 4.0% reported for 2003Q4.  The Q4 number will be revised at the end of Feb and again at the end of March.

---

it's still early in the race, so stay tuned :)

There's no way unemployement will be *higher* on election day than now.  I'm sure it will be lower, its just impossible to know if it will be low enough to ensure Bush's re-election.   I would agree with jmf's analysis more than JNB, though I suspect than even a 5.3% rate in Oct. will overstate the real rate.  Anyway  unemployement really only matters in certain swing states - OH most of all, and perhaps PA and WV.  Michigan too but I've already written that off.  My state (MO) is already in good shape economically and will vote Bush.  If there's a lot of unemployment somewhere like CA or NY, AK or SC, it really won't effect the outcome there.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 02:06:04 pm
Interview with jmf…

Reporter:  How are you feeling at the end of Jan04 about your competition with JNB?

jmf:  JNB gets his outlook from financial rags mostly written from the other side of the pond; whereas I get my outlook from actually being in touch with the pulse of the US economy.

Reporter:  And what exactly is your outlook?

jmf:  The US is going through a structural change in which individuals will have to start viewing and managing their careers as if it were their own personal business, as companies offload risks to workers by using more and more contractors.  

Reporter:  And what do you see as the result of such a structural change?

jmf:  I think we are already seeing it:  high GDP growth, high productivity growth, high corporate profits, increased self-employment, increased home ownership rates, low inflation, and lower unemployment.

Reporter:  And what will happen to those workers who are unable or unwilling to cope with the pressures of having to be more proactive in selling their skills and keeping their skills fine-turned?

jmf:  They will be left behind.

Reporter:  Is that a theological statement?

jmf:  No, I’m not a pretribber.

Reporter:  Getting back to your contest with JNB, how do you feel about your current standing and would you change any of your predictions?

jmf:  I’m feeling good.  I was a little disappointed with December’s performance, but the economy has resumed it’s a faster rate of growth in January and has picked up even more steam in February.  I think the 4% growth reported for 2003Q4 will be revised upward to around 4.5% and we’ll see 4% growth for the next couple of quarters as the second phase of the tax cut kicks in as people receive their refund checks.

Reporter:   Any advice for JNB?

jmf:  Yeah.  He mentioned he reads The Economist magazine.  I suggest he read The Economist article entitled “Crystal Balls UP” in the 9/28/02 issue.  He’ll find the article praises the Economic Cycle Research Institute as one of the most successful forecasting groups on the planet, successfully prediction the US recessions of 1990 and 2001.  JNB can find their forecasting index represented in a chart at the top of the first post of this thread.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 06, 2004, 03:24:18 pm
Employment as measured by the business survey of non-farm businesses had fallen by 716,000 since the recession ended in November 2001, while the household survey showed employment growth of about 2.2 million over that period.

Part of the discrepancy is due to differing definitions of employment. For example, the household survey measures farm workers and the self-employed, while the business survey does not.

cnnfn.com


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 05:48:36 am
Like your Birmingham North and Birmingham South?


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 06:33:01 am
I've been thinking about doing that and did do PA about 2 years ago... before losing it :(


Something that should be abolished is the thing about all districts having the same population... a 20,000 deviation in most cases would be fairer.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 07, 2004, 06:40:44 am
I'll grant you that the insistence on making all districts within a state identical is a wee bit silly gven the large differences between the states. But I made 'em equal or almost equal in rounded thousands anyway.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 06:59:01 am
That rule is an invitation for gerrymandering... :(


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 07, 2004, 07:19:47 am
That rule is an invitation for gerrymandering... :(

It's not even really a rule. The Supreme Court has struck dow a law that allowed a 5% variation but upheld another one that allowed a lesser variation (I don't remember how much that was, 1,5% maybe?)
There's a number of states which don't make them exactly equal.
But yes, of course, it's used as an excuse for gerrymandering.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 08:14:26 am
I know that WV uses whole counties and that the WVDP didn't gerrymander Capito out of her seat... and that Iowa was drawn by a non-partizan group of people...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 07, 2004, 08:20:10 am
I know that WV uses whole counties and that the WVDP didn't gerrymander Capito out of her seat... and that Iowa was drawn by a non-partizan group of people...
Arkansas also uses whole Counties.
Minnesota, Arizona, Washington and Oregon all redistrict by commission, I may be forgetting one state here. The MS map was draw up by a Court, not the legislature.
Note that AZ screwed it up a bit despite having a commission. They too can be lobbied...But it's still not as bad as Representatives electing their voters and not vice versa, as happened in California, Illinois, parts of Virginia...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 08:31:56 am
The only good thing about that rule is that it stops malapportionment (see Queensland for more information)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 07, 2004, 08:41:10 am
The only good thing about that rule is that it stops malapportionment (see Queensland for more information)

that's how it came about. once upon a time districts in America were malapportioned (and often gerrymandered as well, though not nearly as badly as nowadays). Tennessee continued to use its 1870s apportionment for the state house until the supreme court finally told em to stop it in -was it 1964? Around then, anyway.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 07, 2004, 08:52:02 am
But was the cure worse than the disease? (that's a rhetorical question)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 07, 2004, 02:40:54 pm
112,000 jobs added in Jan.  according to one measure.  Unemployment 5.6%.  Really it all sounds pretty much fine to me, though I suppose we'll be needing a lot more to ensure Bush's re-election.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=4&u=/ap/20040206/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_32


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 11, 2004, 02:23:06 am
Here's an interesting map of unemployment rates by county - http://www.bls.gov/lau/maps/twmcort.gif

But of course its the states that matter..


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 13, 2004, 06:41:22 am
VA-5 could be called Southside.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 13, 2004, 12:01:36 pm
New Compas poll:

LPC: 49%
CPC: 19%
NDP: 17%
BQ:    09%  
 


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 13, 2004, 09:51:59 pm
New Compas poll:

LPC: 49%
CPC: 19%
NDP: 17%
BQ:    09%  
Holy s***, the NDP is gonna finish ahead of the conservatives...


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: muon2 on February 13, 2004, 11:23:51 pm
As a native, let me put my two cents in for IL. I do like hugento's 4 criteria: natural names, dominant jurisdiction, name matches, historic designation.

IL1: Chicago - South Cook
IL2: Chicago - Calumet (The old harbor area and river distinguigh this from the more westerly part of the south side and south Cook)
IL3: Chicago - Midway (Southwest doesn't capture it the same way the old airport does. We all know what the Midway area means.)
IL4: Chicago - Little Village/Hermosa (I picked two prominent neighborhoods on opposite arms in this intensely gerrymandered district.)
IL5: Chicago - Northwest (I was born here and there are too many distinct neighborhoods to pick one, the northwest side works well.)
IL6: DuPage (It only has half the county's population, but it has the right feeling.)
IL7: Chicago Loop/West (One has to put the Loop somewhere in this state's names.)
IL8: Chain-o-Lakes (The most prominent local feature for this upscale subrban district)
IL9: Chicago - North Cook
IL10: Great Lake (After the large naval training center, to distinguish it from the western half of Lake County.)
IL11: Heritage Canal (The National Historic Landmark I&M canal runs through the district and is easily recognized here.)
IL12: Great River South (Using the Mississippi as the marker of this diverse district.)
IL13: Naper (This uses the historic settlement name rather than the suburb that makes up 1/6 of the district's population.)
IL14: Fox Valley (Over half the district's population is in Kane and Kendall Counties on the Fox River, and the area is easily identified in the state this way.)
IL15: University (Three of the major institutions are here: Univeristy of Illinois, Illinois State University, and Eastern Illinois University.)
IL16: Rock Valley - Highland (This works better to encompass the areas in the district south and west of Rockford, but I could live with the name of city that is about 1/5 of the district's population.)
IL17: Great River North (See IL 12, and I can't imagine any other way to name this icon of gerrymandering.)
IL18: Illinois Valley (The river is the common feature.)
IL19: Kaskaskia (It's a good historic name, the community college in the district takes that name, and I'll overlook the fact that the actual site of the historic fort is in IL 12.)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 14, 2004, 01:18:40 am
As a native, let me put my two cents in for IL. I do like hugento's 4 criteria: natural names, dominant jurisdiction, name matches, historic designation.

IL1: Chicago - South Cook
IL2: Chicago - Calumet (The old harbor area and river distinguigh this from the more westerly part of the south side and south Cook)
IL3: Chicago - Midway (Southwest doesn't capture it the same way the old airport does. We all know what the Midway area means.)
IL4: Chicago - Little Village/Hermosa (I picked two prominent neighborhoods on opposite arms in this intensely gerrymandered district.)
IL5: Chicago - Northwest (I was born here and there are too many distinct neighborhoods to pick one, the northwest side works well.)
IL6: DuPage (It only has half the county's population, but it has the right feeling.)
IL7: Chicago Loop/West (One has to put the Loop somewhere in this state's names.)
IL8: Chain-o-Lakes (The most prominent local feature for this upscale subrban district)
IL9: Chicago - North Cook
IL10: Great Lake (After the large naval training center, to distinguish it from the western half of Lake County.)
IL11: Heritage Canal (The National Historic Landmark I&M canal runs through the district and is easily recognized here.)
IL12: Great River South (Using the Mississippi as the marker of this diverse district.)
IL13: Naper (This uses the historic settlement name rather than the suburb that makes up 1/6 of the district's population.)
IL14: Fox Valley (Over half the district's population is in Kane and Kendall Counties on the Fox River, and the area is easily identified in the state this way.)
IL15: University (Three of the major institutions are here: Univeristy of Illinois, Illinois State University, and Eastern Illinois University.)
IL16: Rock Valley - Highland (This works better to encompass the areas in the district south and west of Rockford, but I could live with the name of city that is about 1/5 of the district's population.)
IL17: Great River North (See IL 12, and I can't imagine any other way to name this icon of gerrymandering.)
IL18: Illinois Valley (The river is the common feature.)
IL19: Kaskaskia (It's a good historic name, the community college in the district takes that name, and I'll overlook the fact that the actual site of the historic fort is in IL 12.)
Well done, nice work!
...though I dislike "University" because nobody outside IL will probably be able to place it, and "Great River South" because to me that would be in Louisiana if anywhere. (In other words, names have to mean something to Illinoians (?), but they should also make sense outside the state.)


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 14, 2004, 05:19:50 am

It seems to be as I've checked local media websites etc and the term is used a lot to refer to Southern Virginia.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 14, 2004, 09:56:25 am
There's no reason why they can't. I hope they don't do what they did last time they were popular...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 14, 2004, 10:18:17 am
What are the differences between libs and the New Dems?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 14, 2004, 10:32:12 am
The NDP are a Democratic Socialist/Social Democratic party, while the Liberals are an old fashioned "Lloyd George/Woodrow Wilson" style liberal party, that somehow managed to suvive as the "Natural party of government" (and that's one hell of an achievment)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 14, 2004, 10:41:10 am
okoay, tanks.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on February 14, 2004, 10:09:40 pm
The NDP are a Democratic Socialist/Social Democratic party, while the Liberals are an old fashioned "Lloyd George/Woodrow Wilson" style liberal party, that somehow managed to suvive as the "Natural party of government" (and that's one hell of an achievment)

The NDP got founded during the Great Depression and quickly soked up the previously existing Labour Party. It used to be known as CCF until 1962 (or 1965, or...anyways, until the 1960s), short for Cooperative Commonwealth Foundation.


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: muon2 on February 14, 2004, 11:28:04 pm
IL12: Great River South (Using the Mississippi as the marker of this diverse district.)
..."Great River South" because to me that would be in Louisiana if anywhere. (In other words, names have to mean something to Illinoians (?), but they should also make sense outside the state.)
Another thought I have is to call the district Gateway. The reference is to the gateway arch in St. Louis, and I have heard the name used to refer to at least part of the area in Illinois.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2004, 07:23:51 am
There's been a funding scandel involving the Liberal Party recently, and their support has dropped dramatically:

LPC: 39%
CPC: 24%
NDP: 18%

By region:

Atlantic: LPC=42%, CPC=33%, NDP=19%
Quebec: LPC=40%, CPC=5%, NDP=8%, BQ=?
Ontario: LPC=47%, CPC=25%, NDP=22%
Praries: LPC=32%, CPC=23%, NDP=33%
Alberta: LPC=28%, CPC=50%, NDP=16%
BC: LPC=27%, CPC=35%, NDP=22%
Ipsos Reid


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2004, 07:27:23 am
I wonder why...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 15, 2004, 10:11:05 am
But isn't Ipsos-Reid Tory leaning?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2004, 10:31:46 am
Yes, so I'd like to see another firms poll to be sure (preferably Environics) but I don't doubt that the funding scandal has hurt the Liberals in the short term... in the long term I'm not so sure.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 15, 2004, 05:26:16 pm
A CROP-La Presse poll on federal vote intention in Quebec had been done right after the emerging of the sponsorship scandal.  I don't know if the affair will still run in the coming months, but in the short term, that might be a blow for the Liberals...

CROP-La Presse Polls

Date : Jan 15-24,'04
Liberal Party : 51%
Bloc québécois : 33%
Other : 16%


Date : Feb 11-12,'04
Liberal Party : 34%
Bloc québécois : 47%
Other : 19%


From Radio-Canada (http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/Politique/nouvelles/200402/14/001-sondages-commandites.shtml)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 15, 2004, 05:29:33 pm
Finally Duceppe, BQ leader, can thank Martin ...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 15, 2004, 05:35:25 pm
I would guess that it'll only have a short term impact in Quebec, the decline of seperatism isn't likely to get stopped by a funding scandal (if it was John Swinney would be the First Minister of Scotland now [shudders]), and it's hardly had an effect at all in the Atlantic provinces... but it *might* be more lasting out West... if only because of an innate mistrust (in the Praries)/paranoia (in Alberta) of all things Ottawa.

Martin will win the election regardless, but unless this blows over he could be lumbered with a minority government.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 11:28:56 am
Economy.com Survey of Business Confidence: 173.6
Global business confidence remains high.  Manufacturers and
high-tech companies are particularly upbeat.  Businesses continue to report stronger sales and firmer pricing, and most businesses are increasingly positive about their investment and hiring intentions.  Confidence is off from its late 2003 peak, however.  Asian confidence has slipped the most.  Business services, financial services and real estate firms are also less positive.  


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 11:54:48 am
Reports Stir Hopes of U.S. Factory Revival
Tuesday February 17, 11:39 am ET
By Jonathan Nicholson


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. manufacturing showed signs of revival on Tuesday, as reports from the Federal Reserve and one of its regional banks showed gains in January and early February.

The Federal Reserve said its gauge of activity at American factories, mines and utilities rose a sharp 0.8 percent in January, led by a weather-related gain in utilities use. Factory output -- more than four-fifths of total production -- rose 0.3 percent, its fifth straight monthly rise.
 
In a separate report, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York said its two-year-old Empire Manufacturing Survey's business conditions index rose to a record 42.05 in early February from a revised 38.85 in January.

The two reports may help ease worries over the embattled U.S. factory sector, which has yet to recover from the 2001 recession. Manufacturers have trimmed payrolls for 42 straight months, with about 2.8 million factory jobs lost since President Bush took office in January 2001.

Financial markets started the trading day higher after the data's release. The Dow Jones industrial average was up 63.11 points at mid-morning, while the Nasdaq composite was up a by about 18 points.

COLD JANUARY

January's cold weather helped push overall industrial production up, even as manufacturing gained. Utility output climbed a hefty 5.2 percent while natural gas production increased by 7.0 percent, its biggest jump since February 2003, according to the Fed.

Still, the gain in manufacturing sped up the pace at which factories operated in January. The capacity use rate rose to 74.6 percent in January, its highest reading since August 2001.

December's overall production and capacity use figures were revised downward somewhat in Tuesday's report. Output was revised to a flat reading from the initially reported 0.1 percent advance while capacity utilization was reported at 75.6 percent, down from the original reading of 75.8 percent.

"The gains within the manufacturing sector were fairly broad-based though moderate," said Stephen Stanley, an economist with RBS Greenwich Capital Markets.

NEW YORK AREA IMPROVED

In its monthly survey of manufacturing in the state, the New York Fed said nearly all its respondents indicated they expected conditions to be the same or better in six months.

The new orders' index rose to 34.94 in February from a revised 34.82 in January. The employment index dipped almost 8 points but was still in positive territory at 16.5, according to the bank.

The New York Fed index is one of several measures compiled by the Fed's 12 regional banks that analysts watch to gauge factory activity.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 17, 2004, 04:24:44 pm
I would guess that it'll only have a short term impact in Quebec, the decline of seperatism isn't likely to get stopped by a funding scandal (if it was John Swinney would be the First Minister of Scotland now [shudders]), and it's hardly had an effect at all in the Atlantic provinces... but it *might* be more lasting out West... if only because of an innate mistrust (in the Praries)/paranoia (in Alberta) of all things Ottawa.

Martin will win the election regardless, but unless this blows over he could be lumbered with a minority government.

In Quebec, electorally, there's a difference between separatism and the tendency to vote for a separatist party.  I once told you that Quebeckers, and Canadians as well, do like split their ticket when voting, the same apply when voting for the Parti Québécois in provincial elections and then vote No in the ensuing referendum.  Others vote for the right wing Action démocratique (ADQ) and then vote for Quebec sovereignty.

The scandal will not of course cause a surge of separatism, but it has the capacity to put the Liberals back to the bottom of the barrel they were in the 80's.

Another poll was done by Ipsos-Reid, and was published today on the Globe and Mail.  Even though the poll firm may be right wing (even though, as a French Canadian, all English Canadian polling firms would look the same), this one is a little more mathematically accurate because of its sample size (n=1,055 MoE=3.1%)

From Ipsos-Reid

Federal voting intention in Canada
LPC : 35%
CPC : 27%
NDP : 17%
BQ : 11%

Regional breakdown


Atlantic

LPC : 47%
CPC : 32%
NDP : 12%


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 45%
 LPC : 31%
CPC : 10%
NDP : 8%


Ontario

LPC : 41%
CPC : 26%
NDP : 21%


Manitoba & Saskatchewan

NDP : 34%
 LPC : 29%
CPC : 28%


Alberta

CPC : 58%
 LPC : 20%
NDP : 8%


British Columbia

CPC : 32%
 LPC : 27%
NDP : 27%
Green Party : 9%




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 04:51:35 pm
Damn it!  Why to the libs have to lose this thing?  It was ours!  Aagh!

Even in liberal old ontario we only have a 15% lead. :(


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 05:00:27 pm
What the scandal seems to have done is destroy all of Martin's cultivation of Western voters... they actually look like numbers from the '80's...

Quote
The scandal will not of course cause a surge of separatism, but it has the capacity to put the Liberals back to the bottom of the barrel they were in the 80's.

That's true...

BTW I wouldn't worry about the CPC winning... they won't be able to win a majority and the NDP will end up propping up a minority LPC government.
That's how Trudeau got started...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:01:45 pm
Doesn't the NDP take more voted away from the liberals than the conservatives?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 17, 2004, 05:02:33 pm
Not in the West...


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: jravnsbo on February 17, 2004, 05:10:38 pm
Testifying for the economy

By Lawrence Kudlow

President Bush's bounce from the capture In Iraq of Saddam
Hussein has faded. His State of the Union message had clear vision,
but it lacked enough rhetorical punch to deliver another bounce. And
now the president is taking political hits from all angles,
temporarily slowing the stock market advance.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, on the other hand, is getting a
large bounce from his primary victories, with Bush-bashing on the
Democratic campaign trail nearing a fever pitch. Heavy coverage by
the print and broadcast media is only fueling the charge of the anti-
Bush forces.
Missing WMDs have not helped Mr. Bush, either. Nor did his clear
but somewhat flat performance on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." Nor
has lower-than-expected job growth — although a steady-rising
household survey, showing more self-employed and private-contract
workers, is still the dirty little secret. Big budget deficits are
also grabbing the headlines, even though they are vastly overrated in
both numerical and economic terms.
What all this says is that the stock market rally has come under
some political pressure. Mr. Bush is the pro-investor candidate, but
his fortunes have momentarily slumped. Mr. Kerry is the enemy of the
investor class, as well as the new Democratic class-warfare hero, but
his veneer has only temporarily brightened. Stocks, of course,
respond to all these factors, passing though they may be.
Time for investors to worry? Not at all. Liberal Yale economist
Ray Fair has a better idea. His economic model projecting the
presidential popular vote is strongly favoring Mr. Bush (although the
rigorously honest Mr. Fair would have it otherwise). With a 2004
growth economy near 4 percent, low inflation and a rising jobs
number, Mr. Fair's model predicts a Bush landslide with 58 percent of
the popular vote.
Alan Greenspan's incredibly upbeat testimony before Congress last
week was every bit as promising for a Bush re-election as Mr. Fair's
conclusions. Mr. Greenspan, of course, as head of the independent
central bank, is an objective economic observer. He concludes that
the health of the U.S. economy is rapidly improving.
Mr. Greenspan's good-news economic gospel included a rosy-
scenario forecast of nearly 5 percent economic growth, with inflation
just above 1 percent. Behind that forecast is a pile of positive
data:
Household and business balance sheets are in good shape.
Spectacular productivity has led to outsized business profits.
Business investment and production are rising more rapidly than
consumer spending, which still remains strong. With the supply side
of the economy so muscular, inflation is in check and interest rates
are staying low. While corporate hiring has been slow, it will soon
pick up steam, with Mr. Greenspan expecting unemployment to drop to
5.5 percent this year. And finally, the current-account deficit is
being comfortably financed by international markets, and an orderly
dollar decline may be bottoming out.
Perversely, Mr. Greenspan's benign interest-rate outlook caused
some market traders to worry that the economy is not really as strong
as publicized. The absence of major interest-rate risk may have even
lowered consumer confidence over the jobs outlook. But things are
different today. While in the past the Fed has always acted quickly
to raise rates in the wake of strong economic readings, Greenspan &
Co. will remain patient following a period of intense deflation.
Given the fact that core inflation remains less than 1 percent and
durable-goods prices continue to fall, the central bank is right to
leave interest rates alone.
During Mr. Greenspan's testimony, numerous Democrats tried to
bludgeon the Fed chairman with the usual deficit hysteria. But Mr.
Greenspan was very clear that the Bush tax cuts should remain in
place in order to grow the economy to its fullest potential. Instead
of tax increases, he argued strongly for new spending restraint —
including new budget rules to prevent overspending.
The chairman was right again: A combination of strong economic
growth and tough budget restraint — not economy-crippling tax
increases — will eliminate deficits.
With a budget-busting highway bill on the immediate horizon, this
is not the message Congress wants to hear. But Mr. Greenspan's firm
stand on budget control may embolden the president to veto the
highway bill (which will undoubtedly be laden with pork). There are
also rumors the president will recruit former-Sen. Phil Gramm of
Texas to design new spending-control laws. This would be welcome news
to conservatives. It was the Gramm-Rudman approach that held down
spending in the Reagan 1980s. And it was Mr. Gramm who almost
unilaterally defeated the single-payer universal-health-care plan of
President Clinton 10 years ago.
If Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Gramm are successful in bolstering the
administration's backbone on spending, business and investor
confidence will improve and the economy will strengthen even more.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 17, 2004, 05:10:42 pm
In BC it's a close race, with the Conservatives ahead.
In the plains, the NDP is very popular, and in Alberta, neither party is well received.

What I see is the NDP being more popular in areas that go LPC.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 05:23:12 pm
Testifying for the economy

By Lawrence Kudlow

President Bush's bounce from the capture In Iraq of Saddam
Hussein has faded. His State of the Union message had clear vision,
but it lacked enough rhetorical punch to deliver another bounce. And
now the president is taking political hits from all angles,
temporarily slowing the stock market advance.
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, on the other hand, is getting a
large bounce from his primary victories, with Bush-bashing on the
Democratic campaign trail nearing a fever pitch. Heavy coverage by
the print and broadcast media is only fueling the charge of the anti-
Bush forces.
Missing WMDs have not helped Mr. Bush, either. Nor did his clear
but somewhat flat performance on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press." Nor
has lower-than-expected job growth &#8212; although a steady-rising
household survey, showing more self-employed and private-contract
workers, is still the dirty little secret. Big budget deficits are
also grabbing the headlines, even though they are vastly overrated in
both numerical and economic terms.
What all this says is that the stock market rally has come under
some political pressure. Mr. Bush is the pro-investor candidate, but
his fortunes have momentarily slumped. Mr. Kerry is the enemy of the
investor class, as well as the new Democratic class-warfare hero, but
his veneer has only temporarily brightened. Stocks, of course,
respond to all these factors, passing though they may be.
Time for investors to worry? Not at all. Liberal Yale economist
Ray Fair has a better idea. His economic model projecting the
presidential popular vote is strongly favoring Mr. Bush (although the
rigorously honest Mr. Fair would have it otherwise). With a 2004
growth economy near 4 percent, low inflation and a rising jobs
number, Mr. Fair's model predicts a Bush landslide with 58 percent of
the popular vote.
Alan Greenspan's incredibly upbeat testimony before Congress last
week was every bit as promising for a Bush re-election as Mr. Fair's
conclusions. Mr. Greenspan, of course, as head of the independent
central bank, is an objective economic observer. He concludes that
the health of the U.S. economy is rapidly improving.
Mr. Greenspan's good-news economic gospel included a rosy-
scenario forecast of nearly 5 percent economic growth, with inflation
just above 1 percent. Behind that forecast is a pile of positive
data:
Household and business balance sheets are in good shape.
Spectacular productivity has led to outsized business profits.
Business investment and production are rising more rapidly than
consumer spending, which still remains strong. With the supply side
of the economy so muscular, inflation is in check and interest rates
are staying low. While corporate hiring has been slow, it will soon
pick up steam, with Mr. Greenspan expecting unemployment to drop to
5.5 percent this year. And finally, the current-account deficit is
being comfortably financed by international markets, and an orderly
dollar decline may be bottoming out.
Perversely, Mr. Greenspan's benign interest-rate outlook caused
some market traders to worry that the economy is not really as strong
as publicized. The absence of major interest-rate risk may have even
lowered consumer confidence over the jobs outlook. But things are
different today. While in the past the Fed has always acted quickly
to raise rates in the wake of strong economic readings, Greenspan &
Co. will remain patient following a period of intense deflation.
Given the fact that core inflation remains less than 1 percent and
durable-goods prices continue to fall, the central bank is right to
leave interest rates alone.
During Mr. Greenspan's testimony, numerous Democrats tried to
bludgeon the Fed chairman with the usual deficit hysteria. But Mr.
Greenspan was very clear that the Bush tax cuts should remain in
place in order to grow the economy to its fullest potential. Instead
of tax increases, he argued strongly for new spending restraint &#8212;
including new budget rules to prevent overspending.
The chairman was right again: A combination of strong economic
growth and tough budget restraint &#8212; not economy-crippling tax
increases &#8212; will eliminate deficits.
With a budget-busting highway bill on the immediate horizon, this
is not the message Congress wants to hear. But Mr. Greenspan's firm
stand on budget control may embolden the president to veto the
highway bill (which will undoubtedly be laden with pork). There are
also rumors the president will recruit former-Sen. Phil Gramm of
Texas to design new spending-control laws. This would be welcome news
to conservatives. It was the Gramm-Rudman approach that held down
spending in the Reagan 1980s. And it was Mr. Gramm who almost
unilaterally defeated the single-payer universal-health-care plan of
President Clinton 10 years ago.
If Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Gramm are successful in bolstering the
administration's backbone on spending, business and investor
confidence will improve and the economy will strengthen even more.



I think as long as you have unemployment and budget deficits higher than what we had under Clinton, Bush's approval on the economy will be subdued.



Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on February 17, 2004, 05:28:14 pm

 You again really like talking to yourself dont you? Before you celebrate, look at the U6 unemployment rate from the BLS, the U6 rate is basiclaly the way Europe calculates its unemployment rate, and it was the way the US tabulated its unemployment rate till the late 80s.

 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

 In any event, the massive injection of liquidity though the "tax cuts", the massive increases in gov spending and the record number of home re-fis in 2003 did the trick for now.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on February 17, 2004, 05:32:06 pm

 Also, it you are the one who made it a contest, again, there is a difference between spouting off the numbers and understanding what is behind the numbers.  In any event, you are a immature twit, like most Neo-Cons are.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on February 17, 2004, 05:33:20 pm

 You again really like talking to yourself dont you? Before you celebrate, look at the U6 unemployment rate from the BLS, the U6 rate is basiclaly the way Europe calculates its unemployment rate, and it was the way the US tabulated its unemployment rate till the late 80s.

 http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

 In any event, the massive injection of liquidity though the "tax cuts", the massive increases in gov spending and the record number of home re-fis in 2003 did the trick for now.

I'd rather they use the "real" U6 number.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on February 17, 2004, 06:40:26 pm

  Sadly for me bringing up facts, I am derrided as a "gloom & doomer". The line of though that jmc advocates, saying that those economically dislocated must adapt or be left behind is very simplistic, and politically unworkable. If the GOP alienated all voters except for those who held the views of former Rep. Dick Armey, it would be a very tiny minority indeed.

  One question the Neo-Cons have to ask themselves, why is Bush behind Kerry in the polls at this point? Why despite a imporving economy?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 17, 2004, 07:00:21 pm
One question the Neo-Cons have to ask themselves, why is Bush behind Kerry in the polls at this point? Why despite a imporving economy?

Because capital is currently cheaper than labor; therefore, companies find it easier and smarter to increase productivity by spending capital on things other than labor.

Companies are simply increasing their productivity so rapidly (which is the best measure of economic health and the ONLY "free lunch"), there is no need to hire new workers.

The problem has been forecasting when this extremely high rate of productively will slow.

So, this high rate of productivity may be bad for Bush politically, but it is certainly a blessing for the economy.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on February 17, 2004, 08:50:44 pm


  To most Americans except for the top 15%, how they are doing on the job translates into how well the economy is doing from their point of view. If Bush can not turn this around, the feeling of being uneasy, then his problems will get worse by Nov.

  My own opinion is the Bush admin is lost in a echo chamber convinced the WSJ editorial pages and the Weekly Standard reflect reality.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 17, 2004, 09:01:41 pm
My own opinion is the Bush admin is lost in a echo chamber convinced the WSJ editorial pages and the Weekly Standard reflect reality.

What is "reality"?  Is it not true corporate profits are at an all-time high?

An economy with the highest productivity in 50 years, the lowest inflation and interest rates in 40 years, and the highest corporate profits on record....is going to produce jobs.  The question of "when" depends on when the growth of productivity slows.

But that is a guessing game, and noone guessed that these levels of productity gains were sustainable this long.  

That IS the economic "reality", regardless of the political perception of the overall public.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: JNB on February 17, 2004, 09:07:20 pm
 The problem is, poltical perception becomes reality. As for overall corporate profits, they still are under their 1997 peak.

  Anyways, at least as things stand now, the Bush admin has a problem, and if 50% of voters feel economically insecure on election day, none of the GDP or profits numbers will help Bush one bit.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 17, 2004, 09:12:14 pm
As for overall corporate profits, they still are under their 1997 peak.

I don't know where you get your info from, but that is simply not the case.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 18, 2004, 12:04:09 am
BTW I wouldn't worry about the CPC winning... they won't be able to win a majority and the NDP will end up propping up a minority LPC government.
That's how Trudeau got started...

Trudeau started with a majority government in 1968.  He got in minority after the 1972 federal election, until the writ was dropped in '74.

It's been commonly assumed in Canadian federal politics that when a governing party is in minority, the NDP becomes the power broker.  However, we're at different times.  The current Canadian federal party system is 2+2, with 2 major parties vying for government (LPC & CPC) and 2 third parties (NDP & BQ).  If the recent Ipsos poll would stand for electoral results, the BQ would surely get 45 to 55 seats.  I presently doubt the NDP would match such number in the upcoming election (Although Ed Broadbent did it in '88, I expect Layton's troops to get a minimum of 20 seats).

If the current electoral trends stand, there are chances that Liberals get in such a minority that the NDP wouldn't even have the required number of seats to prop up a Liberal government.  The LPC has currently around 175 seats in the Commons, if we substract a possible loss of 10 ridings in the West, 15 in Quebec, and 25 (minimally, because of the strength of the NDP and an expected Conservative surge at around 30%), we get 125 seats for the Liberals.  If Layton wants to ensure he be the power broker, he needs to get around 30 seats.  Otherwise Martin might have to collaborate with the BQ (enough to create another scandal... ).

According to a Globe and Mail article (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040217/POLL17//?query=Jack+Layton) I read, Jack Layton already stated its terms for negotiation.

Quote
NDP Leader Jack Layton said he's willing to form a minority government with the Liberals if the sponsorship scandal ends up denying the ruling party a majority of parliamentary seats in a spring election.

"If the poll lines keep going the way they are going -- us up . . . and the Liberals down -- then the probability of a minority government increases," he said.

But Mr. Layton says a non-negotiable precondition of any coalition with the Liberals will be holding a national referendum on switching to a new method of electing MPs to Parliament.

Personally I find quite premature from him, he's giving reason for Martin to choose the BQ (the latter wouldn't be interested in PR as the current 1PTP system greatly favours the Bloc) if the latter obtain a minority government.  He'd need to be reminded that federal politics ain't the Toronto City Council.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 18, 2004, 12:19:09 am
Looks like it gets worse for Martin...

For the first time since under the leadership of John Turner, a Liberal MP, John Bryden (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, ON), quits the caucus.  He's rumoured to switch to the federal Conservatives.

Quote
Bryden says Martin hurting Liberals
Tue Feb 17 22:12:20 2004

OTTAWA-- John Bryden, a Liberal member of Parliament from Ontario, said on Tuesday Prime Minister Paul Martin is hurting the Liberals and he's leaving the party. "Maybe it's time for a change," Bryden said.

In a CBC TV interview, Bryden said he wants "to find again the kind of idealism that has always motivated me as a backbench MP." Later, at a news conference, Bryden said it's time voters look to other parties for leadership.

"The Conservatives show signs they have that kind of idealism," Bryden said but he did not say he intends to cross the floor to sit with the Conservatives.

He said confidence in the Liberal party under Martin "has been seriously shaken."

Asked if he is leaving because of Martin, Bryden said, "Paul Martin bears much of the responsibility. I think he has hurt the Liberal party."

As for Martin's handling of the current sponsorship scandal, Bryden – long a Chrétien supporter – said Martin "let the bricks fly over him to hit Mr. Chrétien."

Bryden, 60, represents the riding of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot near Hamilton. He sat on the Commons public accounts committee which is reviewing the spending of the sponsorship scandal.

People in his own office were surprised when Bryden sent out a news release that said, "Liberal MP Bryden quits party. Looks to the Conservatives."

Bryden has been critical of the sponsorship scandal, saying it has eroded people's faith in government.

He has a background in journalism, serving as city editor of The Hamilton Spectator and science editor at The Globe and Mail. He was first elected to House of Commons in October 1993 and re-elected in 1997 and 2000.

John Bryden had always been a troublemaker for the Liberals.  I suspect his upcoming decision on joining the CPC is based on the fact that in the last 2000 federal election, the old PPC and AC had a total number of votes higher than the LPC in his riding.  Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, ON, is among the likely catches for the Conservatives.  Looks like plain ol' opportunism to me, but that makes a break from the long standing trend of opposition MP's virant le capôt (switching) for the governing Liberals.

Le scandale des commandites, the sponsorship scandal, seems to scare away some prospective star candidates from the Liberals... We still have yet to hear from former Liberal New Brunswick Premier, Frank McKenna...

In the eyes of the Martinite, Bryden's crime might have been that he didn't support Paul Martin in the last party leadership contest, he supported John Manley.  More and more Liberal riding conventions are getting nasty and messy...

For Bryden's riding, the local Liberal association was anyway going to eject him for a pro-Martin candidate.

In Hamilton East-Stoney Creek, ON, Sheila Copps, former Minister and Deputy PM in the Chrétien administration (and tossed away in the backbench by Martin in December), is battling for her nomination against Tony Valeri, newly sworned as Minister for Transport.  She accuses Martin of barring women from Liberal nominations (needless to say that she also accuses Martin of knowing something on the sponsorship scandal) ...

In St-Maurice-Champlain, QC, Martin barred Stephen Hogue, former Chrétien's political advisor, from running for the riding's Liberal nomination.  Martin's team rationale : they want more women nominated among the LPC candidates ...

In Beauport, QC, Martin's team parachuted a pro-Martin male candidate, Dennis Dawson, former communication advisor.  Three women were previously battling for nomination ...

Stories like that keep piling by the week.  I'm shaking my head in disbelief in seeing what's going on (and wrong) with Martin.  He looked so powerful 10 days ago, now he'd look like a pale reminder of Turner.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: opebo on February 18, 2004, 01:50:47 am

  Sadly for me bringing up facts, I am derrided as a "gloom & doomer". The line of though that jmc advocates, saying that those economically dislocated must adapt or be left behind is very simplistic, and politically unworkable. If the GOP alienated all voters except for those who held the views of former Rep. Dick Armey, it would be a very tiny minority indeed.

  One question the Neo-Cons have to ask themselves, why is Bush behind Kerry in the polls at this point? Why despite a imporving economy?

Because what makes economic sense is not popular - most voters want something for nothing, in otherwords want their vote bought.  This is essentially the whole strategy and reason for the Democratic Party - buy the votes of the working class with the money of the rich.
Democracy and Capitalism are somewhat at odds.  Between the two I definitely prefer the latter.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 18, 2004, 02:09:40 am
JNB,

The government estimated profits topped $1 trillion at the end of the 3rd quarter for the first time, up from $771 billion one year earlier. The latest profit surge was the best in 19 years.  Companies are simply flush with cash:

“Newly revised government figures show that American businesses earned a record $1.1 trillion in the third quarter, up 25 percent from the same quarter a year earlier. More impressive still, the slice of the economic pie that went to profits -- after-tax profits as a share of gross domestic product -- reached 9.1 percent, the best performance in the 55 years the government has been tracking such numbers.”

 http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/01/11/good_corporate_times_havent_trickled_down_to_employee_paychecks?mode=PF (http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/01/11/good_corporate_times_havent_trickled_down_to_employee_paychecks?mode=PF)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 03:59:32 am
Hamilton-Stoney Creek is on the NDP Target/Covet list, while St Maurice-Champlain is on the BQ Target list (now that "the Little Guy" has finally retired)...

My guess is that the NDP will certainly pick up a minimum of 2 seats in the Praries (a bit of a no-brainer actually. Two CA/CPC seats in Sask were won by razor thin margins in 2000 and the CA/CPC has dropped a lot in the Praries since then) and quite possibily even more.
How many they get overall is a mystery though (and hinges on Ontario and BC).

It *looks* as though the BQ will pickup St Maurice-Champlain (from what I gather they have coveted it for years)... and will probably gain back all the seats they lost in the by-elections.
My cousin thinks that the BQ might form an alliance with the NDP, on the basis that there stance on certain aspects of domestic policy and there voters are very similer.

I don't see the CPC winning as I doubt they can win a majority, and neither the NDP or the BQ is likely to prop them up.

The Martin wing of the LPC seems to be attacking the "Old Liberals" (as in "Old Bolsheviks") and it *might* cause a split (ala Labour in the early 80's) in which case all bets are off.


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Gustaf on February 18, 2004, 03:47:43 pm
My own opinion is the Bush admin is lost in a echo chamber convinced the WSJ editorial pages and the Weekly Standard reflect reality.

What is "reality"?  Is it not true corporate profits are at an all-time high?

An economy with the highest productivity in 50 years, the lowest inflation and interest rates in 40 years, and the highest corporate profits on record....is going to produce jobs.  The question of "when" depends on when the growth of productivity slows.

But that is a guessing game, and noone guessed that these levels of productity gains were sustainable this long.  

That IS the economic "reality", regardless of the political perception of the overall public.

I don't know about that, growth doesn't necessarily generate jobs. But I agree that unemplyment should go down when companies bounce back from the dip.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Dave from Michigan on February 18, 2004, 04:26:44 pm
Does anyone know any websites on canada government and how it works and some information on canadian politics in general because I can't seem to find any


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 18, 2004, 04:41:53 pm
Try: www.polticalresources.net (http://www.polticalresources.net)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Dave from Michigan on February 18, 2004, 04:45:40 pm
Thank you


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 18, 2004, 06:03:21 pm
Try: www.polticalresources.net (http://www.polticalresources.net)
The link isn't working


Title: Re:Naming the 435 Congresional Districts
Post by: WMS on February 18, 2004, 11:24:51 pm
NM 1 Albuquerque
NM 2 New Mexico North
NM 3 New Mexico South

Nice descriptions, but you got two of them backwards: NM2 is New Mexico South and NM3 is New Mexico North. Of course, before the 2000 redistricting NM2 was more of a New Mexico Southeast and NM3 was more of a New Mexico Northwest. But NM1 is definitely Albuquerque!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 19, 2004, 06:26:09 am
My mistake. It's actually: www.politicalresources.net (http://www.politicalresources.net)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 19, 2004, 10:17:31 am
My mistake. It's actually: www.politicalresources.net (http://www.politicalresources.net)
thanks


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: NHPolitico on February 19, 2004, 01:18:12 pm
Leading Indicators Rise in January 20 minutes ago

By EILEEN ALT POWELL, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - A key economic forecasting gauge advanced a strong 0.5 percent in January, suggesting that the nation's economy will expand further in coming months.

The business-funded Conference Board said Thursday its Composite Index of Leading Economic Indicators rose to 115.0 last month following gains of 0.2 percent in December and 0.3 percent in November. Analysts had expected a rise of about 0.3 percent for January.

Ken Goldstein, the business group's economist, noted that the index has been gaining since last spring.

The rise points to "sustained economic growth, perhaps through the first half of this year," he said.

Still, Goldstein warned that there were factors that could create bumps for the economy later this year.

"Consumer confidence could falter if job and wage growth don't continue to strengthen. Business confidence could erode. The lack of pricing power could be a big problem," he said. "But while these risks are important, their probabilities are not very high."

Also Thursday, the Labor Department reported that the number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits fell sharply last week. That offered hope that companies may be feeling better about business conditions and are less inclined to hand out pink slips.

The department said that for the work week ending Feb. 14, new applications filed for jobless benefits plunged by a seasonally adjusted 24,000 to 344,000.

It marked the largest decline since the beginning of November and left claims at their lowest level since the week ending Jan. 24.

Wall Street responded positively to the economic news, as well as strong earnings in the technology sector. In midmorning trading, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 40.82, or 0.4 percent, at 10,712.81. The Nasdaq composite index was up 6.57, or 0.3 percent, at 2,083.04.

The index of leading indicators is closely watched because it forecasts trends in the economy in the next three to six months. The index has a base of 100, set in 1996.

Daniel J. Meckstroth, chief economist for the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI, a trade group in Arlington, Va., said that the two things needed to boost the industrial sector, which was hard-hit in the recession, were coming back -- exports and investment in business equipment.

In addition, he noted, consumer spending should get a boost in coming months from tax refunds as well as job growth.

"I think we're building the base for a sustained recovery," he said.

The Manufacturers Alliance own survey, released Thursday, indicated that 21 of 27 industries reported new orders or production that was higher in the fourth quarter of 2003 than a year earlier. That was up from 14 industries in the third quarter and 10 in the second quarter, the group said.

The New York-based Conference Board said that five of the 10 indicators that make up the leading index contributed to January's gain: consumer expectations, stock prices, average weekly manufacturing hours, vendor performance and a drop in initial claims for unemployment insurance. Four declined, while manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials was unchanged.

The Index of Coincident Indicators, which gauges current economic activity, rose 0.3 percent to 115.8 in January after showing no change in December.

The Index of Lagging Indicators was unchanged in January at 98.2 after dropping 0.4 percent in December.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 21, 2004, 01:18:14 pm
A new poll has been published, support for parties seemed to remain stable over the last week

From Ipsos-Reid

Federal voting intention in Canada
LPC : 36%
CPC : 27%
NDP : 17%
BQ : 11%

Regional breakdown


Atlantic

LPC : 39%
CPC : 36%
NDP : 18%


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 44%
 LPC : 30%
CPC : 10%
NDP : 9%


Ontario

LPC : 46%
CPC : 29%
NDP : 18%


Manitoba & Saskatchewan

CPC : 31%
NDP : 29%
 LPC : 29%


Alberta

CPC : 47%
 LPC : 28%
NDP : 18%


British Columbia

CPC : 33%
 LPC : 26%
NDP : 26%
Green Party : 6%




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on February 21, 2004, 01:26:02 pm
Okay...So the liberals aren't as bad of as I orginially thought.

the NDP has lost their lead in the plains...and everything else seems to be staying the same.  Thanks.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on February 21, 2004, 01:51:07 pm
The recent Ipsos-Reid poll also featured data on the CPC leadership contest.

()
Belinda Stronach

()
Stephen Harper

()
Tony Clement

The question on leadership vote intention was asked only among self-identified Conservative supporters.  The national results are not very accurate, given the fact that the leadership contest is going to be decided on a per riding basis, hence the regional breakdown may give a more precise (though far from being 99% accurate) picture of how the race is going so far.

From Ipsos-Reid

Candidates' support in Canada
Harper : 46%
Stronach : 26%
Clement : 17%
Don't know/refused : 11%

Regional breakdown


Atlantic

Stronach : 34%
Harper : 25%
Clement : 22%
DK/R : 19%


Quebec

Stronach : 44%
Harper : 24%
Clement : 16%
DK/R : 17%


Ontario

Harper : 36%
Stronach : 26%
Clement : 25%
DK/R : 13%


Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Harper : 58%
Stronach : 19%
Clement : 10%
DK/R : 14%


Alberta

Harper : 66%
Stronach : 26%
Clement : 5%
DK/R : 3%


British Columbia

Harper : 63%
Stronach : 16%
Clement : 12%
DK/R : 13%




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 21, 2004, 02:46:41 pm
Okay...So the liberals aren't as bad of as I orginially thought.

the NDP has lost their lead in the plains...and everything else seems to be staying the same.  Thanks.

All three parties are inside the margin of error for the Praries... which is normal (mind you NDP support is usually underestimated in Saskatchwan), and if those were the actual figures I would guess the NDP would win a plurality of Prarie seats.
One weird thing is the NDP's support in Alberta and BC... compare to this time last year and you'll see what I mean.
Martin would still end up with a minority government with those figures, but he would probably avoid the embarrassment of having to haggle with the BQ


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on February 21, 2004, 02:49:17 pm
If the CPC want to put Martin under pressure they should go with Stronach. If they want to let Martin off the hook, they will go with Harper...


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on February 25, 2004, 01:32:12 pm
Gas prices could badly hurt Bush


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 01, 2004, 02:35:14 pm
If the CPC want to put Martin under pressure they should go with Stronach. If they want to let Martin off the hook, they will go with Harper...
A recent Ekos poll asked among Canadians (not just Conservative supporters) the possibility that they would vote for the Conservatives, based on who might win the leadership contest.

If Stronach wins, 45% of respondents will or would vote for the Conservatives.

If Harper becomes CPC leader, 42% of respondents will or would.

For Clement, the number is just at 36%.

The sample size is 1,020, and the MoE is at 3.1%.  This poll seems telling that whether Belinda or Stephen wins that wouldn't greatly influence the Conservative fortunes in terms of support.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 01, 2004, 02:45:55 pm
That's weird... I would have thought that Harper being the ex-leader of the CA would hurt him a lot.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 01, 2004, 03:42:12 pm
The Ekos poll also queried on federal vote intentions.

Source: the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1077923413065)

Federal voting intentions in Canada

LPC : 42%
CPC : 32%
NDP : 15%
BQ : 9%

Partial Regional Breakdown


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 40%
LPC : 38%
NDP : 15%


Ontario

LPC : 47%
CPC : 36%
NDP : 15%


Alberta

CPC : 63%

British Columbia

LPC : 44%
CPC : 27%
NDP : 15%


The only good news for the Libs is that they're at 42% ... That score runs counterintuitive based on another poll only done in Quebec, the Ekos poll's regional sub-sample sizes and other data the same poll featured.

==========

I don't know the precise Ekos poll's regional sub-sample sizes but I guess they were as follows :

Atlantic: n=­±100
Quebec: n=±250
Ontario: n=±350
Man & Sask: n=±100
Alberta: n=±100
BC:n=±100

Ekos is not the sole polling firm to use such small sub-sample sizes to make data on regional vote intentions.  All firms in Canada do.  However, I doubt the Liberals may be leading in BC, given the current scandal and other previous polls showing them trailing.

==========

Another poll published the same day in French Quebecer media showed the Liberals still stucked on the floor.

Federal vote intentions in Quebec
Polling Firm: CROP (Published in La Presse)
Sample size = 607     MoE ± 4%

Bloc Québécois : 48%
LPC : 32%
NDP : 10%
CPC : 9%


==========

On a last surprising note (or pleasing for Realpolitik ;) ), the NDP has replaced the Liberals as the most popular second choice among voters.  We see why Layton keeps going onto Martin.

The last time Ekos published a poll the Liberals were at 56%...

=========

The sponsorship scandal, or Adscam as referred in some other Canadian media, is still on the headlines almost three weeks since the story outbreak.  In The National on CBC and Le Téléjournal on Radio-Canada one or two reports among the three first reports aired are generally on matters related to the scandal.

()
Myriam Bédard, from Quebec City, won a bronze medal in Albertville (1992) and two gold in Lillehammer (1994) in the biathlon

An olympic gold medallist, Myriam Bédard (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040228.wbeda28/BNStory/National/?query=Myriam+B%E9dard), is now involved in the scandal.  She worked for the VIA rail crown corporation and recently told media about overbilling she witnessed.  Last Friday after she spoke out Jean Pelletier, Chairman of VIA, went out by insulting her in publicly.  He considered Bédard as a kind of pitiful lonely single woman with children.  Problem is she's not single and the original Pelletier's remarks in French were very insulting.  Pelletier had now been fired today at noon (http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040301.w3pelltier0301/BNStory/National/).

()
Former PM Jean Chrétien (right) with Jean Pelletier (left).  Pelletier was Mayor of Quebec City in the 1980's.



Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 01, 2004, 04:02:04 pm
That's weird... I would have thought that Harper being the ex-leader of the CA would hurt him a lot.
Yeah that's quite surprising.  Weirder is that a year ago we were talking about a record majority for Martin ...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2004, 05:05:32 am
That's weird... I would have thought that Harper being the ex-leader of the CA would hurt him a lot.
Yeah that's quite surprising.  Weirder is that a year ago we were talking about a record majority for Martin ...

As Harold Wilson said: "A week is a long time in politics"


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2004, 05:15:17 am
The Ekos poll also queried on federal vote intentions.

Source: the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1077923413065)

Federal voting intentions in Canada

LPC : 42%
CPC : 32%
NDP : 15%
BQ : 9%

Partial Regional Breakdown


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 40%
LPC : 38%
NDP : 15%


NDP on 15% in Quebec?????

Quote
Ontario

LPC : 47%
CPC : 36%
NDP : 15%


Alberta

CPC : 63%

British Columbia

LPC : 44%
CPC : 27%
NDP : 15%


The only good news for the Libs is that they're at 42% ... That score runs counterintuitive based on another poll only done in Quebec, the Ekos poll's regional sub-sample sizes and other data the same poll featured.
Look on the bright side: even if Martin is reduced to minority status he probably won't have to humiliate himself by striking a deal with the BQ
Quote
==========

I don't know the precise Ekos poll's regional sub-sample sizes but I guess they were as follows :

Atlantic: n=­±100
Quebec: n=±250
Ontario: n=±350
Man & Sask: n=±100
Alberta: n=±100
BC:n=±100

Ekos is not the sole polling firm to use such small sub-sample sizes to make data on regional vote intentions.  All firms in Canada do.  However, I doubt the Liberals may be leading in BC, given the current scandal and other previous polls showing them trailing.
The Liberals are also hurt in BC by the word "Liberal". Martin needs to distance himself from Gordon Campbell (who's numbers have been dropping like a stone recently: the BCLibs now trial the BCNDP. And that's assuming the Greenies don't tactical vote)
Quote
==========

Another poll published the same day in French Quebecer media showed the Liberals still stucked on the floor.

Federal vote intentions in Quebec
Polling Firm: CROP (Published in La Presse)
Sample size = 607     MoE ± 4%

Bloc Québécois : 48%
LPC : 32%
NDP : 10%
CPC : 9%


==========

Looks like the Bloc have re-asserted themselves. Amazing how much damage a scandal can do really.

Quote
On a last surprising note (or pleasing for Realpolitik ;) ), the NDP has replaced the Liberals as the most popular second choice among voters.  We see why Layton keeps going onto Martin.

;D

Quote
The last time Ekos published a poll the Liberals were at 56%...
When was that?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 02, 2004, 11:30:25 am

That may be caused by the random sample.  It might be just luck for the NDP in Quebec.  Maybe Ekos called more people than usual in Mercier, QC.

Quote
Look on the bright side: even if Martin is reduced to minority status he probably won't have to humiliate himself by striking a deal with the BQ

Of course, the better is the BQ not to have the balance of power.  Unless they would surely get the opportunity to mess around.

A minority Liberal government would be a big problem for Martin.  He wouldn't control the parliamentary agenda completely... And couldn't easily end parliamentary inquiries into the recent sponsorship scandal that provide a very bad press to the party.

But for Martin, the biggest fallout from the possibility of obtaining a minority government after the election would be that he didn't live up to the expectations he possibly unintentionally let go (i.e., that he would get another majority government for the LPC and be a powerful campaigner).  That would surely make his political position quite fragile.  These unfulfilled expectations constitute a form of humiliation Martin will not be able to avoid if he's ever to get in minority territory.

Quote
The Liberals are also hurt in BC by the word "Liberal". Martin needs to distance himself from Gordon Campbell (who's numbers have been dropping like a stone recently: the BCLibs now trial the BCNDP. And that's assuming the Greenies don't tactical vote)

The same thesis is currently expressed in some Quebecer media.  The provincial Charest's governement is currently mired in protests over his plan to shake up the governmental structures and services.  BQ's strategists are going to make linking between the federal and provincial Liberals during the next campaign.  Their message would be "You don't like what the QLP is presently doing, don't vote for the federal Liberals".  For the federal Liberals, that would be a return of fortunes from the 2000 federal election.  During the 2000 campaign, the former PQ provincial government was going on with his plans on forced municipal mergers, which were opposed by many.  The federal Libs did linking by spreading the message that voting for them and not for the BQ was the best way to show dissatisfaction at the PQ's policies.  In 2000, the federal Liberals got the best score in terms of seats won since 1984: 37 on 75

Quote

Looks like the Bloc have re-asserted themselves. Amazing how much damage a scandal can do really.


Still amazing is the way Martin handled the affair... he did very badly... to the point I doubt if he's going to stand throughout a campaign.  His government had the Auditor General report on the Sponsorship program since November.  If you do the math, Martin's team had two months to prepare a communication strategy that would avoid some fallout from the damning report.

Quote
When was that?

According to some newspaper articles I read, the last Ekos poll was done in January.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 02, 2004, 12:30:10 pm
That may be caused by the random sample.  It might be just luck for the NDP in Quebec.  Maybe Ekos called more people than usual in Mercier, QC.

I'd guessed something like that. 10% seems (just about) plausible... 15% seems waaay to high

Quote
A minority Liberal government would be a big problem for Martin.  He wouldn't control the parliamentary agenda completely... And couldn't easily end parliamentary inquiries into the recent sponsorship scandal that provide a very bad press to the party.

But for Martin, the biggest fallout from the possibility of obtaining a minority government after the election would be that he didn't live up to the expectations he possibly unintentionally let go (i.e., that he would get another majority government for the LPC and be a powerful campaigner).  That would surely make his political position quite fragile.  These unfulfilled expectations constitute a form of humiliation Martin will not be able to avoid if he's ever to get in minority territory.

Ah. Who'd be most likely to try to topple him?
BTW the NDP have given Copps the finger

Quote
The same thesis is currently expressed in some Quebecer media.  The provincial Charest's governement is currently mired in protests over his plan to shake up the governmental structures and services.  BQ's strategists are going to make linking between the federal and provincial Liberals during the next campaign.  Their message would be "You don't like what the QLP is presently doing, don't vote for the federal Liberals".  For the federal Liberals, that would be a return of fortunes from the 2000 federal election.  During the 2000 campaign, the former PQ provincial government was going on with his plans on forced municipal mergers, which were opposed by many.  The federal Libs did linking by spreading the message that voting for them and not for the BQ was the best way to show dissatisfaction at the PQ's policies.  In 2000, the federal Liberals got the best score in terms of seats won since 1984: 37 on 75

I'm sure the BQ will appreciate the irony of that.
"What goes around, comes around"

Quote
Still amazing is the way Martin handled the affair... he did very badly... to the point I doubt if he's going to stand throughout a campaign.  His government had the Auditor General report on the Sponsorship program since November.  If you do the math, Martin's team had two months to prepare a communication strategy that would avoid some fallout from the damning report.

2 months? And he did *nothing*???
I had always assumed he was a canny operater...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 02, 2004, 04:49:27 pm
2 months? And he did *nothing*???
I had always assumed he was a canny operater...

Martin's team may have done "nothing" in the sense they didn't expect the AG report to create such public outrage and thought that would be in the headlines for just 3 days at worst. Worst for them, it's still in the news after 3 weeks.

That can be understood by the fact Liberals escaped wounds over many controversies since 1993: Military helicopters broken contracts; cost overrun of the federal guns registry; the one-billion dollar lost in the HRDC boondoggle; and others yet to be discovered.  Old habits die hard.

I too thought Martin and his team to be canny operators, but now after the outbreak of this scandal, I maintain doubts over their professional skills in keeping power.  If they're not able to be prepared for an event (i.e., the adscam) that would have been predicted two months before, how will they act like while facing unpredictable events during a campaign?

A column in an English Canadian newspaper, which I unfortunately don't remember the name of, reminded an affair that happened in BC last december and went quickly forgotten because of the ascent of Martin's government.  In Vancouver, in december, the RCMP sized documents in federal Liberal offices on allegation of wrongdoing related to membership selling.  The people involved have been Martin's organizers during his leadership campaign.  There are rumours the story might come back this month.  The RCMP inquiry may have found more than membership selling irregularities: money laundering.  If the rumours stand, Martin may have a harder time at distancing himself from the affair.  For many Canadians the question would be "If he's not able to know anything while he was Finance Minister, why would he not be able to know anything while he was campaigning for leadership?"


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 02, 2004, 07:18:20 pm
The problem is, poltical perception becomes reality. As for overall corporate profits, they still are under their 1997 peak.

Corporate profits with inventory
   valuation and capital consumption
   adjustments............................. $845.3B(1997)

http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2000/gdp499f.htm (http://www.bea.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2000/gdp499f.htm)

Corporate profits with inventory
   valuation and capital consumption
   adjustments............................. $927.1B(2003Q1)    $1,022.8B(2003Q2)    $1,124.2B (2003Q3)

http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2003/gdp303f.htm (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrelarchive/2003/gdp303f.htm)


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: angus on March 02, 2004, 07:53:22 pm
Those are adjusted for inflation (all in 1997 dollars?).  Is the 845.3 billion a third quarter number?  What is the disagreement here?


Title: Re:Economic Numbers
Post by: Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home. on March 02, 2004, 09:34:14 pm
Those are adjusted for inflation (all in 1997 dollars?).

I'll double check that.  But the 1997 number came from a report published in 2000.  So at the most, it only needs to be adjusted for inflation from 2000 to 2003, during which inflation was at a 40 year low.

But I'll see if I can get them all in the same dollars.

---

Quote
Is the 845.3 billion a third quarter number?  What is the disagreement here?

It is the total number for 1997 and the quarterally numbers from 2003 projected annually.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 03, 2004, 04:49:26 am
It looks as though Martin had been complacent...
I knew that Chretien had dodged a hellofalot of scandels over the years (I remember something about a hotel), and it's strange that Martin doesn't seem to be able to do the same.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 06, 2004, 12:44:08 pm
It looks as though Martin had been complacent...
I knew that Chretien had dodged a hellofalot of scandels over the years (I remember something about a hotel), and it's strange that Martin doesn't seem to be able to do the same.

Still, Martin doesn't seem able to deviate all the media attention out from the sponsorship scandal.  I've watched Le Midi on Radio-Canada (kind of CBC Noon News in French) and believe me the six first reports read by the news anchor were on the scandal.  Everytime Martin is somewhere (wandering around) for his pre-election tour, he's constantly questioned over the affairs and how Martin responds: by giving lenghty answers on how he's acting to clean up government.  Of course that's laudable from him; such behaviour is far from what Chretien used to do.  However, he's still giving the impression to the general public that the scandal is important.

Tonight (Eastern Canadian Time) East-Hamilton citizens will be settled on who between Tony Valeri and Sheila Copps will get the Liberal nomination.  I don't know who will win and whoever wins bring about unintended consequences.  If Valeri wins, that'll be seen as a martydom of Copps (and Copps is hinting that she might run as a Liberal independent (or NDP) candidate in the case she loses); and if Copps wins, it'll be a humiliation for Valeri, who's a strong supporter of Martin and Minister for Transport.  Some newspapers told police officers are on duty in case there's a riot after the results are known...

()
Tony Valeri, Martin cabinet member

()
Sheila Copps, Former Deputy Prime Minister


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on March 06, 2004, 10:45:31 pm
Isn't copps running for the NDP nomination somewhere?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2004, 04:34:36 am
()

Quote
Valeri defeats Copps in epic battle
Martin favourite wins nomination Turnout huge

for Liberal contest


SUSAN DELACOURT
OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF

STONEY CREEK&#8212;Sheila Copps, the former deputy prime minister and feisty, 20-year veteran Liberal politician, is crying foul after losing her epic duel with Transport Minister Tony Valeri.

By a squeaker of a vote, in a marathon day of voting, Valeri edged out Copps for the Liberal nomination in Hamilton East-Stoney Creek by a vote of 2802 to 2491 &#8212; a 311-vote margin.

Cries of "Tony, Tony," immediately greeted the results announced near midnight last night &#8212; at least in one half of a Hamilton high-school gymnasium.

Copps supporters, some in tears, threw their signs and wept.

But Copps, angry, is saying at least 400 of her potential supporters were not eligible to vote because the paperwork to transfer their memberships to the new riding was mysteriously lost.

"Rather than make any rash statements now, I am going to look at all the facts," Copps said. "What is important is that the process is a fair process."

Under party rules, she has 72 hours to ask for an appeal of the vote result and pay a $1,000 deposit to have the meeting's proceedings investigated.

Copps was not saying last night whether she was going to proceed to that next step.

For Valeri, newly named as transport minister and a key confidante of Prime Minister Paul Martin, the victory seals a week of giant killing among the old regime of Jean Chrétien.

Last Monday, it was Valeri who fired VIA chairman Jean Pelletier, Chrétien's former chief of staff. On Friday, he fired VIA president Marc Lefrançois. And last night, he handed a stunning, career-ending defeat to Copps.

Valeri praised Copps last night as a "worthy opponent."

"I want to make it absolutely clear. Sheila's contribution to our community will not soon be forgotten," he said.

It was a spectacle of democracy, a battle fought in huge, snaking lineups in high-school corridors, as the voters of Hamilton East-Stoney Creek turned out in massive numbers yesterday to choose their favourite Liberal.

So huge was the turnout at Cardinal Newman high school, so slow were the proceedings, that the high-stakes, career-defining result of the nomination contest hung in the balance until late into the night.

Copps, emotional, fighting to the end, jumped on a bus at about 9 p.m., doing one last desperate search for supporters in nearby apartment buildings.

Valeri, his vaunted new position in Martin's government on the line, paced in and out of the hallways, shaking hands, thanking people for showing up to cast a ballot.

It had been a nasty battle, pitting members of the Liberal family against one another in intensely personal combat, but there were few outright displays of that animosity before the vote was announced. Copps, 51, and Valeri, 46, sported microphones, their every word recorded for a CBC documentary on the battle that is airing this week.

Copps had even sent a conciliatory message to Valeri when the nomination meeting opened.

"Tony, whatever happens in this fight, I know that we're all believing in the building of our great party and we will do it together," she said.

Some political insiders at the meeting heard these remarks as a signal Copps would not run as an independent against Valeri in Hamilton East &#8212; that perhaps she would run in another riding as a Liberal, maybe even in Quebec, according to one rumour circulating around the overheated corridors yesterday.

As the day wore on, the tension and uncertainty hung almost palpably over those high-school corridors, mixing with the heat of hundreds and hundreds of people quietly queuing in their outdoor coats, waiting two, even three hours to vote.

Senior citizens sat on chairs, parents juggled babies in their arms and laughing teenagers raced through the halls, jackets plastered in stickers for Copps or Valeri.

National media descended in droves for the meeting, fanning out through the high school, here to watch what has become the largest battle of the titans in the governing Liberal party &#8212; a duel fuelled by old rivalries, personal attacks and all the intense symbolism of the current regime change in Ottawa.

By and large, the mood was patient, but there were flashes of intense exasperation with a Liberal party machine that seemed unable to handle the massive operation at anything beyond glacial speed. Valeri and Copps supporters were complaining, with Valeri making no secret of his frustration.

"Better organization would help," he said at one point.

Many of the delays were caused by challenges of membership from opposing camps. Copps supporters alleged that a full 400 of their people were rendered ineligible to vote, while Valeri's own family &#8212; wife, mother, sister &#8212; all had their membership credentials challenged by Copps' supporters. This is a typical tactic in close-fought nomination battles.

By 6 p.m., about 3,000 people had voted, while hundreds and hundreds more people waited for hours more. Nearby stores were drained of their bottled water supply, as organizers passed out refreshment for parched supporters. Voting hours were extended to 9 p.m. so that no one who showed up to vote would be turned away. Though the lineup disappeared around 8 p.m., Valeri and Copps supporters used the extra hour to scour the riding for more voters, to clinch what all expected to be a very close race.

Speculation about the probable winner lurched dramatically between Copps and Valeri all day. When two school buses turned up, ferrying residents of nearby apartment buildings to vote for Copps, spirits sank among the Valeri troops.

But as afternoon turned to evening, the Valeri prospects appeared to brighten. The later arrivals seemed heavily weighted toward Valeri &#8212; suburban residents who had worked all day, such as Susan Sawchuk, a Sears employee who stood all day on the store floor, then headed over to Cardinal Newman to stand for an hour or two more in line.

"I just wanted to make sure we have great representation," Sawchuk said. "I'll go home after this, have dinner and a few glasses of wine."

This Liberal battle was fought on several fault lines within the party, notably the divide between Martin and former prime minister Jean Chrétien.

It was Copps, the old, left-side Liberal, against Valeri, the new, more right-leaning Grit. "Tony's the future, Sheila's the past," Valeri's supporters chanted.

"How can you have too much experience?" Copps asked in her speech to the crowd.

It was urban versus suburban, with Copps appealing more to the lower-income and immigrant denizens of the downtown part of the riding, while Valeri's constituency was drawn heavily from the suburban dwellers; the people for whom business and the economy are the biggest concerns.

Valeri resisted being pigeonholed as the business candidate, however. In his speech at the opening of the nomination meeting, Valeri said: "When people say this is a shift to the right or a big-business agenda, I just can't accept that."

In another high-profile contest, David McGuinty &#8212; brother of Premier Dalton McGuinty &#8212; won the federal Liberal nomination yesterday in Ottawa South, beating former city councillor Diane Deans.

The Premier represents the same area in Ontario's Legislature.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 07, 2004, 01:06:54 pm
Isn't copps running for the NDP nomination somewhere?

There were rumours Copps might run for the NDP nomination.  However, there may be more chances she runs as a "Liberal independent".  She hasn't said her last word (or concede her last sword ? ... )


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 07, 2004, 01:57:02 pm
Copp's will probably run as an Independent Liberal (the NDP were not happy about her staying in the Liberal primary), which could result in the NDP (who have re-bounded in Eastern Hamilton of late) coming up the middle. (Yes, I said the middle)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 07, 2004, 04:03:29 pm
Copp's will probably run as an Independent Liberal (the NDP were not happy about her staying in the Liberal primary), which could result in the NDP (who have re-bounded in Eastern Hamilton of late) coming up the middle. (Yes, I said the middle)

The "coming up the middle" seems less and less surprising to me.  Some recent polls put the NDP at around 20% in Ontario, which is pretty high and may prevent the reelection of many Liberals if Layton succeed to maintain or enhance such support.

Copps' defeat seems to create crazy rumours, one tells that she might try to run in another Liberal nomination contest in Quebec !!!


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on March 07, 2004, 04:07:10 pm
Isn't copps running for the NDP nomination somewhere?

There were rumours Copps might run for the NDP nomination.  However, there may be more chances she runs as a "Liberal independent".  She hasn't said her last word (or concede her last sword ? ... )

Thanks :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 09, 2004, 12:13:52 am
Another Ipsos-Reid poll has been published, the Liberals' recovery seems to be taking a long time.  This poll has the largest sample size among the '04 Ipsos polls to date (n=2111 individuals, MoE 2.1%)

From Ipsos-Reid (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2080)

Federal voting intention in Canada
LPC : 38%
CPC : 26%
NDP : 17%
BQ : 12%

Regional breakdown


Atlantic

LPC : 49%
CPC : 31%
NDP : 17%


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 49%
 LPC : 31%
NDP : 8%
CPC : 6%


Ontario

LPC : 47%
CPC : 31%
NDP : 16%


Manitoba & Saskatchewan

LPC : 36%
NDP : 31%
CPC : 24%


Alberta

CPC : 57%
 LPC : 24%
NDP : 16%


British Columbia

LPC : 33%
NDP : 29%
CPC : 27%
Green Party : 10%




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 09, 2004, 06:13:59 pm
I think the Federal election really depends on two key factors when and who. The when being when the election is called. If Martin calls it in early May like we're all being led to believe than he stands to lose a lot, the scandal will be fresh in the minds of Canadians, maybe fading but the Con.s and NDP won't let us forget.

The next important detail is who the Con.s elect as their leader. If they pick Harper, they'll win in the West, the same or as much, maybe more than last time. They will gain ground in Ontario but no further than the Ottawa River. If the pick Stronach, (dear god no!) they'll win a lot of Quebec, parts of Ontario and the West and pieces of the Maritimes. If Clement I think they'll win all over the place, Quebec, Ontario, the West, and the Maritimes, the whole lot.

Regardless the Liberals will get a government, likely a minority, but who knows.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 10, 2004, 08:11:13 am
There is no way that the CPC will do as well out west as the CA did last time round.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 12, 2004, 06:22:23 pm
I agree, but by 2008 the Conservatives will be a force to be reckoned with. Hopefully so will the NDP. If you think that the Canadian people are itchy after 11 years or Liberal rule, wait until 15.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2004, 04:21:21 am
Yeah... one of the most interesting trends in Ontario recently has been the NDP in Northern Ontario (Hampton was re-elected with 60% I recall...)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 09:54:04 am
Is this a trend down or up? Northern Ontario has been for a long time NDP territory. The Election in October 2003 was a little bit of a fluke. Ontarians desperate to rid themselves of the Progressive Conservatives, voted Liberal, even members of the NDP, they called it strategic voting. I despised it, it cost the NDP official party status due to the shift, the Liberals one quite handily, 70 seats of 103. Conservatives got 26 or 25. NDP got 7 or 8.

But as someone once told me, Governors mean nothing in the Federal elections, the same nearly applies in Canada. If the provincials are doing a good job it may convince some, and if they're doing a bad job it has the opposite effect. Case in point that provincial elections don't have great effect is the West. Right now there's 2 or 3 NDP governments out there, but they usually vote Alliance, now Conservative. Two completely different parties ideologically.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 13, 2004, 10:12:21 am
The trend is up. In 1999 Hampton won with about 45% (can't remember the exact figure), in 2003 he won with 60%
In 2003 the NDP's vote went up for the first time since 1992, but they suffered a net loss of seats, mainly because of a lame-duck incumbent in Sault-Ste-Marie, a retirement in Hamilton West (where the NDP's vote went up, but the Tories collapsed=Liberal gain), and because they polled best in Liberal held seats.

[Actually, the one result in 2003 that suprised me was Oshawa. I had assumed that:
a) the NDP were forever dead in Oshawa
b) it would be a close fight between the Liberals and the Tory incumbent.
In the event, the Tory incumbent was re-elected by a small margin... over the NDP's candidate (the Liberal came third).
I was glad that I didn't put money on a horse that day...]

However the trend is likely to be even more visible in the federal election, as the federal Liberals are weaker in Northern Ontario than the Ontario Liberals (look at the two Thunder Bay seats)

The NDP have always been a predominantly western party, and run Saskatchwan and Manitoba (2 of there strongest provinces federally).


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 10:22:47 am
I think the NDP has a lot to gain in the next election, their public approval went up something like 10% in the provincial election (yay!). I think they've (Liberals and Conservatives) left the door wide open in Ontario for a great NDP flood. Harper is seen as the westerner, Stronach is well... not the best choice, the Liberals have been scandaled, again. The NDP have a clean slate and are continuing to grow in the polls. In fact, the Conservatives have slipped in the polls recently, as have the Liberals, while the NDP have had continuous growth. By the May election they could reach 25%. I'm biased though.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 13, 2004, 03:14:46 pm
IBy the May election they could reach 25%. I'm biased though.

... Maybe a little ;), but you may nevertheless be right on an NDP surge in Ontario.  At 20-25%, the NDP might prevent the re-election of many federal Liberals and let the conservatives run in the middle.  By the simple merger of the Canadian Alliance and the old-Conservatives, the CPC can expect to take at minimum 20 ridings in Ontario, these ridings are in the South and Southwest rural areas, that historically always voted Conservative before the schism of '93.

The NDP could also enquiquiner (bother) the Liberal campaign in Toronto by forcing the LPC to spend more time and energy in a region they've taken for granted since '93.  The original plan of Paul Martin (i.e., dropping the writ in early-April for election in May) is in shambles because of the Sponsorship scandal.  Right now, the LPC can expect no growth in Quebec and the West and they're now left with Ontario, where the next federal election is going to be the most competitive since 1988, that surely scares the hell out of many Liberal incumbent who haven't got the habit of working hard to campaign because of the division of the right the low support that was given for the NDP.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 13, 2004, 03:33:32 pm
Regardless of who the Conservatives pick as leader, there's going to be a lot of FORMER Liberal MPs down at the Unemployment election.

I do believe the a May election could still work with the Liberals still remaining in power. The longer they stall the lower their chances get. Soon as we get to June their odds get worse. Or so I think.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 14, 2004, 05:36:44 am
Doesn't Martin still have bags of time till he has to call an election. Like, till late 2005?
Oh, and, Siege, I think Michigan was a better fit than South Carolina.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 10:15:31 am
I think it's mid-2005 but you have to look at it from the point of view of Canadians. Those who aren't big Liberal fans see this as a continuing term left over from Jean Chretien. So they see them being in power since 1993. That's a LONG time in the political sense. People don't want to drag this out, we want an election, soon, cause we're tiring of the Liberals. If Pauly boy decides to wait to 2005 it'll seem like he's dragging it out for a bigger win, or more specifically a majority government.

My opinion is the longer they keep waiting to more frustated Canadians will become. 11 years is a long time, we don't want to wait 12. Besides if the election is called earlier it gives an advantage to the Liberals. The Conservative party leader won't have time to solidify power and to concentrate on working out the kinks before the election. The longer they wait the stronger the Conservatives, and specifically the NDP become.

Also yes, Michigan is the better choice, but I was asked by the people on the Fantasy Election boards to move to a Southeastern state, because of the lack of people down there.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 14, 2004, 01:58:37 pm
Martin can wait to drop the writ until September 2005.  However waiting until next year brings along many risks for the Martin government:

1) 3 partial elections must be held in the coming month.  One should be held in St-Maurice-Champlain, Qc, the former riding of Jean Chrétien, former PM.  Liberal organizers expect to lose the seat from the Bloc Québécois.  Another election should be held in Ottawa Centre, On, where the NDP candidate is Ed Broadbent, former NDP leader (1974-1989).  This might be a win for the NDP if Ottawa-Centre is at play in a partial election.  I don't remember where's the last partial election but what's certain is that losses in partial elections will erase the momentum Martin was maintaining since December.

2) The other risk to which Martin will expose his government is related to the inquiries the government established on the issues regarding the sponsorship scandal and the Arar affair.  Those inquiries will run full steam in the fall and Martin will have to make plans to avoid the fallout from the findings the investigations will gather.  For your information, Maher Arar is a Syrian-born Canadian who while transfering in New York was arrested by US authorities and sent in Syria for interrogation (where he was tortured), even though Arar is a Canadian citizen.  He's finally back, but this affair raised questions on Canada's security policies.  Arar's wife is going to be NDP candidate in Ottawa South, On.

3) Another risk concerns the sponsorship scandal.  The affair seems more and more unstopable as new stories are uncovered.  This week, Allan Cutler, a high-ranking public servant testified on the widespread non-respect for administrative rules regarding the awarding of contracts.  His testimony points to Alfonso Gagliano, the former Public Work minister at the center of the scandal, and Prime Minister Office aides, as the men who pulled the strings in the now infamous sponsorship program that squandered 200 million dollars.  Not related to the scandal are 160 million lost at the Defence department in contract bids and 55 million the government was preparing to give to the rich Irving family of New Brunswick in shipbuilding projects.

4) At last, by waiting until fall '04 or the year 2005, Martin may give ample time for the opposition parties to be prepared.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 02:05:24 pm
Well put. At the current time the Liberals are guarenteed to win a minority, if they put it off they could lose it all.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2004, 02:08:32 pm
Excellent post :)

Not a lot I can add really...

Except: I just looked at the Canadian Parliament's website (it has a huge election results archive), and I've noticed that the NDP usually come second in Ottawa Centre.
With a star candidate like Broadbent, the NDP have a good shot at picking it up in a by-election.

St-Maurice-Champlain doesn't vote Liberal... it votes Chrétien (local boy come good syndrome).
No Chrétien=probable BQ pickup.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 14, 2004, 02:32:42 pm
St-Maurice-Champlain doesn't vote Liberal... it votes Chrétien (local boy come good syndrome).
No Chrétien=probable BQ pickup.

Jean Chrétien didn't carry St-Maurice by great margins compared to Liberal scores in western areas of Montreal.  To compare, just look at Mont-Royal, Qc.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 14, 2004, 02:38:37 pm
True... but Chrétien was just about the only Liberal who could carry St-Maurice in the 1990's


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 14, 2004, 02:40:34 pm
True... but Chrétien was just about the only Liberal who could carry St-Maurice in the 1990's

Yes ... And being PM and Liberal leader surely helped...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 14, 2004, 02:46:15 pm
Part of the reason he didn't do well is that they saw Chretien as a traitor to Quebec. Who ever runs there as long as they have a good record and a native son (or daughter) could do well.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 14, 2004, 11:14:49 pm
Obviously, before the Sponsorship Scandal, everything suggested Martin should call a vote quickly. By now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll admit there's still a good argument that now's better than next year, but victory doesn't look a certainty now, and who knows what next year will bring?


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 15, 2004, 01:00:53 am
Obviously, before the Sponsorship Scandal, everything suggested Martin should vote quickly. By now, I'm not so sure anymore. I'll admit there's still a good argument that now's better than last year, but victory doesn't look a certainty now, and who knows what next year will bring?

Yep... who knows what may happen in the future...

It was the story of a man who was minister in the Liberal cabinet government.  Not able to wait for the departure of his boss, the PM, he quit the cabinet for an indeterminate period of time.  The minister's ambition is rewarded when he won the leadership contest, that ensued the boss' resignation, and thus became PM.  His victory was hailed as a new era for the Liberals and the new PM was about to vanquish the new Conservative leader in a landslide, based on the polls.  But the former PM left many skeletons in the closet, leaving the new PM to explain and shout he knew and could do nothing about.  The explanations of the ambitious new PM could hold for only a couple of month, but they crumbled during the election campaign.  In the campaign, the Liberal leader receives his KO in the debate.  "You could've done something; you should've said no [to the PM]", told the Conservative leader to the ambitious PM.  After the debate, support for the Liberals crumbled, and the party obtained its worst results in 20 years ...

Am I telling a story on Paul Martin? No, it's the story of John Turner, former Liberal leader from 1984 to 1990, who succeeded P.E. Trudeau.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 15, 2004, 09:06:02 am
Nicely put Canadian Observer. I think the thing that bothers me most about the Sponsership Scandal is that it was Jean Chretien, I liked Chretien a lot, he's the only PM I knew of my entire life, not to mention I just liked him. He had a certain charm, now, this will ruin his reputation in the history books for sure.

Martin should call the election asap before the inquiry finds a titbit (or timbit) of information that points to him, it's a race against time Pauly, get to it.

I just don't want to see Harper in Sussex Drive, those Alliance guys have said some really crazy right-wing stuff, like returning Canada to a unilingual country. A minority Liberal, or a joint Liberal-NDP government could be excellent, that is if the NDP are given some significant role. Or a minority NDP, despite how remote that is... sigh it's such an uphill battle for them...

Siege40

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 15, 2004, 09:15:21 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 15, 2004, 09:25:40 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.

I wonder if the NDP find a strong issue to run on could they make it to 30% cause that could be enough to form a government or is it 40%... can't remember...

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: dunn on March 15, 2004, 09:29:28 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.

I wonder if the NDP find a strong issue to run on could they make it to 30% cause that could be enough to form a government or is it 40%... can't remember...

Siege40
Siege40
you don't have to sign at the ens of post, it got your name near the avatar


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 15, 2004, 09:29:38 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.
Thankfully I can act without such constraints.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 16, 2004, 12:38:41 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.

Unfortunaltely... I'm one who's trying to avoid laughing.  Sorry ;)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 16, 2004, 04:39:50 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.

I wonder if the NDP find a strong issue to run on could they make it to 30% cause that could be enough to form a government or is it 40%... can't remember...

Siege40
Siege40
you don't have to sign at the ens of post, it got your name near the avatar

I guess he knows that. It's a style thing, he's not the only one to do it. So do Kevin Lamoreau (kevinstat), HoopsCubs, and Saratoga.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: dunn on March 16, 2004, 05:12:51 am
I'd prefer an NDP majority government. :)

So would I ;) But sadly I have to have some sort of sense of Reality. That or other Canadians laugh at you.

I wonder if the NDP find a strong issue to run on could they make it to 30% cause that could be enough to form a government or is it 40%... can't remember...

Siege40
Siege40
you don't have to sign at the ens of post, it got your name near the avatar

I guess he knows that. It's a style thing, he's not the only one to do it. So do Kevin Lamoreau (kevinstat), HoopsCubs, and Saratoga.
I know that he knows
still Kevin is posting long and few posts, anyway it is not a progressive thing to do (j/k);)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 16, 2004, 05:20:14 am
Well, it obviously is, Natalie, as can be seen from the fact it's done by 16% of Progressives, but 0% of registered Republicans and Democrats. :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 16, 2004, 01:44:47 pm
Oh, I know that it's not required... I quess I like it though, I never wondered why, just a style, if you really want me to change it in the name of Progressiveness I would.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 18, 2004, 08:05:49 am
www.electionprediction.com (http://www.electionprediction.com) has finally started doing the Federal election.
:)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: dunn on March 18, 2004, 08:10:37 am
www.electionprediction.com (http://www.electionprediction.com) has finally started doing the Federal election.
:)

that's nice


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Kevinstat on March 19, 2004, 10:47:47 pm
www.electionprediction.com (http://www.electionprediction.com) has finally started doing the Federal election.
:)

cool

(I'm trying to combat my reputation for only posting long, infrequent posts :) )

Sincerely,

me


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: dunn on March 20, 2004, 04:20:51 am
www.electionprediction.com (http://www.electionprediction.com) has finally started doing the Federal election.
:)

cool

(I'm trying to combat my reputation for only posting long, infrequent posts :) )

Sincerely,

me
lol


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 20, 2004, 05:12:10 pm
Today's the CPC leadership contest. Here's the results, based on what I'm watching on the CPAC Channel

Stephen Harper: 12294 points
Belinda Stronach: 9501 points
Tony Clement: 2359 points


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 20, 2004, 05:14:57 pm
Frank McKenna, former Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, has announced he won't seek a federal seat in the upcoming federal election.  That's bad news for Martin's Liberals, as they're scrambling to catch star candidates.  Their task has been pretty difficult since the outbreak of the Sponsorship Scandal.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 20, 2004, 05:17:58 pm
Here's an update from CTV.

Quote
CTV.ca News Staff
 
Updated: Sat. Mar. 20 2004 5:13 PM ET

With about two-thirds of the ridings reporting, Stephen Harper has a lead of about 4,600 points over Belinda Stronach.

About 243 of 308 ridings have reported. At 5:14 p.m., Harper had 14,256.7 points. He needs 15,401 to win.

Belinda Stronach has 9,674.7 points, and Tony Clement is third with 2,568.6.

On a percentage basis, Harper has 51.2, Stronach has 38.8 and Clement has 10.

Harper apparently attracted bigger-than-expected support in Ontario and in the Greater Toronto Area, with one report indicating he had outpaced Stronach in her own Newmarket riding. He is crushing his opponents in the West -- the heartland of the old Reform/Canadian Alliance party.

"I think what we're seeing here is that Stephen Harper is strong just about everywhere," Duffy said.

Stronach is doing well in the Maritimes -- a strong area for the old Progressive Conservative party --- and in the Northwest Territories. She also has a small lead in Quebec but Harper is very competitive there.

Conservative MP John Reynolds, a key Harper advisor, told CTV that he thought Harper deserved the victory based on his leadershop and dedication.

"This is a man who never stops working," said Reynolds. "He's as dedicated a politician as I've seen in a long time."

Klein speaks

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein spoke to delegates on Saturday, saying the unification of Canada's right was a "dream come true."

He opened his remarks with a joke in reference to U2 singer Bono, who spoke at last fall's Liberal leadership convention.

"I'm here because they couldn't get the rock star," Klein said.

Taking shots at both Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, Klein urged party members to take pride in their "conservative values."

"We are Conservatives, we are united and yes, Mr. Martin, we're back," he said.

Klein also urged Conservatives to take immediate steps to restore strained relations between Ottawa and Washington.

The anti-American bias that has run through the Liberal party for more than a generation has paid very bad dividends," he said.

He also said fiscal responsibility should be a hallmark of the party's platform.

Klein took a veiled shot at Stronach's candidacy, urging business people to stay out of politics and vice versa.

Former prime minister Brian Mulroney had also been scheduled to speak, but a party official said Saturday that Mulroney would not be available.

It's not known how many of the 190,000 eligible party members cast ballots during Saturday's four-hour voting period, but turnout was steady at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, where the candidates have gathered.

There were also reports of problems with members being turned away from voting stations across the country.

The complicated voting system assigns points from 308 riding across Canada. Each riding is worth 100 points, and the candidates earn a percentage of those points based on their share of the vote in each riding.

In the vote, delegates also rank their first, second and third choices. If there is no clear winner on the first ballot, the third-placed candidate is eliminated, and that individual's support is allocated between the two remaining hopefuls.

A 50 per cent plus one majority is needed for victory.

On Friday, the three candidates and crowds of party faithful gathered for speeches, in which the leadersip hopefuls praised themselves, indirectly criticized each other -- and attacked the ruling Liberals.

The Conservative Party has only existed since Dec. 6. It's a product of the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative parties.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 20, 2004, 05:31:33 pm
Stephen Harper has finally won the CPC leadership contest in the first ballot.

Here's the results aired on CPAC.

Stephen Harper: 15,614.7 points
Belinda Stronach: 9,922.2 points
Tony Clement: 2,663.1 points




Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2004, 05:38:23 am
Frank McKenna, former Liberal Premier of New Brunswick, has announced he won't seek a federal seat in the upcoming federal election.  That's bad news for Martin's Liberals, as they're scrambling to catch star candidates.  Their task has been pretty difficult since the outbreak of the Sponsorship Scandal.

Any news on Romanow? Both the Liberals and the NDP were trying to get him to run last I heard.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2004, 05:45:10 am
Stephen Harper has finally won the CPC leadership contest in the first ballot.

Here's the results aired on CPAC.

Stephen Harper: 15,614.7 points
Belinda Stronach: 9,922.2 points
Tony Clement: 2,663.1 points

Finally some good news for Martin...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 21, 2004, 08:05:07 am
www.electionprediction.com (http://www.electionprediction.com) has finally started doing the Federal election.
:)
They seem to have bandwidth problems.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 21, 2004, 08:09:05 am
That happend to them in the Ontario election as well...

Most likely seat to change hands: Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre, Sk=NDP gain from Con


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 22, 2004, 09:53:46 am
Spring election now. Harper's going to have a power base in the party by the Fall. Martin has to strike quickly. Time is on the side of the opposition, the Liberals will move quickly. If Clement won they'd of moved a little slower, I think he already could of had the party behind him. If Stronach won she'd take a hell of a long time to unite the CCP. But Harper will take some time, not a lot, possibly by Autumn. A quick election will hurt Harper cause then he has to draft the platform cause there won't be time for a party convention, the Red Tories will see this as the Alliance agenda being shoved down their throats. They'll vote Liberal.

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 22, 2004, 04:38:52 pm
Any news on Romanow? Both the Liberals and the NDP were trying to get him to run last I heard.

I got no news on Romanow.  However if he decides to run with the NDP, that would be an upset for the Liberals in Saskatchewan.

I may not be right but it seems Liberals may not get a great pool of star candidates this year.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Canadian observer on March 22, 2004, 04:43:02 pm
Stephen Harper has finally won the CPC leadership contest in the first ballot.

Here's the results aired on CPAC.

Stephen Harper: 15,614.7 points
Belinda Stronach: 9,922.2 points
Tony Clement: 2,663.1 points

Finally some good news for Martin...

What good news for Martin? Taking all the 8 Conservative remaining seats in the Atlantic while losing around 40 in the rest of the country? (i.e., minimum of 10 seats to the BQ in Quebec, 20 to the CPC in Ontario, and 10 to the CPC in the West)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Siege40 on March 22, 2004, 05:15:27 pm
Do you think that Harper can be a national canidate. Everytime I hear from this guy it, "I'm the one that will break into Ontario..." Sure! What about the other third of our nation? Harper is a confusing man, he'll do extremely well, or moderately ok. Vote NDP, I've heard their numbers jumped in Quebec. Quebec!!! NDP can do it!

Siege40


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: © tweed on March 22, 2004, 05:57:56 pm
Harper will do pretty badly.  Stronach would have been the better candidate.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 23, 2004, 04:09:58 am
What good news for Martin? Taking all the 8 Conservative remaining seats in the Atlantic while losing around 40 in the rest of the country? (i.e., minimum of 10 seats to the BQ in Quebec, 20 to the CPC in Ontario, and 10 to the CPC in the West)

Well... not as bad news for Martin. Harper won't win a majority government...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 23, 2004, 04:17:01 am
Vote NDP, I've heard their numbers jumped in Quebec. Quebec!!! NDP can do it!

They have gone from 1% to around 10%. Which in Quebec means no seats unless you get REALLY lucky...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 23, 2004, 04:23:28 am
Stephen Harper has finally won the CPC leadership contest in the first ballot.

Here's the results aired on CPAC.

Stephen Harper: 15,614.7 points
Belinda Stronach: 9,922.2 points
Tony Clement: 2,663.1 points

Finally some good news for Martin...

What good news for Martin? Taking all the 8 Conservative remaining seats in the Atlantic while losing around 40 in the rest of the country? (i.e., minimum of 10 seats to the BQ in Quebec, 20 to the CPC in Ontario, and 10 to the CPC in the West)
How are the Liberals going to lose ten seats in Western Canada? They've pretty much lost everything there was to lose in the West already.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 23, 2004, 04:28:03 am
I got no news on Romanow.  However if he decides to run with the NDP, that would be an upset for the Liberals in Saskatchewan.

I may not be right but it seems Liberals may not get a great pool of star candidates this year.

Romanow is a friend of Chretien... so I guess he won't run for the LPC...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 23, 2004, 05:30:53 am
Another Ipsos-Reid poll has been published, the Liberals' recovery seems to be taking a long time.  This poll has the largest sample size among the '04 Ipsos polls to date (n=2111 individuals, MoE 2.1%)

From Ipsos-Reid (http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=2080)

Federal voting intention in Canada
LPC : 38%
CPC : 26%
NDP : 17%
BQ : 12%

Regional breakdown


Atlantic

LPC : 49%
CPC : 31%
NDP : 17%


Quebec

Bloc Québécois : 49%
 LPC : 31%
NDP : 8%
CPC : 6%


Ontario

LPC : 47%
CPC : 31%
NDP : 16%


Manitoba & Saskatchewan

LPC : 36%
NDP : 31%
CPC : 24%


Alberta

CPC : 57%
 LPC : 24%
NDP : 16%


British Columbia

LPC : 33%
NDP : 29%
CPC : 27%
Green Party : 10%



That translates into gains and losses as follows:
Atlantic Lib +9, Con -10, NDP flat
Quebec Bloc +9, Lib -13, NDP +6, Con -6
Ontario Lib -4, Con -7, NDP +8
Man/Sask Lib +9, NDP +8, Con -25
Alta Con -15, Lib +3, NDP +10
B.C. Lib +5, NDP +18, Con -30
On these figures, the Liberals would almost certainly keep their absolute majority of seats.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 23, 2004, 06:34:51 am
On the simplistic assumption that the swing will be uniform across these regions, expect the following results:
Liberals 158
Conservatives 72
BQ 57
NDP 20
ind 1

Atlantic: Lib 23 - Con 8 - NDP 1 (bad news for the NDP...)
Quebec: BQ 57 - Lib 18 (routed outside Montreal and the Outaouais)
Ontario: Lib 84 - Con 20 - NDP 1 - i 1 (yes, I know that independent "win" should be pretty much disregarded; and I know the "equal swing" presumption is pretty absurd here, and the NDP actually has a very good chance of picking a few Toronto seats)
Man/Sask: NDP 10 - Lib 9 - Con 9 (for once, it's the NDP who's voters would be better distributed)
Alberta: Con 24 - Lib 4 (all of them in Edmonton)
BC: Lib 18 - Con 11 - NDP 7 (the Conservatives to hang on in most of the Interior, but pretty much routed in the Vancouver Area, and Vancouver Island splitting 3-3 between Liberals and NDP)
I assumed that the NDP would probably take Yukon and the other two territories seats are safe Liberal.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 23, 2004, 07:24:39 am
Atlantic: Lib 23 - Con 8 - NDP 1 (bad news for the NDP...)

Won't happen. The NDP will win at least 3 for sure in NS, and Godin seems safe in NB.

Quote
Quebec: BQ 57 - Lib 18 (routed outside Montreal and the Outaouais)

I don't see the BQ winning that many seats...

Quote
Man/Sask: NDP 10 - Lib 9 - Con 9 (for once, it's the NDP who's voters would be better distributed)

I don't see the Liberals gaining in Saskatchwan... and re-distribution has caused some serious problems for them in Winnepeg.

Quote
Alberta: Con 24 - Lib 4 (all of them in Edmonton)

The Liberals win 4 seats in Alberta?! They will be lucky to hang on to the 2 they have now...

Quote
BC: Lib 18 - Con 11 - NDP 7 (the Conservatives to hang on in most of the Interior, but pretty much routed in the Vancouver Area, and Vancouver Island splitting 3-3 between Liberals and NDP)

The Greenies won't win 10%... I'd assume most of that will go over to the NDP. Uniform swing is a VERY bad idea in BC (the political climate has changed completely...)

Quote
I assumed that the NDP would probably take Yukon and the other two territories seats are safe Liberal.

Dunno about that...


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 23, 2004, 07:31:40 am
Atlantic: Lib 23 - Con 8 - NDP 1 (bad news for the NDP...)

Won't happen. The NDP will win at least 3 for sure in NS, and Godin seems safe in NB.
That's actually more like the maximum for the NDP over there, but I agree it's quite possible.

Quote
Quote
Quebec: BQ 57 - Lib 18 (routed outside Montreal and the Outaouais)

I don't see the BQ winning that many seats...
They've done it before...
Quote
Quote
Man/Sask: NDP 10 - Lib 9 - Con 9 (for once, it's the NDP who's voters would be better distributed)

I don't see the Liberals gaining in Saskatchwan... and re-distribution has caused some serious problems for them in Winnepeg.
This breaks up provincewise as: Manitoba Lib 7, NDP 4, Con 3; Saskatchewan NDP 6, Con 6, Lib 2. So I don't see them gaining in Saskatchewan either...
Quote
Quote
Alberta: Con 24 - Lib 4 (all of them in Edmonton)

The Liberals win 4 seats in Alberta?! They will be lucky to hang on to the 2 they have now...
I'll have to disagree here. This is one province where the technical result is exactly what I'd have predicted anyways.
Quote
Quote
BC: Lib 18 - Con 11 - NDP 7 (the Conservatives to hang on in most of the Interior, but pretty much routed in the Vancouver Area, and Vancouver Island splitting 3-3 between Liberals and NDP)

The Greenies won't win 10%... I'd assume most of that will go over to the NDP. Uniform swing is a VERY bad idea in BC (the political climate has changed completely...)
It's only a rough guideline, obviously...Yeah, I guess the NDP will probably take a few more than seven seats here.


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: Filuwaúrdjan on March 23, 2004, 07:51:42 am
That's actually more like the maximum for the NDP over there, but I agree it's quite possible.

NDP won't lose Halifax or Sackville-Eastern Shore, and would be unlucky to lose Dartmouth-Cole Harbour. They also have a good shot at picking up Sydney-Victoria and the possibility of upsets elsewhere in the province.

Quote
They've done it before...

It's possible but unlikely.

Quote
This breaks up provincewise as: Manitoba Lib 7, NDP 4, Con 3; Saskatchewan NDP 6, Con 6, Lib 2. So I don't see them gaining in Saskatchewan either...

The Liberals are in trouble in Churchill River (though Goodale is safe in Wascana)... and the Liberals had a bad re-distribution (re-districting) in Winnepeg.

Quote
I'll have to disagree here. This is one province where the technical result is exactly what I'd have predicted anyways.

Which ones?

Quote
It's only a rough guideline, obviously...Yeah, I guess the NDP will probably take a few more than seven seats here.

BC looks very interesting this year :)


Title: Re:Canadian Federal Election 2004
Post by: minionofmidas - supplemental forum account on March 23, 2004, 08:00:50 am
Beaumont, Centre, East and Strathcona.
But as the NDP is not polling higher in the Maritimes than at the last elections, while the Liberals are, I don't see much scope for upset NDP victories here. Toronto is more interesting in that respect.
On Quebec: I don't think the BQ will win by the kind of margin they have in the polls right now, but if they do, they will knock off all those seats.


Title: R