Talk Elections

                           
()
Bush 346   Kerry 192


The Democrats have made an unwise choice in selecting a nominee from the classic 60’s liberal wing of the party at a time when the nation’s top concern is security and world affairs. John Kerry represents the post-Vietnam conflicts of the Democratic position in foreign affairs, and in all likelihood will suffer a defeat similar to Michael Dukakis, who also was perceived as a potentially weak Commander in Chief.

The situation in Iraq will steadily improve from this point. Less American lives will be lost as Americans withdraw from actual combat. The voices and images of Iraqis settling their differences and running their own affairs will be evidence of the soundness of the Bush policy. Kerry will find little to distinguish his position as the effort becomes increasingly multilateral. Even a major terrorist event or instability in another Middle Eastern country will not move any votes from Bush to Kerry, as Kerry will not offer solutions that Bush has not already pursued.

The only conditions that would have made a Kerry victory possible would have been a stable Iraq (America takes a breather as foreign policy seems less urgent) coupled with an unfavorable economy. This combination would play to the Republicans perceived weakness and the Democrats perceived strength. However, with jobs increasing, and stepped up Iraqi oil production calming markets, it is unlikely that Kerry will get a lot of traction on his economic positions.

On Election Day, then, there will be a 2-3% shift from the Democrats to the Republicans off the 2000 popular vote, offset slightly by a shift of about 1% from Nader voters to Kerry:

Bush 50%      Kerry     47%        Nader 2%      Other 1%

In the Midwest, however, conservative voters will come out strongly for Bush, and the loss to the Democrats will be steeper overall, as much as 3-4%. Without a large enough contingent of 2000 Nader voters to compensate for the loss, the traditionally Democratic states of Pennsylvania and Michigan will fall into the Bush column.

The loss could be even worse for Kerry, if the hard left contingent of the party begins to press Kerry toward even more dovish policies on the Middle East. Kerry would then be presented with the cruel choice of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, that is, from which side of the political spectrum does he want to lose votes. In all likelihood, he will choose to stay moderate, in which case, enough defections to Nader in Minnesota and Washington could deliver those states to Bush.

Michigan GOP while Minnesota is Dem?

What are you smoking? :P

Michigan is a conservative state. Dukakis and Mondale were trashed there. Even Carter lost there twice.

The reverse is true in Minnesota. It only looked close for Gore in 2000 because of the Nader vote:

Minnesota >5% Nader

Michigan <2% Nader

I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the arguments for people who say Bush will win MN:

-Minnesota has a Republican governor
-Minnesota has a Republican senator

Minnesota is trending more to the center.  Not to the right, but to the center.

Besides, those elections were in the past... how could you say Michigan is a conservative state?

In 2000, Bush got a greater percentage of the statewide vote in Michigan than he did in Minnesota.

Minnesota also has a much larger contingent of voters whose most important issue is conservation of wilderness (hence the large Green vote in 2000). A lot of voters who are right of center on every other issue will stay with Kerry because of this issue, even in the face of a large defection of moderate conservatives nation-wide.

Bush's vote in Michigan was greater than Kerry's, but the margin was smaller.

All (but one) of these points are correct... HOWEVER, I still think you're wrong.  Conservatism isn't something that will pull people out of the Bush camp and into the Kerry camp.  We like the environment... but not so much as to change our vote, really.

Besides, statistics can't say anything about conservatism or liberalism.  They can only say things about voting patterns.  And guess what... over time, the voting patterns of Minnesota have grown increasingly less Democratic.

Mort:

You forgot to mention one little thing: gas.

Oil prices could be an issue, but only if there is a more dramatic rise that threatens the larger economic picture. Though I'm no expert on oil, I somehow think that before that happens, Bush-Cheney and friends have more cards to play on the price of world oil.

I do hope that Iraqi production increases as the Iraqi security force grows - they have a lot of capacity that's not being tapped. American business, particularly the oil industry, will eventually have a great market in Iraq in which to invest.

I'm not sure that Kerry could capitalize on rising gas prices in the absence of oil-induced inflation or recession. What is his winning position, the one that draws moderately conservative midwest voters? That the Iraq war is responsible for instability that caused prices to rise? That we should end our dependence on Middle East oil? These are arguments without immediate solutions. The Republicans will push drilling in Alaska, and with high gas prices, these voters will be inclined to support it and Bush.

The union vote in Michigan will not abandon Kerry. If he lost by 3% nationally he would still win Michigan.

I knew that you would object. :)

Of course, you know your state better than I.

But I still will predict that the summer and fall will see a large shift of white males into the Bush column. We know that white males are more hawkish in their views than the general population and disproportionately support Republicans.

When it comes down to a decision, a significant number in midwestern states who may have supported Kerry on the economy will decide that he's not the man they want as Commander in Chief in a dangerous world.

I just have a hunch that if I'm right about this effect, Michigan is just the kind of state that could flip as a result.

Minnesota, on the other hand, may have enough truly liberal voters whose dislike of Bush is strong enough that they will stick with Kerry, even if he looks like a ghastly choice for Commander in Chief by election time.

Well, we'll see. If things are going vastly better in Iraq, as you say, then that will help Bush everywhere. Right now I've no reason to think things will be all that much better, but obviously we all hope that they will be.

The economy in Michigan, however, is still lagging behind the national economy. The Midwest's economy in general is not doing as well as most of the rest of the country, and Michigan in particular has been hit hard by manufacturing job losses and outsourcing. Michigan is just like Ohio, except 7-8 points more Democratic overall. The black vote in Detroit will be come out strongly for Kerry. The only way Bush can win Michigan is to win the Oakland and Macomb county suburbs. Macomb is more blue-collar, while Oakland has many white-collar professionals. While Oakland tends to be somewhat economically conservative, it is also pretty socially liberal and Bush's stances on social issues do not play well here. Macomb is a strong union area, and while voters there may prefer Bush on foreign policy, the large loss of jobs in manufacturing and such will hurt Bush immensely here.

Bush won't win if Gas is at 2.15 in November

MN coservationism is exemplified by Coleman's position on ANWAR. Eventhough Coleman is strong Bush supporter, his position on ANWAR has been soft at best.

Minnesotans, some Republicans included, are not fond of the idea of drilling in Alaska. However, ANWAR seems to be less of a flash point than 4 years ago. I think there are several reasons for this. First, the issue is old. Second, Coleman is not running. Third, there is a greater appreciation for the need for more US oil supply in light of higher gas prices and a greater understanding of the ability to drill for oil in ANWAR without disturbing the environment.    

I see MN as trending significantly to the right on tax, regulation, and size of government issues and tending to the center on education and environment.  

MN is willing to endure greater regulation with regard to the environment, but not to the extent that it greatly impacts the economy. There is great respect for the land and lakes due to a heritage of agriculture and fishing.

Almost everyone in MN has a fishing license. The fishing opener is as close to a state holiday as possible without being one. If it occured during the week, I am sure the state would shut down.  The governor is EXPECTED to go fishing on the opener, the location of which is rotated to highlight different fishing and resort locations throughout the state. The number and size of fish caught by the governor is reported by all local networks.

MN's position probably best described as conservationist as opposed to environmentalist.

MN has also been trending to the center regarding education.  Spending on education is being supported at the state instead of the local level. However, there is significant support for accountability requirements as well as support for vouchers.

It will be interesting to see how independent candidates fare this election in MN. Minnesota has seriously dabbled with IND candidates with Ventura as governor and with significant percentage results from Nader, Anderson, Perot on the presidental level and Penny on the governor level two years ago.

I think MN is about -2% for Bush compared to his national averages.

346 - 192 ?
It's nice to have pipe dreams....
Who are you kidding?

First and foremost this election is about Bush passing the smell test with the American electorate before they even take a long look at Kerry. And this "1960's, flowers in his hair, dove candidate" image the Republicans would like the electorate to have of Kerry is BS. They only people that hold that stereo type of him are people that won't vote for him anyway.

A 2-3% shift from the Democrats of 2000 to Bush??? Based on what exactly?

I must be smoking something different over here......but.....as I see it, how can an "Anybody But Bush" candidate like Kerry be running even or ahead (Fox even has Kerry 45-43 over Bush) of Bush when only 37% of voters say they Strongly support Kerry?

I'll tell you why....again this thing is first about Bush.

Yes, jobs are thankfully coming back in raw numbers, don't be too quick to think Bush is out of the woods on the job front. 1/4 of those jobs are temp/seasonal jobs. A survey released today noted that only 35% of Americans think there have been job growth in the last 6 months. American views on the economy is like turning the Titanic, Bush is in a race for his life that the people on Main Street in towns across Wis., Mich., OH., W.VA., the big Mo., they are the ones that have to see REAL jobs come back that aren't of the flip a burger type.

For the first time since we invaded Iraq, the American people, by 6-9% margins are now saying that the Iraq War was not worth the cost. Even if, like you say, our troops take less casualties, again it wil take time for the American electorate to shift its views again.

I would'nt take too much stock in Nader getting anything near what he got in 2000. People just aren't that stupid to waste their vote twice and get exactly opposite what they would like in a president.

Right Track/Wrong Track numbers for this President have been against him for more than a year. Consumer Confidence, despite the percieved pocket change in peoples pockets, have not risen to the levels of before this guy was handed the office. Expected interest rate hikes this summer along with still high gas prices won't help.

You also must have missed the Democratic primaries. There were record turnouts in most states until it was obvious Kery would take it, ....and....., in the Open Primary states record numbers of Independents were voting in the Democratic camp.

I would not take too much comfort in the "Flowers in the Hair" image of Kerry....Bush has done more for energizing the left, the youth vote, and Independents than you think.

Kerry 321 - Bush 217

One more thing to chew on before I lite up again.....Gore was only polling 39% against Bush this time in 2000. Kerry is, by most polls, even or slightly ahead of Bush.

The difference....Gore couldn't spend a dime from April thru the convention because he took the public money, while Bush slandered him. Kerry, as of last months fundraising numbers, is now outraising Bush by 2 to 1 and can't spend it fast enough....

puff.....

Also, a critically important point I made in another thread, and something no analysis takes account of... An average of ROUGHLY 3 million new job-seekers enter the market annually.  Thus, job growth needs to keep pace.  In the past three decades it has only done so under two presidents... Reagan and Clinton.  While the upturn in jobs is certainly positive, the rate over the past six months (since job creation began in earnest) is running an average of 50,000 jobs per month too few to keep up with the influx of new job seekers.  And, as new job seekers, these people don't show up in unemployment numbers either.  So, in theory, it gives Bush some numbers to tout.  But, in reality, the percentage of job-seekers employed is decreasing and, as such, the economic situation is not improving... though it is degrading at a slower rate.

Precisely....Bush is racing to erase the number of jobs "lost" on his watch yet thats really a race to get to the 2001 job level. Without job creation at much higher levels (unlikely) the man in the street may not feel any more optimistic about his job prospects than 3 years ago. Your point also reflects why even with 250,000 new jobs last month, the unemployment rate of 5.6% didn't budge....

The 346-192 prediction is an ABSOLUTE BEST CASE SCENARIO for Bush.  If Bush wins every state he possibly could, in his wildest wet dreams.  In fact, I think it's 1 EV too heavy, I don't know where you think Bush is gonna pick up an EV in Maine.

Well, ok, fine.  Here is the absolute best case scenario for Kerry.  Not that I really think this will happen, mind you, but its just as likely as the prediction that started this thread.

()

Kerry 357
Bush 181

Don't forget Louisianna....Donna Braziles home state!!!

I'd add Virginia and NC too (remember, ABSOLUTE BEST case scenario)

Yeah well, Mort from New Yawk didn't take Minnesota and Washington for Bush, so I left Virginia, NC, and Louisiana.

and actually, Mort does have a good point about Minnesota and Michigan.

Even though Michigan had more Gore voters, your average Minnesota Gore voter is far more liberal than your average Michigan one. Therefore, they're less likely to be swayed. Plus a lot of that Nader vote will come home. Remember, Nader was at 2% in the latest poll.

Still, I say Kerry wins both Minnesota and Michigan.

And, look, I always try to make the point of my non-partisanism.  There's a lot of partisanship on most boards (including this one... though I must commend even the partisans on this board - it's one of the most civil around!), so people twist the facts however they like.  Let me be clear, I'm no fan of Kerry.  I have no subversive desire to slam Bush.  I'll vote for Kerry, but only to get a "checks and balances" system back in place with a split govt.  My point is, I'm not making this stuff up!  I'm sure most on the "right" love pointing out the recent job creation.  But it's very simple... 2000 Census data shows 19 million Americans between the ages of 20 and 24.  If we assume that 50% will enter the workforce (or attemp to)... and that's a VERY low estimate in our double-income household world... that's 9.5 million.  On an annual basis (not everyone would enter at the same time, but most would enter at a given year within the five year period) that's 1.9 million annually.

You could argue that my 3 million/yr estimate is high, but I seriously doubt it... The 50% assumption is likely VERY low.  The population will have increased slightly since 2000.  The male population (slightly more likely to enter the workforce) in this age group is somewhat larger than the female population.  Both the 15-19 year old and 25-29 year old ranges have a higher population in the 2000 census.

Using the 15-19 year olds (since it's the 2000 census) using a gross assumption of 100% of males and 33% of females entering the workforce gives us an annual workforce entry of 2.7 million.  That is still a bit lower than my 3 million estimate, but I was estimating... and 33% of females may still be low.

So, there is no possible way that 1.2 million new jobs in the past 6 months means higher employment as a percentage of the workforce.  It is simply impossible.  The workforce would have increased by, on average, at least 1.35 million workers.  Adding 1.2 million jobs means leaving 150,000 out of 1.35 million unemployed... or about 12%... which is higher than the present unemployment rate.  In short, the economy, at least in terms of employment, simply is not improving... period.  It is getting worse at a slower rate, but is not improving.

You are forgetting that people also leave the workforce.

I'm not going to go mine the data to see how many leave, but it is a factor in the job market.

Also, some people create their own jobs, its called entrepreneurship.  It is a fairly small amount, but it does reduce the number of people entering the workforce.

Good point.  And I did bother to mine the data.  Those who hit retirement age annually make up less than 50% of those entering the workforce.  And, of course, not all of them actually WILL retire.

That will help out the data, you are correct (I suspect the entrepreneurship issue you raise is statistically insignificant).  In fact, I'd bet it'll help out the data enough such that the recent job creation in the past six months might be just enough to keep employment steady... if not improved.  In that regard, I stand corrected.

But I would also point out that this is a mere 6 month period and in the last few months the job creation rate has been decreasing.  Moreover, since the data do still show far more people entering than exiting the workforce, imagine the other 30+ months in which the official data - which fails to even account for the workforce size - showed job losses.  Ugh!

Anyway, your point is well taken, and it DOES make a difference in the numbers.  Does it make enough of a difference?  Maybe just barely for the past 4-6 months, but just barely... And my general point remains... more people enter than exit the workforce (and the simple nature of population growth makes this obvious), so modest job growth is the equivalent of job loss... and job losses are far worse than the raw numbers indicate (there's a reason only two modern era presidents have seen job losses under their tenure - Hoover and Bush II).

I would have to say. Bush will take all the toss-ups states.

The unemployment rate has been steady all year, dipping only .1%.   In terms of raw numbers there are a little over 400,000 less unemployed people as compared to a year ago, so it is dropping.

My source:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Fritz, I agree with your absolute best case scenario for Kerry (and I'll go with BRTD's suggestion that you throw in LA, VA, and NC). I also agree with your assessment that mine is the absolute best case for Bush (and I'll add in WA and MN).

I don't want to think of what catastrophe could befall Bush for your scenario to pan out, but I'm sure I could come up with some.

However, I'm predicting that Bush will get his best case scenario, for all the reasons I stated in my opening post. A 3-4% shift of all voters from Gore in 2000 to Bush in 2004 is not unrealistic when you realize that Gore in 2000 was a presumptive moderate, a sitting Vice President under a popular President, supposedly to the right of his party on foreign affairs. Kerry is a Senator from Massachussetts with a liberal voting record.

Look it's just a prediction, and I admit I'm being bold, but I'm predicting that 2004 will be the year that the Reagan Democrats come home to roost, and by home I mean with the candidate who most resembles Reagan. If I'm wrong you can say I was nuts all along. If I'm right I can be entertained watching the Democrats try to get it into their collective confused state of mind that nominating a Mondale, Dukakis, or Kerry is not the way to win the Presidency. When they finally realize this is when I may come home to roost.

Also, look at the statewide maps of Maine the last time the Democrats had candidates from the left wing of the party. The northern part of the state (CD 2) is littered with blue.

Granted Kerry is more liberal than the  campaign Gore ran on in 2000, but Bush is also seen as much more of a Conservative now than he was in 2000.

I agree with Morth. Here is a list of Democrats that have run since 1964 and about how they fell.

Southern Moderate Democrats -

LBJ - Won
Carter - Won
Clinton - Won


Northern "Liberal" Democrats

Hubert Humphery - Lost
McGovern - Lost
Mondale - Lost
Dukakis - Lost
Kerry - ?????

Southern  "Liberal" Democrats

Gore - Barely lost.

Are we seeing a trend here? Just a thought.

LBJ wasn't a moderate, I mean I absolutely hate the guy, but Great Society?

I wasn't exactly sure but I know he was a southerner and Democrats win with Southerners running. History proves it, why mess with success?

44 years ago, a certain liberal Democrat from Massachussetts by the name of John F. Kennedy won the White House.  It can happen.

Even if Mort is right, and Bush wins because of the factors he cites, there is no way he will win that big.

Ok fine, Kerry's a liberal, but Bush is an ultra-conservative the likes of we have not seen ever before.  The left is highly motivated to oust him.  The Democrats did not hate Bush Sr., or Reagan, as much as this Bush.  There is a lot of ABB sentiment out there, and it is a strong force that Bush will have to reckon with.  And I think a lot of the Nader voters are going to realize that is not a luxury we can afford this time around.

Also, Bush did not win the popular vote in 2000.  I don't say that to be a whiner, I accepted a long time ago that Bush won by the rules.  But a President elected under those circumstances has never managed to get re-elected.  I suppose there is a first time for everything, but lets just say I consider it unlikely.

Realistically, I think Kerry will win with somewhere between 270 and 290 EV.  Or maybe Bush will win, within that same margin, but the odds are with Kerry.

Tell me how Bush is more of a Conservative then Reagan? Actually they are closer to each other then Democrats fear to admit. The numbers right now are floating around the middle but Bush hasn't even really started campaigning yet. I mean you have to come out and admit that. If you think he will just go down quietly you'd be fooling yourself (Not saying you personally, just in general). Bush would say, "I have not yet begun to fight." Bush is just waiting for the right time to launch an all out assault. Though their are a lot of ABBers out there I can say most are political hacks such as you and I who weren't going to vote for Bush anyhow. Kerry very well could pull it off but I have to say that a lot more of his states look "anemic" then do Bush states. For examples I give, Oregon, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

What do you mean by "his" states?  If you mean the states that Gore won in 2000, then you shouldn't have included New Hampshire, that was a Bush state.

"Anemic" Bush states (besides New Hampshire): Florida, Ohio, West Virginia, and to a lesser extent Missouri, Nevada, Arkansas.

That is even more reason why I believe we are going to have some states going in whacky ways we never expected. Every election is different pretty much.

Several points here;

1) BUSH has not yet begun o fight? Maybe he personally, but I'm seeing Bush attack ads every time I turn on the TV, and I don't watch more than about 2 hours of TV per week. Kerry has barely started, Bush is in this like it's mid September. I think the attack ads from Kerry are all going to come out in October, and run all the way through. Seriously, he's been attacking his record so far, but moe focusing on building the Kerry image as a positive candidate...succes or failure of that I leave to you. The attack ads will come out after Bush has stopped shooting himself in the foot and needs a little bit more help -- you know, all the quotes like "There ought to be limits to freedom" and "Frankly, I don't care where Osama in Laden is" -- will start appearing.

20 a MN Republican said something about MN trending right on taxes; this might be right, but I think it's because none of us really know where all that money is going. We're not seeing any real improvements or cost cuts anywhere. This is making the academic left (in the TC college naighborhoods) think we need MORE  taxes, and is going to make them very stubborn about lowerng them. There are a lot of "Willing to PAy for a Better Minnesota" yardsigns around here.Also, I'd agree with the statement that MN is more conservationist than enviromentalist, but with regards to eduation, I think people are looking around for someone or something to blame for how badly the schools are doing -- they're realy doing excellently, especially compared to everyone else's, but it's a reflection of whath te national news says. The GOP hurt itself by nominating Cheri Yecke as education commissioner, and the Dems hurt themselves by not making clear why they opposed her. It really seemed like it was purely partisina, but with statements about wanting to stop the "liberals with the hate-America agenda", it certainly wasn't partisian, it was common sense.
And about the size of gov't issue, I think Minnesotans are more concerned about it because it's so visible and partisian, not because of conservatism.



Also, ENOGUH already with te BS about Massachusetts liberals and Northern liberals! Dukakis was NOT a liberal. Mondale was a liberal, but his entire platform was "I'm going to raise your taxes", which was incredibly stupid. The reason Dukakis and Mondale lost was because they didn't stick to bread and butter liberalism but they didn't run inspiring campaigns either, so they lost both populist votes and liberal votes. The only reason Dems thik liberals can't win is because they haven't tried nominating one in 40 YEARS!!! LBJ was the last liberal President! If you look at the two liberals who've run, Mondale and LBJ, you've got a 50% success rate, and Mondale had a terrible campaign. And finally, who thinks RFK would have lost to Nixon? ANYBODY??? RFK would have destroyed Nixon, and he was a trueblue liberal. He was a Kennedy too, but still. The central tenets of the New Deal STILL defeat the central tenets of "Reaganism" in the polls.

which is how Reagan won by like 20 points in 1984 of ourse.

It is sad, but Bush is apparently going stay in office

LBJ a liberal? LOL I'm sure even he is rolling in his grave at that one. He was one of the biggest racists in 60s politics.

This is one of the things we have to accept, in 40+ years the definition of liberal and conservative have moved around a bit.

Great Society?  It was New Deal II.

Even though LBJ personally was a racist, he wasn't a racist in policy.  He is a economic socialist and a social liberal.

Didn't the Great Society idea fail? Lead to the troubles of the 1970s and later to the Reagan Revolution.

IT did fail...but how is that relevant to LBJ's ideology?

He was a mediocre president at best. Failed policies. The Civil Rights act was only passed due to the efforts of Republican Congressional leadership.

StatesRights,

Whether he was a good president or not is NOT the debate.  The debate is his ideology.

He was an absolutely terrible terrible terrible president, just plain awful. But he was no moderate.

Thank you Tredrick, and welcome to the forum.

This is what I'm trying to say here. Not that the liberal (alright, I'll give you liberal to moderate) domestic politics of Kerry is unelectable, but that the post-Vietnam foreign policy ideology, particularly in relation to when war is called for, is in a shambles.

LBJ and Kennedy are not relevant to this conversation, except as an example of what a liberal Democrat USED to be, before Vietnam.

(StatesRights, I would say here that whatever racism can be attributed to LBJ, he came up out of the South in the 40's and 50's - by the 60's, he was, like JFK, a social reformer [the Voting Rights Act] and a distributionist [Medicaid]).

However, though Kennedy and Johnson were political liberals at home, they were hawks on Communism, until Vietnam destroyed Johnson and shook the Democrats' faith in the value of America flexing it's muscles, particularly in an unconventional war in the Third World, in defense of freedom.

Now we have Bush, after this tragic insult to America and humanity on Sept. 11, declaring and fighting an unconventional war in the Third World, and he has the Democrats who identify with the post-Vietnam malaise of the party tied in knots.

My contention is that as the election nears, the voters in the middle of the spectrum, the real Reagan Democrats, will have had enough of the angry ranting and raving against Bush, especially if things in Iraq give a glimmer of maybe being alright, even good for us. They may not love Bush like they loved Reagan, but they will recognize that, like Reagan, he knows who the enemy is, and is unafraid to press our advantages until the enemy falls.


NOT AS MY COMMANDER IN CHIEF(S)

()
Governor Dukakis and Lt. Gov. Kerry, 1983